diff --git a/markdown/10years.md b/markdown/10years.md
index 9d70ad1fcb69b82c01e6e2af13c8980a07098992..61c91f2263bc1faec6ef978d30d729db58947f52 100644
--- a/markdown/10years.md
+++ b/markdown/10years.md
@@ -34,8 +34,6 @@ goals:
> 1\. To present the case for anarchism, to convince people they should become
anarchists.
->
-
> 2\. To be a resource for existing anarchists, to use to bolster their
activism and activities by presenting facts and arguments to allow them to
defend anarchism against those opposed to it (Marxists, capitalists, etc.).
@@ -291,3 +289,7 @@ Avrich). As such, it is hardly a flaw that AFAQ has presented the majority
position on anarchism (social anarchism), particularly as this is the position
of the people involved.
+[‹ An Anarchist FAQ Introduction](/afaq/intro.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/intro.html "Go to parent page" ) [An Anarchist FAQ: Introduction to
+Volume 1 ›](/afaq/vol1intro.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/alinks.md b/markdown/alinks.md
index 630d10d2e977e92d9e04abb81ca37106a528be6d..5f4adf5e28f681b3a9b7c947325b4c3dfc9bc330 100644
--- a/markdown/alinks.md
+++ b/markdown/alinks.md
@@ -1,2853 +1,3779 @@
-# Other Anarchist Web-pages
+
+
+Other Anarchist Web-pages
-Click on the flag to go back to _**"An Anarchist FAQ"_** main page
+# Other Anarchist Web-pages
-[](index.html)
+Click [here](index.html) to go back to _**"An Anarchist FAQ"**_ main page
* * *
+
+
## Anarchist News
-**_Webpages for breaking news of anarchist and radical actions and ideas._**
-All the links marked like this are not available anymore, they're still here
-for _historic_ purposes, also some of them are availabe through [Archive.org
-WayBack Machine](http://www.archive.org/web/web.php)
+**_Webpages for breaking news of anarchist and radical actions
+and ideas._**
[A-infos: Anarchist News Service](http://www.ainfos.ca/)
+
[A-Infos: Anarchist News Service ](http://212.204.198.111/)
+
An anarchist alternative news service (in many languages).
-[ Infoshop News - Your source for news that really
+[
+Infoshop News - Your source for news that really
matters](http://news.infoshop.org/)
+
Excellent source for anarchist and radical news.
[Anarkismo.net](http://www.anarkismo.net/index.php)
+
For all your communist-anarchist news and reviews!
[Solidarity Newswire - anarchosyndicalism.org
news](http://solidarity.anarchosyndicalism.org/stories.php)
+
For labour and revolutionary unionism news.
[Independent Media Center](http://www.indymedia.org/)
-Essential source for independent reporting on demos and the news (plus
-extensive discussions) from many perspectives. Has links to indymedia sites
-for individual countries and North American regions and cities. Some Indymedia
-sites are better than others, so be warned!
+
+Essential source for independent reporting on demos and
+the news (plus extensive discussions) from many perspectives.
+Has links to indymedia sites for individual countries and
+North American regions and cities. Some Indymedia sites are
+better than others, so be warned!
[anarchoMEDIA - Anarchist/Anti-Authoritarian News and Resources for
-Ireland](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.anarchomedia.cjb.net/)
+Ireland](http://www.anarchomedia.cjb.net/)
+
Name says it all!
[Anarchist news dot org | News for anarchists and their
friends](http://www.anarchistnews.org/)
+
Yet another anarchist news service.
+
+
## Anarchist Web-pages
**_English language web-pages by either individual anarchists and libertarian socialists or by groups not part of a bigger organisation._**
-[Defining Anarchism](http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/defanar.html)
+[](http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/defanar.html) >Defining Anarchism
+
+
+
+
Excellent short introduction to anarchism and anarchist theory and history.
-[An Introduction to Anarchism](http://www.black-rose.com/articles-
-liz/intro-@.html)
-Short but well done introduction to what anarchism is and what it is not.
+[](http://www.black-rose.com/articles-liz/intro-@.html) >An Introduction to
+Anarchism
+
+Short but well done introduction to what anarchism is and what it is
+not.
-[ Libertarian Socialism](http://william-
+[
+Libertarian Socialism](http://william-
king.www.drexel.edu/top/pol/manifesto.html)
+
Articles on libertarian socialism and anarchism, including a short but
excellent FAQ on those subjects. Site includes papers on both Guild Socialism
and market syndicalism, among other things.
[Spunk Press Home](http://www.spunk.org/)
-One of the largest archive of anarchist texts on the net. Recommended. Also
-check out the [ Spunk Library General Subject
+
+One of the largest archive of anarchist texts on the net. Recommended. Also
+check out the [
+Spunk Library General Subject
Index](http://www.etext.org/Politics/Spunk/library/index/sp_index.html) which
-has a really cool subject and author index and this address, [Spunk Press
-Home]( http://www.cwi.nl/cwi/people/Jack.Jansen/spunk/), for the old archive.
-
-[ Anarchistes sur le web/Anarchist on the
-web](http://www.anarweb.freesurf.fr/)
+has a really cool
+subject and author index and this address, [Spunk Press
+Home](http://www.cwi.nl/cwi/people/Jack.Jansen/spunk/), for the
+old archive.
+
+[
+Anarchistes sur le web/Anarchist on the web](http://www.anarweb.freesurf.fr/)
+
Excellent collection of anarchist links (in France and English).
[A People's Libertarian Index](http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/).
+
Index page for many excellent anarchist webpages.
-[Anarchy - Mid Atlantic Infoshop](http://www.infoshop.org/)
-Great resource for all things anarchist. Recommended. Has mirror
-[here](http://burn.ucsd.edu/~mai/).
+[Anarchy - Mid Atlantic Infoshop](http://www.infoshop.org/)
-[ Anarchist People of Color Website: The Revolution Will Not Be Mayo-
+
+Great resource for all things anarchist. Recommended.
+Has mirror [here](http://burn.ucsd.edu/~mai/).
+
+[
+Anarchist People of Color Website: The Revolution Will Not Be Mayo-
nized](http://www.illegalvoices.org/apoc/)
+
Excellent webpage.
[Anarchy for Anybody](http://www.radio4all.org/anarchy/)
-Excellent web-site on basic anarchist ideas and recent news. Fine use of
+
+Excellent web-site on basic anarchist ideas and recent news. Fine use of
humour to attack the enemies of freedom.
-[Liberty For the People]( http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/liberty.html )
+[http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/liberty.html](<a%20href=
+"http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/liberty.html" ) ">Liberty For the People
+
+
+
E-texts relevent to anarchist/libertarian socialist theory, philosophy and
history. Excellent resource.
-[Seattle Anarchism and Revolution
-Page](http://www.eskimo.com/~galt/revolt.html)
+[](http://www.eskimo.com/~galt/revolt.html) >Seattle Anarchism and
+Revolution Page
+
The nice anarchist webpage based in Seattle, USA.
-[
-Anarchism](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.lincoln.ac.uk/spp/charlie/grand/anarchy/who.html)
+[
+Anarchism](http://www.lincoln.ac.uk/spp/charlie/grand/anarchy/who.html)
+
Good academic introduction and description of anarchism and anarchist ideas.
[The Seed home page](http://Web.cs.city.ac.uk/homes/louise/seed2.html)
+
Uk Alternative Information page. Links to many UK based anarchist resources.
[An Anarchy Home Page](http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~ctb/anarchy)
+
Links to anarchist and anarchist (and non-anarchist) related sites.
-[ANOTHER GODLESS
-ANARCHIST](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.xchange.anarki.net/~subvert/)
-Excellent webpage containing an extensive series of links on anarchism,
+[ANOTHER GODLESS ANARCHIST](http://www.xchange.anarki.net/~subvert/)
+
+Excellent webpage containing an extensive series of links on anarchism,
anarcho-syndicalism and much more!
[The Memory Hole](http://www.blancmange.net/tmh/)
+
Individualist Anarchist web-page. Useful resource on the minority trend within
the anarchist movement.
-[Anarchy Punk !!!REVOLUTION NOW!!! Ska Anti-
-Facism](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1543/)
+[Anarchy Punk
+!!!REVOLUTION NOW!!! Ska Anti-
+Facism](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1543/)
+
Anarcho-punk web-site.
-[Andrew's Course in
-Anarchy](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5362/index.html)
+[Andrew's Course in Anarchy](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5362/index.html)
+
Introduction to anarchism. Basic, but generally good.
[BURN! Nothing ever burns down by itself.](http://tierra.ucsd.edu/)
+
Excellent site on anarchist art. Has anarchist posters from the Spanish
Revolution and Paris '68 among other things. Recommended.
-[ Anarchist
-Sampler](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5065/index.html)
-Excellent collection of anarchist quotes on a wide range of subjects. Includes
-the excellent essay [Between Anarchism and
-Libertarianism](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5065/between.html).
+[
+Anarchist Sampler](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5065/index.html)
+
+Excellent collection of anarchist quotes on a wide range of subjects.
+Includes the excellent essay [Between Anarchism and
+Libertarianism](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5065/between.html).
[Mark/Space: Anachron City: Library: Keywords: anarchy](http://www.euro.net
/mark-space/Anarchy.html)
+
List of anarchist books and links with a chronology of anarchism.
-[ The Platform and the International anarchist
+[
+The Platform and the International anarchist
movement](http://www.struggle.ws/inter.html)
+
Introduction to the ideas of **The Platform**, the Platformist tradition and
the anarchist groups which apply it today.
[Anarchist Information -
-Australia](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/3345/andex.html)
+Australia](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/3345/andex.html)
+
Australian anarchist web-page.
[cat@lyst Main Menu](http://reflect.cat.org.au/)
-A Temporary Autonomous Zone based in Sydney, Australia. Low tech grass roots
-net access for real people. Also to be found [here](http://www.cat.org.au)
+
+A Temporary Autonomous Zone based in Sydney, Australia. Low tech
+grass roots net access for real people. Also to be found
+[here](http://www.cat.org.au)
-[The Resistance
-Page](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.xoom.com/red_page)
+[The Resistance Page](http://members.xoom.com/red_page)
+
Has extensive and well organised links to various anarchist topics.
[@net](http://www.anarki.net/index.html)
+
Anarchist computer network based in Australia.
[On Gogol Boulevard](http://flag.blackened.net/agony/nenw.html)
-New York based anarchist information bulletin for networking East and West
+
+New York based anarchist information bulletin for networking East and West
alternatice oppositions.
-[AERO Home
-Page](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/3351/)
-Anarchist Education Resource Organisation Home page. has links to introductory
-texts on anarchism.
+[](http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/3351/) >AERO Home Page
+
+Anarchist Education Resource Organisation Home page. has links to
+introductory texts on anarchism.
[Anarchy Now!](http://burn.ucsd.edu/~anow/)
+
Good resource for anarchist links and articles.
-[ Collectivist
-Libertarianism](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://dmoz.org/Society/Politics/Libertarian/Collectivist_Libertarianism/)
+[](http://dmoz.org/Society/Politics/Libertarian/Collectivist_Libertarianism/)
+>
+Collectivist Libertarianism
+
List of anarchist webpages (shame about the name).
[Emma's Place - Another fun anarchist site](http://flag.blackened.net/chuck0/)
+
Yet another site devoted to online anarchy. Includes a page on [anarchist
-humour](http://www.infoshop.org/humor/index.html). Just proving that
-anarchists are not serious revolutionaries all the time. Has the infamous
-herbal tea joke... Plus the **Anarchist Encyclopedia Project** and other
-useful pages.
+humour](http://www.infoshop.org/humor/index.html). Just
+proving that anarchists are not serious revolutionaries all the time. Has
+the infamous herbal tea joke... Plus the **Anarchist Encyclopedia Project**
+and other useful pages.
-[ECOMMUNARD](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/4544/)
+[](http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/4544/) >ECOMMUNARD
+
Eco-anarchist web-page.
-[Freedom
-now](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/3150/Anarchy.html)
+[Freedom now](http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/3150/Anarchy.html)
+
Increase your liberty by visiting this site.
-[Dave X. Pooh's
-Area](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/6532/)
+[](http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/6532/) >Dave X. Pooh's Area
+
Nice introduction to anarchism, plus links on other subjects.
-[BUNYIP WEBSITE a mutual aid
-site](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/3066/)
-Name says it all. Worth checking out and has links to many important issues
-(such as Australian Aboriginal issues).
-
-[Anarchism Study Group]( http://concordia.pirg.ca/anarchism/)
-Excellent webpage about finding out about anarchism, based in Quebec, Canada.
-
-[Anarchist Study
-Resources](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8827/)
-Contains links to many anarchist articles (plus one by Lenin!). Also contains
-the e-zine
-[Slavery!](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8827/slavery.html)
-
-[Struggle in
-Ireland](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4716/)
+[](http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/3066/) >BUNYIP WEBSITE a mutual aid
+site
+
+Name says it all. Worth checking out and has links to many important
+issues (such as Australian Aboriginal issues).
+
+[](http://concordia.pirg.ca/anarchism/) >Anarchism Study Group
+
+Excellent webpage about finding out about anarchism, based in Quebec,
+Canada.
+
+[Anarchist Study Resources](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8827/)
+
+Contains links to many anarchist articles (plus one by Lenin!). Also
+contains the e-zine
+[Slavery!](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8827/slavery.html)
+
+[Struggle in Ireland](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4716/)
+
An anarchist analysis of struggles for freedom going on in Ireland.
-[anarchy](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5224/)
+[anarchy](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5224/)
+
Short and to the point introduction to anarchy and anarchist ideas.
[Information about
-Anarchism](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/)
-Anarchist articles and links. Contains a chapter of Bob Black's new book
-**Anarchy after Leftism** plus other articles on anarchist theory and history.
+Anarchism](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/)
+
+Anarchist articles and links. Contains a chapter of Bob Black's new book
+**Anarchy after Leftism** plus other articles on anarchist theory and history.
Plus really cool anarcho-Simpsons graphic!.
-[fnord
-forever!](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1313/)
+[fnord forever!](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1313/)
+
Sennaca's Anarcho-Communist Page.
[Feenicks' Anarchist PAGE](http://www.ozemail.com.au/~feen/politics.html)
+
Information and links on a range of subjects, such as Bolivian miners!
-[Welcome to John's Homepage!](http://expert.cc.purdue.edu/~johncw5/)
+[](http://expert.cc.purdue.edu/~johncw5/) >Welcome to John's Homepage!
+
Links to various anarchist pages and articles.
-[the Worldwide Cooperative Anarchy
-Movement](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5956/)
+[](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5956/) >the Worldwide
+Cooperative Anarchy Movement
+
Name says it all!
-[Anarchist
-Propaganda](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://black.cat.org.au/aprop/)
+[Anarchist Propaganda](http://black.cat.org.au/aprop/)
+
Archive of anarchist articles and information on many subjects useful for
anarchist activists.
[The Libertarian Socialist
-Navigator](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5326/)
+Navigator](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5326/)
+
Good introduction to anarchism and anarchist ideas. Has a section on anarcha-
feminism.
-[World Wide
-Anarchism](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4243/)
+[World Wide Anarchism](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4243/)
+
Extensive links to anarchist sites.
-[ Entrance to Anarchy: the only
-solution](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.freespeech.org/anarchytos/)
+[
+Entrance to Anarchy: the only solution](http://www.freespeech.org/anarchytos/)
+
Information about anarchy and anarchism. Nice (but graphic intensive!)
-[What's
-anarchy?](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9857/index.html)
-Find out what anarchy is and why you should be an anarchist (its shorter than
-the FAQ!). Plus links to **Calvin and Hobbes**!
+[What's anarchy?](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9857/index.html)
+
+Find out what anarchy is and why you should be an anarchist (its shorter
+than the FAQ!). Plus links to **Calvin and Hobbes**!
-[Above Suspicion; Stealing from the Store of Pre-Packaged
-Culture](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/7086/)
+[Above Suspicion; Stealing
+from the Store of Pre-Packaged Culture](http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/7086/)
+
Anarchist articles, rants and links.
[Anarchist Web Directory
--Home](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7094/index.html)
+-Home](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7094/index.html)
+
Articles and images about anarchism, plus an extensive links page
[Home page for Proudhon](http://flag.blackened.net/)
-The Pierre J. Proudhon Memorial Computer! Has extensive links and articles,
-including the [Anarchist
-Library](http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/anarchism.html)
+
+The Pierre J. Proudhon Memorial Computer! Has extensive links and articles,
+including the [](http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/anarchism.html)
+>Anarchist Library
[Index to the Revolt Collection of struggles in Ireland](http://struggle.ws/)
+
Excellent collection of anarchist webpages (individuals and groups).
[Creationist Anarcho-Socialism](http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/home/cas.htm)
+
Religious anarchist webpage. Jesus as anarchist-socialist!
-[ An Eco-Anarchists Page (Environmental
-Anarchism)](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.angelfire.com/ca/ecoanarchist/index.html)
+[
+An Eco-Anarchists Page (Environmental
+Anarchism)](http://www.angelfire.com/ca/ecoanarchist/index.html)
+
Name says it all. Find out about eco-anarchism.
-[Home of the Watermelon
-Poet](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/1196/)
+[Home of the Watermelon Poet](http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/1196/)
+
Eco-anarchist look at poetry, politics, our environments and more.
-[Song of the March
-Hare](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5309/)
-Good anarchist webpage with a slight **Alice in Wonderland** feel about it.
-Excellent link pages.
+[Song of the March Hare](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5309/)
+
+Good anarchist webpage with a slight **Alice in Wonderland** feel about
+it. Excellent link pages.
[Index to the Revolt Collection](http://www.struggle.ws/revolt.html)
-A collection of webpages for a variety of Irish struggles, from an anarchist
-perspective.
+
+A collection of webpages for a variety of Irish struggles, from an
+anarchist perspective.
[mutualaid.org](http://www.mutualaid.org/)
+
Mutual Aid website!
[Bellatria and Pucks Home
-Page](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8728/)
+Page](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8728/)
+
Yet another anarchist webpage at geocities! Good links.
[Anarchist Action Network](http://www.zpub.com/notes/aadl.html)
-Sick and tired of anarchists and anarchism being misrepresented in the media?
-Then visit this webpage -- time to secure justice and fair treatment for
-anarchy! Excellent site.
+
+Sick and tired of anarchists and anarchism being misrepresented in the
+media? Then visit this webpage -- time to secure justice and fair treatment
+for anarchy! Excellent site.
-[The Sieve: Steve K's Home
-Pages](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.duke.edu/~sdk2/)
+[The Sieve: Steve K's Home Pages](http://www.duke.edu/~sdk2/)
+
Anarchist texts and links to anarchist and other sites
-[Anarchocommie's Home
-Page](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3962/)
+[Anarchocommie's Home Page](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3962/)
+
A Communist-Anarchist's home page, strangely enough! Links and essays.
[Rebels Home Page](http://www.theft.demon.co.uk/)
+
Sheffield (England) based anarchist webpage.
[So many porcupines, so little
-time...](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7579/)
+time...](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7579/)
+
A webpage with more than a dash of anarchism about it.
[Social Anarchists International](http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/)
+
Webpage about social anarchism. Includes a mirror of the FAQ.
[Spiritual Anarchy](http://cavern.uark.edu/~dksander/anarchy.html)
+
Interesting selection of links to anarchist and non-anarchist webpages.
-[mobtown.org](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.mobtown.org/)
-This is a resource of activists, anarchists and anti-authoritarians (among
-others) in the Baltimore metropolitan area in the USA.
+[mobtown.org](http://www.mobtown.org/)
+
+This is a resource of activists, anarchists and anti-authoritarians
+(among others) in the Baltimore metropolitan area in the USA.
[The Veganarchy HomePages!](http://www.veganarchy.freeserve.co.uk/)
+
Find out about anarchism and veganism.
[Anarchism in Canada](http://www.anarchism.ca/)
-Find out about anarchism in Canada. Site also has a mirror of the anarchist
-FAQ.
+
+Find out about anarchism in Canada. Site also has a mirror of the
+anarchist FAQ.
[xchange](http://www.xchange.anarki.net)
-Find out about anarchism in Australia. The Melbourne node of the Australian
-@Net anarchist computer network. Excellent site!
+
+Find out about anarchism in Australia. The Melbourne node of the
+Australian @Net anarchist computer network. Excellent site!
-[New Tolpuddle
-Anarchist](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8908/)
+[New Tolpuddle Anarchist](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8908/)
+
Australian based anarchist page. Has information on anarchism, law, religion
-and other strange Associations.
+and other strange
+Associations.
-[Anarchos](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.web.net/~anarchos/)
+[Anarchos](http://www.web.net/~anarchos/)
+
Nice looking webpage on anarchism. Seems to be mainly Social Ecologist in
nature.
[Anarchist and other
perspectives](http://salzman.physics.umb.edu/AnarchismEtc/AnarchismEtc)
+
Collection of interesting articles and essays on anarchism and other subjects.
-[ Libertarian Communist
-Scrapbook](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/6874/)
+[ Libertarian Communist Scrapbook](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/6874/)
+
Contains interesting articles on Libertarian Communism.
-[That Funky Poetic
-Anarchist](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.xoom.com/AnarchoPoet/)
+[That Funky Poetic Anarchist](http://members.xoom.com/AnarchoPoet/)
+
Anarchism, poetry and other stuff.
-[lazosubverto's Home
-Page](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/3374/index.html)
+[lazosubverto's Home Page](http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/3374/index.html)
+
Situationist-anarchist webpage. Looks impressive!
[ nothingness.org ](http://www.nothingness.org/)
-Very impressive anarchist webpage. Contains a Situationist International
+
+Very impressive anarchist webpage. Contains a Situationist International
Archive, "Mr. Block" cartoons and much much more.
-[Anarchism](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.syntac.net/hoax/anarchism.html)
-Excellent selection of links to various anarchist authors. Very well laid out.
+[Anarchism](http://www.syntac.net/hoax/anarchism.html)
+
+Excellent selection of links to various anarchist authors. Very
+well laid out.
-[ Real Anarchy](http://pages.whowhere.com/lifestyle/a--person/index.html)
+[
+Real Anarchy](http://pages.whowhere.com/lifestyle/a--person/index.html)
+
Anarchist webpage with a short definition of anarchism.
[Action through Anarchy](http://jessejack.freehosting.net/anarchy/)
+
Very nice looking social anarchist webpage.
-[Anarchism and
-nationalism](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~jenne/)
-Anarchist perspectives on nationalism and ethnic conflict. Includes the work
-of such people as Rudolf Rocker.
+[Anarchism and nationalism](http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~jenne/)
+
+Anarchist perspectives on nationalism and ethnic conflict. Includes
+the work of such people as Rudolf Rocker.
[The Light of Anarchy](http://www.efn.org/~libris/)
+
Webpage dedicated to flag burning. Contains flag burning posters.
-[ Libertarian Socialism
-(Anarchism)](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7769/main.html)
+[
+Libertarian Socialism
+(Anarchism)](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7769/main.html)
+
US based anarchist webpage.
-[A Queer/Homopage at
-equi.iww.org](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.iww.org/queer/)
+[A Queer/Homopage at equi.iww.org](http://www.iww.org/queer/)
+
A Radical Queer Labor Page from the IWW.
[ANARCHY.ORG](http://www.anarchy.org/)
+
Collection of articles and links about anarchism
[(An) Anarchy Home Page](http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~ctb/anarchy/)
+
Webpage with a useful series of links and articles.
-[Anarchism and
-Freedom](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.fl.net.au/~nellybet/index.htm)
+[Anarchism and Freedom](http://www.fl.net.au/~nellybet/index.htm)
+
Nice looking webpage with links to other anarchist sites.
[Welcome to Rebel's home](http://www.theft.demon.co.uk/)
-Excellent looking webpage with links and articles on anarchist subjects.
-
-[Anarchism: What is
-it?](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.angelfire.com/va/jsorenK/anrky.html)
-An anarcho-pacifist webpage with an impressive selection of quotes and
-articles.
-
-[ The Libertarian Communist Home
-Page](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/8970/)
-Excellent libertarian communist (i.e. anarchist) webpage. Extensive links to
-articles, pamphlets, posters, etc.
-
-[The Resistance
-Page](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.xoom.com/red_page/)
+
+Excellent looking webpage with links and articles on anarchist
+subjects.
+
+[Anarchism:
+What is it?](http://www.angelfire.com/va/jsorenK/anrky.html)
+
+An anarcho-pacifist webpage with an impressive selection of
+quotes and articles.
+
+[
+The Libertarian Communist Home
+Page](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/8970/)
+
+Excellent libertarian communist (i.e. anarchist) webpage.
+Extensive links to articles, pamphlets, posters, etc.
+
+[The Resistance Page](http://members.xoom.com/red_page/)
+
Nice page with links to other sites and articles.
-[Center for Anarchist Propaganda "Errico
-Malatesta"](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.dencity.com/situationniste/)
+[Center for
+Anarchist Propaganda "Errico
+Malatesta"](http://members.dencity.com/situationniste/)
+
Impressive anarcho-situationist webpage.
-[ Anarchism and
-Punk](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/4750/index.html)
+[
+Anarchism and
+Punk](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/4750/index.html)
+
An Anarcho-Punk webpage.
-[Anarchism](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.angelfire.com/sk/anarchism/index.html)
+[Anarchism](http://www.angelfire.com/sk/anarchism/index.html)
+
Links and articles on anarchism and punk.
-[ (I)An-ok's Homepage of devious subversion and ultimate
+[
+(I)An-ok's Homepage of devious subversion and ultimate
rebellion](http://medusa.twinoaks.org/members/\(I\)An-ok/)
+
Impressive webpage with links and articles.
-[Ozanarchy](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.xchange.anarki.net/~huelga/ozanarchy/)
-Great site listing whats happening on-line in the Australian anarchist scene.
+[Ozanarchy](http://www.xchange.anarki.net/~huelga/ozanarchy/)
+
+Great site listing whats happening on-line in the Australian
+anarchist scene.
[Poetry in Revolt](http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/anarchistpoetry/)
+
A collection of anarchist poetry
-[ a libertarian labyrinth - front page](http://www.wcnet.org/~swilbur/liblab/)
-An open-ended site for gathering, archiving, organizing and interpreting
-historical material related to anarchism in its various forms.
+[
+a libertarian labyrinth - front page](http://www.wcnet.org/~swilbur/liblab/)
+
+An open-ended site for gathering, archiving, organizing and
+interpreting historical material related to anarchism in its
+various forms.
-[ Anarchist-Communist Theory and
-Practice](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3962/)
-An excellent anarcho-communist page with many essays and links.
+[
+Anarchist-Communist Theory and
+Practice](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3962/)
+
+An excellent anarcho-communist page with many essays and
+links.
[Professing: Dennis Fox's Home Page](http://www.uis.edu:1967/~fox/)
-Webpage of a Critical/Humanistic Psychologist which includes articles about
+
+Webpage of a Critical/Humanistic Psychologist which includes articles about
anarchism and psychology.
-[ Paolo Chiocchetti's
-Homepage](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3671/)
+[
+Paolo Chiocchetti's
+Homepage](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3671/)
+
Excellent webpage. Many anarchist links and articles.
-[Anarchism from
-HK](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.angelfire.com/punk/anarchynow/)
+[Anarchism from HK](http://www.angelfire.com/punk/anarchynow/)
+
Anarchist webpage from Hong Kong. Many articles and links.
[Ken's Temporary Autonomous Zone](http://taz.tc/daelix/)
+
Excellent collection of anarchist writings and links. Nice looking pages.
[Anarchist Resources Online](http://www7.50megs.com/anarchism/)
-An excellent collection of anarchist and anarchist related links. Nice looking
-pages.
+
+An excellent collection of anarchist and anarchist related links.
+Nice looking pages.
[Mediaucracy Main Page](http://www.nucleus.com/~markv/)
+
Useful selection of anarchist and related webpages.
-[ The Corrupt
+[
+The Corrupt
Party](http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com:6010/CapitolDr/thecorruptparty/)
+
An anarchist anti-election webpage from the North of England.
[Freedom!](http://anrchie.tripod.com/)
+
Anarchist webpage with many articles, news and links.
-[ Anarchist Resistance
-Network](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.angelfire.com/zine/anarchistresistance/)
+[
+Anarchist Resistance
+Network](http://www.angelfire.com/zine/anarchistresistance/)
+
Name says it all.
-[ Queensland Anarchism creates Happy
-Anarchy](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.crosswinds.net/~happyanarchy/)
+[
+Queensland Anarchism creates Happy
+Anarchy](http://www.crosswinds.net/~happyanarchy/)
+
Excellent webpage. Includes many articles and essays.
-[ commie zero
-zero](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/commie00/commie00.html)
-Webpage for the exploration of the connecting points between anarchism and
-libertarian marxism, the exploration of class struggle and from these the
-creation of a theoretical behaviour capable of helping us move toward
-libertarian communism (aka real communism, anarchy).
-
-[Killing King
-Abacus](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/)
+[
+commie zero zero](http://www.geocities.com/commie00/commie00.html)
+
+Webpage for the exploration of the connecting points between
+anarchism and libertarian marxism, the exploration
+of class struggle and from these the creation of a theoretical
+behaviour capable of helping us move toward libertarian communism
+(aka real communism, anarchy).
+
+[Killing King Abacus](http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/)
+
Excellent Anarchist webpage. Lots of links and articles.
-[ No
-Control](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.crosswinds.net/~zapata/newindex.html)
+[
+No Control](http://www.crosswinds.net/~zapata/newindex.html)
+
Links to anarchist sites of interests.
-[Peace](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://i.am/antiwar)
+[Peace](http://i.am/antiwar)
+
Anarchist anti-war page.
-[Third
-Eye](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/the_third_eye_website/)
+[Third Eye](http://www.geocities.com/the_third_eye_website/)
+
News and analysis from a group of anarcho-marxists in New Zealand
-[ Alaskanarchy - Your guide to anarchy in
+[
+Alaskanarchy - Your guide to anarchy in
Alaska](http://www.xoasis.com/~alaskanarchy/)
+
Name says it all.
-[ New Jersey Anarchist Workers](http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/njaw/index.html)
+[
+New Jersey Anarchist Workers](http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/njaw/index.html)
+
Name says it all.
[Empowerment](http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/empowerment/)
-Excellent collection of anarchist, ecological, etc. links useful for
-activists.
+
+Excellent collection of anarchist, ecological, etc. links useful
+for activists.
-[
-Situationism](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.freespeech.org/ledland/Anarchism/A_Situationism.html)
+[
+Situationism](http://www.freespeech.org/ledland/Anarchism/A_Situationism.html)
+
Excellent webpage introduction to Situationist ideas.
-[ Anarchist Archives
-Project](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.aol.com/wellslake/AAP.htm)
-The Anarchist Archives Project was set up in 1982 for the purpose of
-collecting and preserving materials documenting the history of anarchism and,
-in turn, making them available to historians and interested individuals.
-
-[Anarchist Hompage - Don't beg for the right to live, take it.
-](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://anarchisthomepage.cjb.net/)
+[
+Anarchist Archives Project](http://members.aol.com/wellslake/AAP.htm)
+
+The Anarchist Archives Project was set up in 1982 for the
+purpose of collecting and preserving materials documenting the
+history of anarchism and, in turn, making them available to
+historians and interested individuals.
+
+[Anarchist Hompage - Don't beg for the right to live, take it.
+](http://anarchisthomepage.cjb.net/)
+
Very good anarchist webpage.
[Anarchism and Revolution in The Big
Easy](http://www.angelfire.com/la2/neworleansanarchists/index.html)
+
Find out about Anarchism in New Orleans, USA.
-[ ACN- The Anarchist Communitarian
+[
+ACN- The Anarchist Communitarian
Network](http://www.anarchistcommunitarian.net/)
-Webpage for anarchists interested in "intentional communities" (i.e. forming
-anarchist communes in capitalist society).
+
+Webpage for anarchists interested in "intentional communities"
+(i.e. forming anarchist communes in capitalist society).
-[The Resistance
-Page](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.xoom.com/red_page/)
-Web page which provides information about anarchism and other groups opposed
-to exploitation.
+[The Resistance Page](http://members.xoom.com/red_page/)
+
+Web page which provides information about anarchism
+and other groups opposed to exploitation.
-[ The Anarchist
+[
+The Anarchist
Encyclopedia](http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/gallery/galleryindex.htm)
+
Name says it all!
[Stan Iverson Memorial Library](http://recollectionbooks.com/siml/)
+
Name says it all!
-[Generation
-Terrorists](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://free.freespeech.org/genterror/)
+[Generation Terrorists](http://free.freespeech.org/genterror/)
+
Good webpage from the USA.
-[ Baseman's site for Education and
+[
+Baseman's site for Education and
Liberty](http://www.eclipse.net/~basket42/index.html)
+
Includes essays on anarchism.
[Free Earth - Independant libertarian
website](http://struggle.ws/freeearth.html)
+
Excellent collection of anarchist essays.
[no war but the class war](http://www.nowarbuttheclasswar.org.uk/)
+
UK based anarchist/libertarian communist anti-war group.
[Nestor McNab's Anarcho-Communist
-Page](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/nestor_mcnab/)
+Page](http://www.geocities.com/nestor_mcnab/)
+
Name says it all!
[Anarchist writings from
Anarcho](http://struggle.ws/anarchism/writers/anarcho.html)
-Collection of articles on many subjects -- anti-globalisation, the Russian
-Revolution, Leninism and much, much more.
+
+Collection of articles on many subjects -- anti-globalisation,
+the Russian Revolution, Leninism and much, much more.
[Mutualist.Org: Resources and Information on Mutualist
Anarchism](http://www.mutualist.org/)
+
Useful resource on Mutualist Anarchism. Has an excellent "Mutualist FAQ."
[Anarchism and the left - articles by anarchists about Leninism, Marxism and
Social democracy ](http://anarchism.ws/left.html)
+
Name says it all. An excellent collection of anarchist critiques of the left.
[infoshop.org - Criticizing the authoritarian Left
](http://www.infoshop.org/texts/iso.html)
+
Useful collection of anarchist articles on authoritarian socialism.
[Raise the Fist](http://www.raisethefist.com)
-Webpage of Sherman Austin, sentanced to a year in federal prison, three years
-of probation and a $2,000 fine for, basically, being the webmaster of this
-website. Support free speech on-line!
+
+Webpage of Sherman Austin, sentanced to a year in federal
+prison, three years of probation and a $2,000 fine for,
+basically, being the webmaster of this website. Support
+free speech on-line!
[An Anti-Authoritarian Webpage](http://question-everything.mahost.org/)
+
Excellent webpage full of interesting articles and essays.
[anarchy.org.au](http://anarchy.org.au/)
+
Your stating place for the Australian anarchist movement
[Radical Glasgow](http://www.radicalglasgow.me.uk)
+
Find out what is happening in the libertarian scene in Glasgow, Scotland.
+
+
## Anarchist Web-pages (Non-English)
**_Non-English language web-pages by either individual anarchists and libertarian socialists or by groups not part of a bigger organisation. _**
-[Anarchist and Related Links in Spanish &
-Portuguese](http://www.iww.org/~jah/spanarq.html)
-Extensive listing of Spanish and Portuguese webpages (as you may have
-guessed!)
+[Anarchist and Related
+Links in Spanish & Portuguese](http://www.iww.org/~jah/spanarq.html)
+
+Extensive listing of Spanish and Portuguese webpages (as you
+may have guessed!)
[Anarchism in Belgium | Anarchisme en Belgique | Anarchisme in
Belgie](http://www.anarchy.be/)
+
For all things anarchist in Belgium!
-[Centro de Contrainformao e Material Anarquista](http://www.anarquismo.org/)
+[Centro de Contrainformação e Material Anarquista](http://www.anarquismo.org/)
+
Brasilian anarchist webpage.
[www.anarchy.gr](http://www.anarchy.gr/)
+
Anarchism in Greece.
-[ Boletim No.18 - Publicao Peridica do Projeto
-Periferia](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/projetoperiferia/18.htm)
-Excellent looking Portuguese webpage. Includes a Portuguese translation of our
-appendix on the [symbols of
-anarchy](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/projetoperiferia/18b.htm)!
+[
+Boletim No.18 - Publicação Periódica do Projeto
+Periferia](http://www.geocities.com/projetoperiferia/18.htm)
+
+Excellent looking Portuguese webpage. Includes a Portuguese translation
+of our appendix on the
+[symbols of anarchy](http://www.geocities.com/projetoperiferia/18b.htm)!
-[Anarquismo:Abertura](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/3471/)
+[Anarquismo:Abertura](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/3471/)
+
Excellent looking anarchist web-site.
-[ latinos libres - anarquismo en los
-EEUU](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2374/)
-Topics in English and Spanish about the theory, history and current issues of
-the international anarchist movement.
+[
+latinos libres - anarquismo en los
+EEUU](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2374/)
+
+Topics in English and Spanish about the theory, history and current issues
+of the international anarchist movement.
-[El Kiosko
-Libertario](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3162/)
+[El Kiosko Libertario](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3162/)
+
Valencia based anarchist web-site (in Spanish)
-[Yelah.net](http://www.yelah.net) Weekly libertarian socialist web-magazine
-with daily news. 1825 articles and 1610 links...and counting.
+[Yelah.net](http://www.yelah.net)
+Weekly libertarian socialist web-magazine with daily news. 1825
+articles and 1610 links...and counting.
+
+[
+!!! P@RaToDoS o e-zine da Revolução
+!!!](http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Alley/1290/)
+
+Excellent looking web-site. Plus a short FAQ on anarchism called
+[](http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Alley/1290/anarco2.htm) >P@RaToDoS
+- Anarquismo
-[ !!! P@RaToDoS o e-zine da Revoluo
-!!!](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Alley/1290/)
-Excellent looking web-site. Plus a short FAQ on anarchism called [P@RaToDoS -
-Anarquismo](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Alley/1290/anarco2.htm).
+.
[DADA](http://anarch.free.de/dada/)
+
Datenbank des deutschsprachigen Anarchismus. German anarchist webpage.
[ECN](http://www.ecn.org)
+
European Counter Network. Great recource if you read Italian, but also some
information in English.
[The Actual Anarchist Homepage](http://www.algonet.se/~rsm/actual/)
-Lots of essays and contacts, mostly in Swedish but with some English texts.
-Has links to anarchistic writings and web-pages.
+
+Lots of essays and contacts, mostly in Swedish but with some English
+texts. Has links to anarchistic writings and web-pages.
-[Home Page d'en Vktor Bautista i Roca](http://www.drac.com/pers/viktor/)
+[Home Page d'en Víktor Bautista i Roca](http://www.drac.com/pers/viktor/)
+
Links on anarchism and ecology.
-[Bienvenida a FEEL](http://reclus.unizar.es:1024/PERSONAL/JULIO/FEEL.html)
+[](http://reclus.unizar.es:1024/PERSONAL/JULIO/FEEL.html) >Bienvenida a
+FEEL
+
Spanish Anarchist web-page.
-[NANAR](http://perso.club-internet.fr/nanar666/index.html)
+[](http://perso.club-internet.fr/nanar666/index.html) >NANAR
+
[NANAR](http://altern.org/nanar/)
+
French anarchist web-site.
-[Libertre Liga Homepage](http://www.angelfire.com/al/Anari/)
+[](http://www.angelfire.com/al/Anari/) >Libertäre Liga Homepage
+
Austrian Anarchist site.
-[Manfred M. Bsings Heimseite](http://mmb.home.pages.de)
+[](http://mmb.home.pages.de) >Manfred M. Büsings Heimseite
+
Excellent German anarchist site. Extensive number of links and articles.
[Anarchismus](http://www.totentanz.de/kmedeke/anarchis.htm)
+
German anarchist webpage. Mostly links to other sites.
-[Zebulon's
-Page](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4372/)
+[Zebulon's Page](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4372/)
+
French anarchist page. Not much there - has links to a few other sites.
-[Potatodos](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/~bloodstorm/)
+[Potatodos](http://www.geocities.com/~bloodstorm/)
+
A Brazilian anarchist webpage in Portuguese
[Anarquismo Hoje](http://www.terravista.pt/enseada/1112/)
+
An anarchist webpage in Portuguese
-[Yahoo! Sverige - Politik och frvaltning:Politik:Politisk
+[Yahoo! Sverige - Politik och förvaltning:Politik:Politisk
opinion:Anarkism](http://www.yahoo.se/Politik_och_foervaltning/Politik/Politisk_opinion/Anarkism/)
+
Yahoo's listing for Swedish anarchist sites.
-[Vilg anarchisti
-egyesljetek!](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/8671/)
+[Világ anarchistái
+egyesüljetek!](http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/8671/)
+
Anarchist webpage from Hungary.
-[Salud Y Anarquia
-Companero](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1264/)
+[](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1264/) >Salud Y Anarquia
+Companero
+
Excellent anarchist webpage.
[Info Usurpa](http://personal.redestb.es/gurmanyach/usurpa.htm)
+
Spanish anarchist webpage.
[DE NAR - HOMEPAGE](http://www.xs4all.be/~ance/denar/)
+
Dutch anarchist webpage.
-[Exceso](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5689/)
+[Exceso](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5689/)
+
Spanish anarchist website.
-[Loepa
-Berlin](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8522/)
+[Loepa Berlin](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8522/)
+
German anarchist webpage.
-[Revolutionsbruhof/ Anarchistische Buchhandlung](http://www.inode.at/rbh/)
+[Revolutionsbräuhof/ Anarchistische Buchhandlung](http://www.inode.at/rbh/)
+
German Anarchist webpage.
-[Hemsida fr den hypnotiserade
-majoriteten](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1063/)
+[Hemsida för den hypnotiserade
+majoriteten](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1063/)
+
Very impressive Swedish anarchist webpage.
[TOPRAK'S WEB PAGE / ANARCHISM IN
-TURKEY](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.xoom.com/toprak_grubu/index.htm)
+TURKEY](http://members.xoom.com/toprak_grubu/index.htm)
+
Anarchist webpage based in Turkey.
[Kifla - Svucen's Page](http://public.srce.hr/~svucen/)
+
Anarchism in Eastern Europe
-[Ateneu Libertrio Universal](http://www.ceca.org.br/edgar/anarkP.html)
+[Ateneu Libertário Universal](http://www.ceca.org.br/edgar/anarkP.html)
+
Brazilian webpage which owes alot to the Mid-Atlantic Info Shop!
-[ Ao Direta - Um Site
-Anarquista](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5470/)
+[
+Ação Direta - Um Site
+Anarquista](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5470/)
+
Anarchist webpage from Brazil.
-[ | WWW.ANARCHIE.DE | ANARCHIE | FREIHEIT | SELBSTBESTIMMUNG | EVOLUTION
-|](http://www.anarchie.de/)
+[
+| ](http://www.anarchie.de/)[WWW.ANARCHIE.DE](http://WWW.ANARCHIE.DE
+"WWW.ANARCHIE.DE" ) | ANARCHIE | FREIHEIT | SELBSTBESTIMMUNG | EVOLUTION |
+
German anarchist webpage.
[Reko's Page - Anarki](http://www.xchange.anarki.net/~huelga/reko/)
-Anarchist texts in Indonesian. Plus links to many anarchist and radical
+
+Anarchist texts in Indonesian. Plus links to many anarchist and radical
webpages.
-[ classwar now!
-homepage](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4772/)
+[
+classwar now! homepage](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4772/)
+
The homepage of CLASSWAR NOW! CLASSWAR NOW! is an anarchist-communist project
by various leftwing radicals in Austria/Europe.
-[ambi](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/xs_ambi/)
+[ambi](http://www.geocities.com/xs_ambi/)
+
The Ambi web site includes articles for the zines Spawn of Croatan and il
-frenetico, as well as insurrectionary anarchist articles and links
+frenetico, as well as
+insurrectionary anarchist articles and links
-[ Anarchive, Russian-language anarchist library on the web
+[
+Anarchive, Russian-language anarchist library on the web
](http://anarchive.virtualave.net/english.htm)
-Russian anarchist webpage. One of the few anarchist web-pages in Russian. And
-it is a (potentially big) library/archive
-
-[ ACCION DIRECTA KONTRA EL FASCISMO, EL KAPITALISMO Y OTRAS FORMAS DE
-OPRESION](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/9700/Accion.htm)
+
+Russian anarchist webpage. One of the few anarchist web-pages in
+Russian. And it is a (potentially big) library/archive
+
+[
+ACCION DIRECTA KONTRA EL FASCISMO, EL KAPITALISMO Y OTRAS FORMAS DE
+OPRESION](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/9700/Accion.htm)
+
Spanish Anarchist webpage.
[Anarchy in BG](http://people.bulgaria.com/anarchy/)
+
Bulgarian Anarchist Webpage.
-[
-Anarquia](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/1672/)
+[
+Anarquia](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/1672/)
+
Anarchist webpage from Puerto Rico.
[ANARCHISME(S) - index](http://www.multimania.com/anarchismes/)
+
Nicely produced French anarchist webpage.
[Tout pour deplaire ! / Very to displease
!](http://www.crosswinds.net/~minerval/)
-This is a political analyses and criticisms webzine, written by a small
-militant core, the Social Circle.
+
+This is a political analyses and criticisms webzine, written by
+a small militant core, the Social Circle.
[ inicio](http://revolucionarios.8m.com)
+
Basque anarchist webpage (in Spanish).
[Anarchie/Anarchy ](http://www.anarchy.be/)
+
Find out about anarchism in Belgium!
-[ ANARCHY IN JAPAN](http://www.ne.jp/asahi/anarchy/anarchy/e-01.html)
+[
+ANARCHY IN JAPAN](http://www.ne.jp/asahi/anarchy/anarchy/e-01.html)
+
Name says it all. Find out about Japanese anarchism.
-[ Anarchism - Netherlands](http://burn.ucsd.edu/~anow/world/eu/nether/)
+[
+Anarchism - Netherlands](http://burn.ucsd.edu/~anow/world/eu/nether/)
+
Name says it all!
[Apoyo Mutuo](http://www.red-libertaria.org/portada/index.html)
+
Very impressive Spanish language webpage.
+
+
## Anarcha-Feminist Web-pages
**_Anarchist homepages with a high anarchafeminist content._**
[AnarchaFeminism (Anarchist
-Feminism)](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Paris/2159/anrfem.html)
-Good web-site on anarcha-Feminism. Contains an excellent introductory essay on
-the **Free Women** movement in 1930's Spain.
+Feminism)](http://www.geocities.com/Paris/2159/anrfem.html)
+
+Good web-site on anarcha-Feminism. Contains an excellent introductory
+essay on the **Free Women** movement in 1930's Spain.
[LUNA 1997](http://www.thecdp.demon.co.uk/luna1997.htm)
+
Czech Republic based anarcha-eco-feminist group.
[LILITH 14: Inhoud](http://www.xs4all.nl/~dzs/lilith/14/index.htm)
+
Anarcha-Feminist magazine from the Netherlands. In Dutch (strangely enough).
[Anarcha-Feminism](http://www.infoshop.org/afem_kiosk.html)
+
Anarcha-Feminist links from the Mid-Atlantic Info-Shop.
[ThryWoman's Irrational Rationalist
HomePage](http://members.aol.com/ThryWoman/Index.html)
+
Essays and links on anarchism, anarcha-feminism and a whole lot more!
-[cassandra
-speaks](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/2777/)
+[cassandra speaks](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/2777/)
+
A feminist-anarchist visionary site
[anarchobabe's fempages](http://www.j12.org/fempages/)
+
Anarcha-Femininist webpage.
+
+
## Anarchist Blogs
[Noam Chomsky's blog](http://blog.zmag.org/blog/13)
-New bits and pieces from Chomsky, plus lots of arguments between his
-supporters and haters.
+
+New bits and pieces from Chomsky, plus lots of arguments between
+his supporters and haters.
[Porcupine blog](http://porkupineblog.blogspot.com/)
+
Anarchist musings from Canada.
[Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism](http://mutualist.blogspot.com/)
+
Very interesting blog by individualist anarchist Kevin Carson. Worth reading.
[another blog is possible](http://chuck.mahost.org/weblog/index.php)
+
Blog of Chuck0, main person behind the excellent [Mid-Atlantic
InfoShop](http://www.infoshop.org).
[In the Libertarian Labyrinth](http://libertarian-labyrinth.blogspot.com/)
-Blog of individualist anarchist Shawn Wilber, full of interesting texts from
+
+Blog of individualist anarchist Shawn Wilber, full of interesting texts from
the archives of US individualist anarchism.
[LE REVUE GAUCHE - Libertarian Communist Analysis And
Comment](http://plawiuk.blogspot.com/)
+
A bit graphic intensive, but interesting.
[anarcha adventures](http://annaaniston.blogsome.com/)
+
Anarcha-feminist opinion.
[Anarchoblogs](http://anarchoblogs.protest.net/)
-Anarchoblogs is a collection of blogs from self-identified anarchists,
-autonomists, anarcho-syndicalists, anarchists without adjectives, libertarian-
-socalists, and fellow travelers.
+
+Anarchoblogs is a collection of blogs from self-identified anarchists,
+autonomists, anarcho-syndicalists, anarchists without adjectives,
+libertarian-socalists, and fellow travelers.
[Lorenzo's blog](http://www.komboa.net/)
+
Webpage of noted black american anarchist Lorenzo Komboa Ervin.
[No Gods, No Masters](http://www.nogodsnomasters.org/)
+
Another anarchist blog.
+
+
## Anarchist and Libertarian Socialist Organisations
-**_Home pages for anarchist and libertarian socialist groups and federations. _**
+**_Home pages for anarchist and libertarian socialist groups and federations.
+_**
**General**
[Anarchist Yellow Pages](http://flag.blackened.net/agony/ayp/)
-Webpages, e-mail and snail mail addresses for anarchist and anarcho-
-syndicalist groups across the world. Very comprehesive. If you cannot find an
-organisation or group here, try the yellow pages!
+
+Webpages, e-mail and snail mail addresses for anarchist and
+anarcho-syndicalist groups across the world. Very comprehesive.
+If you cannot find an organisation or group here, try the yellow pages!
[International of Anarchist Federations
(IFA)](http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/ifa.html)
-Information on the IFA, including its politics, history and member
-federations.
+
+Information on the IFA, including its politics, history and
+member federations.
[The INTERNATIONAL LIBERTARIAN Web
Page](http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/ilib.html)
+
Links for the many anarchist, anarcho-syndicalist and libertarian socialist
-groups and organisations across the world.
+groups and
+organisations across the world.
[Index of anarchists and anarchism around the
world](http://anarchism.ws/index.html)
+
Useful collection of links for anarchist groups across the world.
[ The Agitator ](http://home.clara.net/hsg/agitator/)
-A directory of autonomous, non-hierarchical groups, centres, bookshops and
-other organisations lists contacts throughout the known world, as well as all
-the original contacts and more from Britain and Ireland.
-
-[
-Anarchists](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4192/anarchis.html)
-Links for many anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist organisations across the
-world. Part of the [Leftist Parties of the
-World](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4192/)
+
+A directory of autonomous, non-hierarchical
+groups, centres, bookshops and other organisations
+lists contacts throughout the known world, as well
+as all the original contacts and more from Britain
+and Ireland.
+
+[
+Anarchists](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4192/anarchis.html)
+
+Links for many anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist organisations across the
+world. Part of the [Leftist
+Parties of the World](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4192/)
Webpage.
**Britain and Ireland**
[ The Workers Solidarity Movement : Ireland - Anarchist
organisation](http://struggle.ws/wsm.html)
-Official Homepage of the Irish anarchist group. Another webpage is [All about
-Anarchism](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2419/)
-which has extensive articles on various aspects of anarchist ideas and history
-as well as anarchist analysis of current events. Has a large section on Irish
-politics. Yet another WSM site can be found
-[here](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/3145/)
-and
-
-[Anarchist Federation](http://www.afed.org.uk/)
+
+Official Homepage of the Irish anarchist group. Another webpage is
+[All about Anarchism](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2419/)
+which has extensive articles on various aspects of anarchist ideas
+and history as well as anarchist analysis of current events. Has a
+large section on Irish politics. Yet another WSM site can be found
+[here](http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/3145/) and
+
+[](http://www.afed.org.uk/) >Anarchist Federation
+
+
+
Web site for the British revoluntionary Anarchist organisation.
-[Manchester
-AF](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/anarchist_federation/)
+[Manchester AF](http://www.geocities.com/anarchist_federation/)
+
Manchester branch of the UK's Anarchist Federation.
[Anarchist Federation](http://www.afireland.org)
+
[Anarchist Federation Ireland](http://www.afireland.cjb.net/)
+
Name says it all!
[Class War](http://www.classwaruk.org/)
-[CLASS
-WAR](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9482/)
+
+[CLASS WAR](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9482/)
+
[Class War](http://www.tao.ca/~lemming/classwar/)
-Webpages for the UK based anarchist group **Class War**. Also see [This Is
-Class War - What we
-believe](http://burn.ucsd.edu/~anow/world/eu/uk/cw/index.html). The Class War
-Federation.
+
+Webpages for the UK based anarchist group **Class War**. Also see
+[This Is Class War -
+What we believe](http://burn.ucsd.edu/~anow/world/eu/uk/cw/index.html). The
+Class War Federation.
[London Class Struggle Gridlock](http://www.gn.apc.org/gridlock/)
-Webpage of a number of class struggle anarchist, feminist and libertarian
+
+Webpage of a number of class struggle anarchist, feminist and libertarian
communist hroups in London, England.
[Scottish Anarchist Network](http://burn.ucsd.edu/~lothian/san/)
+
Homepage for the SAN. Name says it all.
-[ Movement against the
-Monarchy](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1793/Index.html)
-Anarchist group aiming to get rid of the British Monarchy and other parasites.
+[
+Movement against the
+Monarchy](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1793/Index.html)
+
+Anarchist group aiming to get rid of the British Monarchy and other
+parasites.
-[ SHEFFIELD ANARCHIST
-GROUP](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/6247/)
+[
+SHEFFIELD ANARCHIST GROUP](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/6247/)
+
Anarchist group based in the North East of England
-[ ANARCHIST TRADE UNION
-NETWORK](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/2522/)
-A network which aims to co-ordinate the activity of anarchists in Trade Unions
-in the UK. Join their mailing list at [ListBot - @TU Home
-Page](http://atu.listbot.com/).
+[
+ANARCHIST TRADE UNION
+NETWORK](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/2522/)
+
+A network which aims to co-ordinate the activity of
+anarchists in Trade Unions in the UK. Join their mailing
+list at [ListBot - @TU Home Page](http://atu.listbot.com/).
-[ Nottingham Association of Subversive
+[
+Nottingham Association of Subversive
Activists](http://members.tripod.co.uk/NASA13/)
+
Webpage of the local anarchist group in Nottingham, England.
-[Haringey Solidarity Group](http://home.clara.net/hsg/hhome.html)
+[Haringey Solidarity
+Group](http://home.clara.net/hsg/hhome.html)
+
Libertarian inspired community organisation in London, Britain.
[Glasgow University Anarchists](http://1freespace.com/gaia/folder1/)
+
Name says it all!
-[ WOMBLES: White Overalls Movement Building Libertarian Effective
-Struggles](http://www.wombleaction.mrnice.net/) [WOMBLES: White Overalls
-Movement Building Libertarian Effective Struggles](
-http://www.wombles.org.uk/)
-Group designed to build effective libertarian socialist struggle. Inspired by
-the Italian **Ya Basta!** movement.
+[
+WOMBLES: White Overalls Movement Building Libertarian Effective
+Struggles](http://www.wombleaction.mrnice.net/)
+[WOMBLES: White Overalls Movement Building Libertarian Effective
+Struggles](http://www.wombles.org.uk/)
+
+Group designed to build effective libertarian socialist struggle.
+Inspired by the Italian **Ya Basta!** movement.
[disobedience.org.uk](http://www.disobedience.org.uk/)
+
UK based libertarian direct action group.
[ Openly Classist](http://www.openlyclassist.org.uk/)
-Project by working class people from the North of England and the North of
-Ireland. Their celebratory web site will cover all kinds of areas, from:
-strikes, art, music, working class writers, deaths at work, etc etc. It
-includes current discussion around class and culture issues.
+
+Project by working class people from the North
+of England and the North of Ireland. Their celebratory
+web site will cover all kinds of areas, from: strikes, art,
+music, working class writers, deaths at work, etc etc. It
+includes current discussion around class and culture
+issues.
[Surrey Activist Group](http://sag.antifa.net/)
+
A group of anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, anti-hierarchy direct action
activists in Surrey, England.
-[Aberdeen Anarchist
-Resistance](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://geocities.com/resistanceab/)
+[Aberdeen Anarchist Resistance](http://geocities.com/resistanceab/)
+
Scottish Anarchist group.
[Anarchist Youth Network](http://flag.blackened.net/ayn/)
-[ Anarchist Youth Network: Britain &
+
+[
+Anarchist Youth Network: Britain &
Ireland](http://www.enrager.net/ayn/index.php)
+
Name says it all. For UK based anarchist youths.
[Anarchist Federation Alba](http://flag.blackened.net/af/alba/)
+
Homepage of the Anarchist Federation in Scotland.
[No War but the Class War (NWBTCW) |
-Homepage](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/nowar_buttheclasswar/)
-Webpage of anarchists and libertarian Marxists who want to present a
-revolutionary opposition to capitalist war.
+Homepage](http://www.geocities.com/nowar_buttheclasswar/)
+
+Webpage of anarchists and libertarian Marxists who want to present
+a revolutionary opposition to capitalist war.
[Anarchist Communism in Manchester](http://www.af-north.org/)
+
Homepage of the AF in the north of England.
[Anarchist Workers' Network](http://www.awn.org.uk)
-Homepage of the AWN, for anarchists active in the British union movement. Join
-their mailing list [here](http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/awn)
+
+Homepage of the AWN, for anarchists active in the British
+union movement. Join their mailing list
+[here](http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/awn)
[Surrey Anarchist Group](http://www.surreyanarchy.org.uk/)
+
Anarchist group based in the south-east of England.
[Home Page of Dublin Anarchist Prisoner Support](http://www.anarchistps.org/)
+
Name says it all!
**Mainland Europe**
-[Federation of Communist Anarchists (FdCA) ](http://www.pandora.it/fdca)
+[Federation of Communist Anarchists
+(FdCA) ](http://www.pandora.it/fdca)
+
Italian revoluntionary Anarchist organisation.
[F.A.I. - Federazione Anarchica
Italiana](http://www.federazioneanarchica.org/)
+
Home page of the Italian Anarchist Federation.
-[ Alternative Libertaire](http://www.imaginet.fr/~calimero/ALB.htm)
+[
+Alternative Libertaire](http://www.imaginet.fr/~calimero/ALB.htm)
+
The Bretagne section of the French Anarchist group.
-[ Federation Anarchiste -- Le site web de la Federation anarchiste
+[
+Federation Anarchiste -- Le site web de la Federation anarchiste
francophone](http://www.federation-anarchiste.org/)
Web-site of the **French Anarchist Federation**.
[Federation anarchiste - Strasbourg](http://fa-strasbourg.fr.st/)
+
Homepage of the French Anarchist Federation group in Strasbourg.
[Drapeau Noir](http://www.mygale.org/06/zebwis/)
+
An anarchist group based in Neuchatel, Switzerland.
-[Budapest Autonom Tarsulas (BAT)](http://www.extra.hu/bathp/)
+[](<br) "http://www.extra.hu/bathp/">Budapest Autonom Tarsulas (BAT)
+
+
+
Anarchist group based in Hungary (texts in Hungarian and English).
[The Polish Anarchist Federation](http://www.most.org.pl/alter/fa/)
+
Homepage of the Polish Anarchists.
[Nie Oficjalna Strona Anarcho-Komunistycznej Organizacji
-Platform](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5158/)
+Platform](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5158/)
+
Unofficial Site of the Anarchist-Communist Organizational Platform of Poland.
A site by a group of Polish anarchists interested in the Organisational
Platform of the Libertarian Communists. Includes a new Polish translation of
the Platform.
-[ Loepa Berlin - Homepage
-english](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8522/)
+[
+Loepa Berlin - Homepage
+english](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8522/)
+
German autonomous group. English language pages can be found
-[here](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8522/index_e.html).
+[here](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8522/index_e.html).
[Zagrebacki anarhisticki
-pokret](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3707/)
+pokret](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3707/)
+
Anarchist group based on Zagreb, Croatia.
-[AFD: Anarchistische Fderation in Deutschland](http://www.tao.ca/~i-afd/)
+[AFD: Anarchistische Föderation in Deutschland](http://www.tao.ca/~i-afd/)
+
German Anarchist Federation (member of the IFA).
-[Ceskoslovensk anarchistick federace](http://www.czechia.com/amedia/csaf/)
-[CSAF - Ceskoslovenska anarchisticka federace](http://www.csaf.cz/)
+[Ceskoslovenská anarchistická federace](http://www.czechia.com/amedia/csaf/)
+
+
+[CSAF - Ceskoslovenska anarchisticka federace](http://www.csaf.cz/)
+
+
Homepage of the Czech Anarchist Federation.
-[Organizace revolucnch anarchistu - Solidarita](http://www.solidarita.org/)
+[Organizace revolucních anarchistu - Solidarita](http://www.solidarita.org/)
+
Revolutionary Anarchist Group in the Czech Republic.
[Alternative Libertaire Francophone](http://users.skynet.be/AL/)
+
Belgium Libertarian Socialist group.
[Le libertaire](http://le-libertaire.org/)
+
Webpage for the French Anarchist Group (in French, unsurprisingly!)
[Federacion Anarquista Iberica](http://personales.mundivia.es/pasoalaverdad/)
+
[Federacion Anarquista Iberica (FAI)](http://www.arrakis.es/~grupotea/)
+
Webpages of the famous Anarchist Federation of Iberia.
-[Federacin Iberica de Juventudes
+[Federación Iberica de Juventudes
Libertarias](http://gdomain.com/Flyingmind.Com/FIJL/fijl.html)
-Webpage of the Federation of Libertarian Youth, Iberia (Spain and Portugal).
+
+Webpage of the Federation of Libertarian Youth, Iberia (Spain and
+Portugal).
-[FUNDACIN DE ESTUDIOS LIBERTARIOS "ANSELMO
+[FUNDACIÓN DE ESTUDIOS LIBERTARIOS "ANSELMO
LORENZO"](http://www.ecn.org/a.reus/cntreus/fal/index.html)
+
Spanish anarchist foundation.
[Groupe Libertaire Francisco Ferrer](http://www.anet.fr/~glff/)
-Webpage for a French Anarchist group which is affliated to the French
+
+Webpage for a French Anarchist group which is affliated to the French
Anarchist Federation.
[Movimento Anarchico Italiano - Dio Gino](http://home.onestop.net/tamagogino/)
+
Webpage for Italian Anarchic Movement (MAI). Has hundreds of texts about
anarchism, mostly available in English and Italian.
-[ UNIONE
-ANARCHICA](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8485/index.html)
+[
+UNIONE ANARCHICA](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8485/index.html)
+
Webpage for Italian Anarchist Group.
[Coordinadora Libertaria de Madrid](http://www.sindominio.net/clm/)
-Federation of anarchist groups based in Madrid, Spain. Nice looking webpage.
+
+Federation of anarchist groups based in Madrid, Spain. Nice looking
+webpage.
-[Anarkistinen Musta Risti]( http://www.dlc.fi/~ravelre/amr/)
+[Anarkistinen Musta Risti](http://www.dlc.fi/~ravelre/amr/)
+
The Anarchist Black Cross in Finland.
[Ghost of Revolution](http://an-press.virtualave.net/)
-Web-page of the Russian Anarchist information group "An-Press". The main
-subjects of the site: anarchism, anti-fascism, people's revolutionary
+
+Web-page of the Russian Anarchist information group "An-Press". The
+main subjects of the site: anarchism, anti-fascism, people's revolutionary
movements in the contemporary world, the history and development of
-libertarian ideas, philosophy, activities and organizations of anarchists in
-Russia and other countries, and also the lastest news from the struggle with
+libertarian
+ideas, philosophy, activities and organizations of anarchists in Russia
+and other countries, and also the lastest news from the struggle with
state and authorities.
-[PRIAMA AKCIA - Slovensk Anarchokomunistick Organizcia
-Prce](http://www.volny.cz/priamaakcia/)
-Homepage of **Direct Action - Anarcho-communist Organisation of Labour** from
-Slovakia.
+[PRIAMA AKCIA - Slovenská Anarchokomunistická Organizácia
+Práce](http://www.volny.cz/priamaakcia/)
+
+Homepage of **Direct Action - Anarcho-communist
+Organisation of Labour** from Slovakia.
-[Back to the
-Streets](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/dromous)
-Webpage of the Greek group "Back to the Streets." For more anarchist groups in
-Greece, visit [ www.anarchy.gr](http://www.anarchy.gr/)
+[Back to the Streets](http://www.geocities.com/dromous)
+
+Webpage of the Greek group "Back to the Streets." For
+more anarchist groups in Greece, visit [
+www.anarchy.gr](http://www.anarchy.gr/)
[ Alternative Network for Eastern Europe](http://www.most.org.pl/alter/fa/)
-Contains links to anarchist groups based in Eastern Europe, plus details of a
-mailing list to help to coordinate anarchist activities there.
+
+Contains links to anarchist groups based in Eastern Europe,
+plus details of a mailing list to help to coordinate anarchist
+activities there.
[Actiunea Anarhista in Romania](http://alter-ro.tripod.com/)
+
Webpage of Romanian anarchist group.
**Middle east**
[About Anarchism in Turkey: Turkiye'de
Anarsizm](http://www.struggle.ws/turkey_e.html)
+
Webpage on anarchism in Turkey and North Kurdistan.
[efendiszler](http://members.tripod.com/~Karayel2/)
+
Turkish Anarchist webpage.
-[Libertarians, the left and the Middle
-East](http://members.tripod.com/~stiobhard/east.html)
-Notes towrds an alternative history. Summary of anarchist and left-wing
-influences in the Middle East. Has links to webpages and articles on this
+[Libertarians, the
+left and the Middle East](http://members.tripod.com/~stiobhard/east.html)
+
+Notes towrds an alternative history. Summary of anarchist and left-wing
+influences in the Middle East. Has links to webpages and articles on this
subject.
-[Anarcho-Communism Web
-Page](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.xoom.com/anarcho/anarchism.htm)
-Homepage of the Istanbul Social Ecology Group. Good short introduction to
-anarchism.
+[Anarcho-Communism Web Page](http://members.xoom.com/anarcho/anarchism.htm)
+
+Homepage of the Istanbul Social Ecology Group. Good short introduction
+to anarchism.
-[ Al Badil al Taharouri - Anarchism in the
+[
+Al Badil al Taharouri - Anarchism in the
Lebanoen](http://www.struggle.ws/inter/albadil.html)
-This is a 'unoffical' page of information about the Lebonese anarchist group
-Al Badil al Taharouri. They are linked with the French group **Alternative
-Libertaire**.
+
+This is a 'unoffical' page of information about the Lebonese
+anarchist group Al Badil al Taharouri. They are linked with the
+French group **Alternative Libertaire**.
**The Americas**
[NEFAC North Eastern Federation of Anarcho-
Communists](http://nefac.northernhacking.org/)
-[NEFAC](http://www.nefac.net/")
+
+[NEFAC](http://www.nefac.net/%22)
+
[NEFAC North Eastern Federation of Anarcho-
Communists](http://flag.blackened.net/nefac/)
-[ Federation des communistes libertaires du Nord-Est Americain (Francais)
+
+[
+Federation des communistes libertaires du Nord-Est Americain (Francais)
](http://www3.sympatico.ca/emile.henry/nefac.htm)
+
Class Struggle Anarchist Federation in North East America and Canada.
[AnarchoHood: North America](http://www.infoshop.org/hood.html)
+
A quick guide to anarchy and anarchists in North America.
[Anarchist Groups Of New York](http://flag.blackened.net/agony/)
+
Anarchist Groups around the New York area of the United States.
-[ FEDERACIN ANARQUISTA AMOR Y
-RABIA](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8911/)
-Website for the (now no more?) revolutionary anarchist group based in Mexico
-and the USA.
+[
+FEDERACIÓN ANARQUISTA AMOR Y
+RABIA](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8911/)
+
+Website for the (now no more?) revolutionary anarchist group
+based in Mexico and the USA.
-[ RAY Entrance Page](http://burn.ucsd.edu/~ray/)
-Excellent home page for the **Revolutionary Anarchist Youth** based in
-Northampton, MA, USA.
+[
+RAY Entrance Page](http://burn.ucsd.edu/~ray/)
+
+Excellent home page for the **Revolutionary Anarchist Youth**
+based in Northampton, MA, USA.
[CRAYON: Chicago-area Radical Anarchist](http://crayon.does.it/)
-Homepage of the Chicago-area Radical Anarchist Youth Organizing Network
-(CRAYON).
+
+Homepage of the Chicago-area Radical Anarchist Youth
+Organizing Network (CRAYON).
-[Homes Not Jails
-Boston](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7996/)
-Free the land, squat the world. Home page of the Boston direct action group
+[Homes Not Jails Boston](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7996/)
+
+Free the land, squat the world. Home page of the Boston direct action group
which aims to end homelessness by squatting.
[British Columbia Anarchist
-Association](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6322/)
+Association](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6322/)
+
Very strange Canadian anarchist webpage.
-[MichigAnarchists](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/2577/)
+[MichigAnarchists](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/2577/)
+
An anarchist collective based in Michigan, USA.
[Heatwave CAF](http://flag.blackened.net/heatwave/)
-Communist-anarchist group based in and around Dallas/Fort Worth in the USA.
-Good, short, introduction to communist-anarchist ideas.
+
+Communist-anarchist group based in and around Dallas/Fort Worth in
+the USA. Good, short, introduction to communist-anarchist ideas.
[the institute for social ecology](http://www.tao.ca/~ise/index.html)
-Home page for the ISE, the place where Murray Bookchin teaches (yes, you can
-get a degree in anarchism!). Find out about the home of social ecology, one of
-the current threads in anarchist thought which has provoked quite a few
+
+Home page for the ISE, the place where Murray Bookchin teaches (yes, you
+can get a degree in anarchism!). Find out about the home of social ecology,
+one
+of the current threads in anarchist thought which has provoked quite a few
discussions.
-[Los Angeles
-Anarchists](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.xoom.com/pfafs/laanarchists/)
+[Los Angeles Anarchists](http://members.xoom.com/pfafs/laanarchists/)
+
Name says it all. Home page for anarchists in LA, USA.
[Chicano Anarchists and Left
-Libertarians](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.xoom.com/pfafs/mexanarchs.htm)
+Libertarians](http://members.xoom.com/pfafs/mexanarchs.htm)
+
Name says it all. Based in LA, USA.
[WE DARE BE FREE](http://www.tao.ca/~wdbf/)
-Anarchist group based in Cambridge, New England, USA. Site includes articles
+
+Anarchist group based in Cambridge, New England, USA. Site includes articles
from their paper, **We Dare to be Free**.
[CLAUSTROPHOBIA homepage](http://www.charm.net/~claustro/)
+
An anarchist collective based in Baltimore, MD. The site has samples of
articles from their paper, as well as news and analysis of all sorts of other
issues.
-[ Organizacin Anarquista
-Libertad](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/8285/)
+[
+Organización Anarquista
+Libertad](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/8285/)
+
Anarchist Organisation from Argentina.
-[Congreso de Unificacin Anarco-
+[Congreso de Unificación Anarco-
Comunista](http://www.struggle.ws/inter/groups/cuac.html)
+
An unoffical page of material from and about the Unification Congress of
Anarcho-Communists - Chile
-[ Groupe Anarchiste Emile Henry](http://www3.sympatico.ca/emile.henry/eh.htm)
+[
+Groupe Anarchiste Emile Henry](http://www3.sympatico.ca/emile.henry/eh.htm)
+
French Speaking Anarchist group from Quebec, Canada.
-[ Groupe anarchiste Main Noire](http://www.tao.ca/~mainnoire/)
+[
+Groupe anarchiste Main Noire](http://www.tao.ca/~mainnoire/)
+
French Speaking Anarchist group from Montreal, Canada.
-[ Free Earth](http://pages.prodigy.net/ricforste/free-earth/main.html)
+[
+Free Earth](http://pages.prodigy.net/ricforste/free-earth/main.html)
+
US based eco-anarchist group.
-[ Anarchist Black Cross - Los
-Angeles](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.xoom.com/pfafs/laanarchists/abc.htm)
+[
+Anarchist Black Cross - Los
+Angeles](http://members.xoom.com/pfafs/laanarchists/abc.htm)
+
Los Angeles based **Anarchist Black Cross** Group.
[Anarchist Liberty Union](http://www.airlifted.com/alu/)
+
US based anarchist group.
[Food Not Bombs!](http://home.earthlink.net/~foodnotbombs/)
-One of the biggest libertarian groups in the USA. Based on using direct action
-to eliminate poverty and hunger and create a free society.
+
+One of the biggest libertarian groups in the USA. Based on
+using direct action to eliminate poverty and hunger and create
+a free society.
[Anarchy and Activism in New Orleans](http://nolaanarchy.cjb.net/)
+
Name says it all!
-[ Dead End Project Fulfilled
+[
+Dead End Project Fulfilled
Collective](http://www.efn.org/~adl/depfcollective/home.html)
+
Anarchist group based in Eugene, USA.
[Resist Corporate Rule](http://www.tao.ca/~resist/)
-A network of people in Victoria, British Columbia who support alternatives to
-the reformist/nationalistic agendas that dominate campaigns against global
-capitalism.
-
-[ Hope Liberty
-Association](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/hope_liberty_association/)
-An activist and anarchist collective working in Port Hope, Ontario and
-surrounding area.
-
-[ Anarchist Student Union](http://www.angelfire.com/ca5/AnokStudentUnion/)
+
+A network of people in Victoria, British Columbia
+who support alternatives to the reformist/nationalistic
+agendas that dominate campaigns against global capitalism.
+
+[
+Hope Liberty Association](http://www.geocities.com/hope_liberty_association/)
+
+An activist and anarchist collective working in Port Hope, Ontario
+and surrounding area.
+
+[
+Anarchist Student Union](http://www.angelfire.com/ca5/AnokStudentUnion/)
+
Name says it all!
[Phoenix Anarchist Coalition](http://www.phoenixanarchist.org/)
+
Excellent looking webpage from the PAC.
[The Connecticut Anti-Nationalist
-Party](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/connanp/index.html)
+Party](http://www.geocities.com/connanp/index.html)
+
Anarchist group in Connecticut, USA.
[The Baltimore Anarchist Resource](http://www.crosswinds.net/~baltanarchist/)
+
Name says it all!
-[ Red & Black Notes
-Homepage](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://ca.geocities.com/red_black_ca/)
+[
+Red & Black Notes Homepage](http://ca.geocities.com/red_black_ca/)
+
Libertarian socialist project based in Toronto, Canada.
-[Brousse
-Collective](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/broussecollective/)
+[Brousse Collective](http://www.geocities.com/broussecollective/)
+
Libertarian Communist group.
-[ Minnesota Anarchists and Anti-
+[
+Minnesota Anarchists and Anti-
authoritarians](http://free.freespeech.org/mn/index.html)
+
Name says it all!
-[ Mile High
-Resistance](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/omniocracy/index.html)
+[
+Mile High Resistance](http://www.geocities.com/omniocracy/index.html)
+
Anarchist group from Colorado (USA).
[Northwest Anarchist Prisoner Support Network](http://www.breakthechains.net/)
-Organisation to support anarchist and other class struggle prisoners.
+
+Organisation to support anarchist and other class struggle
+prisoners.
[The Toronto Black Touta Anarchist
Collective](http://www.blacktouta.org/index2.htm)
+
Anarchist group based in Toronto.
-[Federao Anarquista Gacha](http://www.fag.rg3.net/)
+[Federação Anarquista Gaúcha](http://www.fag.rg3.net/)
+
Webpage of the Brazilian Platformist anarchist group.
[FRAC](http://www.frac.ws/)
-Homepage of the Federation of Revolutionary Anarchist Collectives. Based in
-mid-USA and includes branches in Chicago and Cleveland.
+
+Homepage of the Federation of Revolutionary Anarchist Collectives.
+Based in mid-USA and includes branches in Chicago and Cleveland.
[Baam - The Black Flag Of Boston](http://baamboston.org/)
+
Anarchist group based in Boston, USA.
**Africa**
[African Anarchism, freedom and revolution in
Africa](http://www.struggle.ws/africa/)
+
Find out about anarchism and anarchist groups in Africa.
[The Zabalaza Site - A Website of Southern African
Anarchism](http://www.zabalaza.net/)
+
Name says it all! Excellent webpage, full of great resources. Recommended.
[The Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Federation's Home
Page](http://www.zabalaza.net/zabfed/)
+
Southern Africa based class struggle anarchist federation.
**Australia and New Zealand**
[Angry People Home Page](http://www.anarki.net/angry/)
-For a strong, united working class. Australian based revolutionary, class
-struggle anarchist group.
+
+For a strong, united working class. Australian based revolutionary,
+class struggle anarchist group.
-[The Wildcat
-Collective](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5728/)
+[The Wildcat Collective](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5728/)
+
Anarchist group based in Adelaide, South Australia.
-[ Committee for the Establishment of Civilisation
+[
+Committee for the Establishment of Civilisation
homepage](http://www.tao.ca/~cec/)
+
The Wellington branch of the Anarchist Alliance of Aotearoa.
-[3rdEye
-homepage](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/the_third_eye_website/)
+[3rdEye homepage](http://www.geocities.com/the_third_eye_website/)
+
A project offering news, views and abuse from Aotearoa, Land of the Long White
Cloud.
[Class War in Auckland, Aotearoa](http://go.to/classwar)
+
Excellent anarchist webpage for Auckland based anarchist group.
**Asia**
[Korean Anarchist Network](http://anarclan.net/)
+
Name says it all!
[Jakarta Anarchist Resistance](http://www.jakartaresistance.net/)
+
Name says it all!
**Non-geographical**
[tao](http://www.tao.ca/)
-Homepage of **The Anarchy Organisation**. Contains numerous anarchist
+
+Homepage of **The Anarchy Organisation**. Contains numerous anarchist
webpages.
[Forever In Struggle: Political Prisoners and Prisoners of War in the United
States, the Movement for Freedom and the Anarchist Black Cross
Federation](http://www.abcf.net).
+
Home Page of the Anarchist Prisoner Support Network.
[Anarchist Black Cross](http://www.anarchistblackcross.org/)
+
Anarchist Prisoner Support Network.
[Communitas - Home Page ](http://www.ecn.org/communitas/)
+
Anarchist news service.
[Black Cross Health Collective](http://www.blackcrosscollective.org/)
-First Aid for Radicals and Activists. They hope that the information available
+
+First Aid for Radicals and Activists. They hope that the information available
on this web site will help you to be safer and stronger in your activism.
[All People Equal - Anarchy Against Bigotry](http://www.angry.at/racists)
+
Name says it -- anarchist anti-racist webpage.
[Institute for Anarchist Studies](http://www.anarchist-studies.org/)
+
[Institute for Anarchist Studies](http://home.newyorknet.net/ias/intro.htm)
+
Webpage on anarchism and researching anarchist ideas and history.
+
+
## Anarcho-Syndicalist and Syndicalist Web-pages
**_Web-pages by individual syndicalists and anarcho-syndicalists._**
-[Mike Ballard's Home page]( http://www.stanford.edu/~miballar/)
+[Mike Ballard's Home page](http://www.stanford.edu/~miballar/)
+
Home page of Industrial Worker of the World Mike B.
-[Fredrik Bendz' philosophy:
-Socialism](http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/philo/social.htm)
-Excellent homepage with a nice introduction to syndicalism in it. Plus links
-to many free thought sites and essays.
+[](http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/philo/social.htm) >Fredrik Bendz'
+philosophy: Socialism
+
+
+
+Excellent homepage with a nice introduction to syndicalism in it. Plus
+links to many free thought sites and essays.
[Anarcho-Syndicalism 101](http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/as.php)
+
[Anarcho-Syndicalism 101](http://flag.blackened.net/huelga/)
+
Excellent site on anarcho-syndicalism (also known as **Revolutionary Unionism
-101**). Contains many of the basic introductions to anarcho-syndicalist ideas
-and history, such as Rocker's **Anarcho-syndicalism**, and accounts of
-anarcho-syndicalism in action (such as the organisation and history of the
-CNT, an account of the Aragon collectives and so on). Recommended. A mirror
-can be found [here](http://www.xchange.anarki.net/~ben/101/)
+101**). Contains many of the basic
+introductions to anarcho-syndicalist ideas and history, such as Rocker's
+**Anarcho-syndicalism**, and accounts of anarcho-syndicalism in
+action (such as the organisation and history of the CNT, an account of
+the Aragon collectives and so on). Recommended. A mirror can be
+found [here](http://www.xchange.anarki.net/~ben/101/)
[Ben's Anarcho-syndicalist webpage](http://www.xchange.anarki.net/~huelga/)
-IWW members webpage from Australia. Links to many anarchist and syndicalist
-webpages.
+
+IWW members webpage from Australia. Links to many anarchist and
+syndicalist webpages.
[Anarcho-Syndicalism](http://www.nucleus.com/~markv/aslinks.html)
+
Large collection of links about anarcho-syndicalism ideas and organisations.
[Homepage of Brian O. Sheppard x349393](http://bari.iww.org/~bsheppard/)
-Another webpage by a Wobbly. Contains an indepth analysis of Bolshevism in
-reality versus its rhetoric (entitled [ "Lying for
-Leninism"](http://bari.iww.org/~bsheppard/iain.html))
+
+Another webpage by a Wobbly. Contains an indepth analysis
+of Bolshevism in reality versus its rhetoric (entitled
+[
+"Lying for Leninism"](http://bari.iww.org/~bsheppard/iain.html))
+
+
## Anarcho-Syndicalist and Revolutionary Unions and Organisations
**_Home pages of anarcho-syndicalist and other revolutionary unions and groups._**
[ILA / IWA / AIT](http://www.iwa-ait.com/)
-Official webpage of the **International Workers Association**, an organisation
-linking anarcho-syndicalist and revolutionary syndicalist groups and unions
-across the world.
+
+Official webpage of the **International Workers Association**, an
+organisation linking anarcho-syndicalist and revolutionary syndicalist
+groups and unions across the world.
-[ Rebel Worker](http://www.zeta.org.au/~anarchie/jura/rebldesc.htm)
-Paper of the Australian Section of the Anarcho-Syndicalist International
-Workers Association
+[
+Rebel Worker](http://www.zeta.org.au/~anarchie/jura/rebldesc.htm)
+
+Paper of the Australian Section of the Anarcho-Syndicalist
+International Workers Association
[Workers Solidarity Alliance](http://www.workersolidarity.org/)
+
[Workers Solidarity Alliance (WSA)](http://flag.blackened.net/agony/wsa.html)
+
U.S. Section of the Anarcho-Syndicalist International Workers Association.
-Also has a webpage [here.](http://www.iww.org/~liam/wsa-sf.html)
+Also has a
+webpage [here.](http://www.iww.org/~liam/wsa-sf.html)
-[Confederacion Nationale du Travail (CNT)](http://www.cnt-f.org/)
+[Confédéracion Nationale du Travail (CNT)](http://www.cnt-f.org/)
+
[CNT-F](http://www.cnt-ait.org/cnt-ait/)
+
French Section of the Anarcho-Syndicalist International Workers Association.
[Freie ArbeiterInnen Union (FAU)](http://www.fau.org/)
+
German Section of the Anarcho-Syndicalist International Workers Association.
[Confederacion National del Trabajo (CNT)](http://www.cnt.es/)
-[CONFEDERACI NACIONAL DEL TREBALL (CNT-AIT)](http://www.ecn.org/a.reus/cntreus
-/cnt-ait.html)
-Spanish Section of the Anarcho-Syndicalist International Workers Association.
-For an "unofficial" page check out
+
+[CONFEDERACIÓ NACIONAL DEL TREBALL (CNT-
+AIT)](http://www.ecn.org/a.reus/cntreus/cnt-ait.html)
+
+Spanish Section of the Anarcho-Syndicalist International Workers
+Association. For an "unofficial" page check out
[here](http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/cnt.html).
-[Unione Sindacale Italiana
-(USI)](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4737/)
+[Unione Sindacale Italiana (USI)](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4737/)
+
[Home U.S.I. ecn](http://www.ecn.org/usi-ait/)
+
Italian Section of the Anarcho-Syndicalist International Workers Association
[Solidarity Federation](http://www.solfed.org.uk)
+
British section of the anarcho-syndicalist International Workers Association.
-[ Solidarity Federation Manchester Group
+[
+Solidarity Federation Manchester Group
Homepage](http://www.manchestersf.org.uk)
+
Manchester section of the British Solidarity Federation
-[ South West Solidarity Federation](http://www.southwestsolidarity.org.uk)
+[
+South West Solidarity Federation](http://www.southwestsolidarity.org.uk)
+
[South West Solidarity](http://www.solwest.org.uk/)
+
South West England section of the British Solidarity Federation
-[ Federace socilnch anarchistu (Federation of social
-anarchists)](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1211/)
+[](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1211/) > Federace sociálních
+anarchistu (Federation of social anarchists)
+
+
+
Home page of the Czech IWA Section.
[Direct!](http://www.tao.ca/~direct_ait/)
+
Switz section of the IWA.
[Industrial Workers of the World Resource Directory](http://iww.org/)
+
Home Page of the Syndicalist Union the IWW. Also look
-[here](http://www.au.iww.org/) for a comprehesive IWW branch listing. Another
-IWW page can be found [here](http://fletcher.iww.org:80/).
+[here](http://www.au.iww.org/) for a comprehesive IWW branch listing.
+Another IWW page can be found [here](http://fletcher.iww.org:80/).
-[ Portland GMB, Industrial Workers of the World.](http://00.23.com/~iww/)
+[
+Portland GMB, Industrial Workers of the World.](http://00.23.com/~iww/)
+
Home page of the Portland, USA, branch of the wobblies.
[IWW Baltimore GMB](http://baltimore.iww.org/gmb/)
+
Webpage of the Baltimore Wobblies.
[Industrial Workers of the World
Lawrence](http://www.angelfire.com/ks/iww/21.html)
+
Webpage of the Lawrence Wobblies.
-[Australian IWW home page](http://www.iww.org.au/)
+[Australian IWW home page](http://www.iww.org.au/)
+
+
Name says it all!
[Edmonton IWW Homepage](http://edmonton.iww.ca/)
+
IWW branch in Edmonton, Canada.
-[ Aderisci all' Industrial Workers of the
+[
+Aderisci all' Industrial Workers of the
World](http://web.tiscalinet.it/andbene/)
+
The IWW in Italy.
-[ Tampa Bay Area General Membership Group, IWW](http://www.OneBigUnion.org/)
+[
+Tampa Bay Area General Membership Group, IWW](http://www.OneBigUnion.org/)
+
Name says it all!
[Industrial Workers of the World](http://www.iww.org.uk/)
+
Homepage of the British section of the IWW.
-[IWW
-SCOTLAND](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/scottishwobblies/)
+[IWW SCOTLAND](http://www.geocities.com/scottishwobblies/)
+
Homepage of the IWW in Scotland.
-[Workers Solidarity (South Africa)](http://www.struggle.ws/wsf.html)
-Home page for the South African anarchist-syndicalist group, the **Workers'
-Solidarity Federation**. Old site can be found
-[here](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7017/).
-Contains articles from their magazine, **Workers' Solidarity**.
+[](http://www.struggle.ws/wsf.html) >Workers Solidarity (South Africa)
+
+
+
+Home page for the South African anarchist-syndicalist group, the
+**Workers' Solidarity Federation**. Old site can be found [here](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7017/). Contains articles from their magazine, **Workers' Solidarity**.
-[ The Awareness League
-(Nigeria)](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7017/aware.html)
+[
+The Awareness League
+(Nigeria)](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7017/aware.html)
+
Introduction to the Nigerian anarcho-syndicalist group.
-[ Anarcho-Syndicalist Group of
-Melbourne](http://www.xchange.anarki.net/~asg-m/)
+[
+Anarcho-Syndicalist Group of Melbourne](http://www.xchange.anarki.net/~asg-m/)
+
Melbourne (Australia) based Anarcho-Syndicalist Group.
[Confederacion General del Trabajo (CGT)](http://www.cgt.es/)
+
Home Page of the Spanish anarcho-syndicalist union the CGT.
[Sac Syndikalisterna](http://www.sac.se/)
-[ SAC - Syndikalisterna (Ume
-LS)](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1690/)
-[ Central Organisation of Swedish Workers (SAC)
+
+[
+SAC - Syndikalisterna (Umeå
+LS)](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1690/)
+
+[
+Central Organisation of Swedish Workers (SAC)
](http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/sac.html)
+
Home Pages of the Swedish syndicalist union the SAC.
-[Syndikalistiska Ungdomsfrbundet](http://www.suf.cc/)
-[Syndikalistiska Ungdomsfrbundet - LUND](http://www.motkraft.net/suf_lund/)
+[Syndikalistiska Ungdomsförbundet](http://www.suf.cc/)
+
+[Syndikalistiska Ungdomsförbundet - LUND](http://www.motkraft.net/suf_lund/)
+
[SUF - Gavle](http://redrival.com/suf_gavle/)
-[Syndikalistiska Ungdomsfrbundet -
-GISLAVED](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8865/)
+
+[Syndikalistiska Ungdomsförbundet -
+GISLAVED](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8865/)
+
Swedish based anarchosyndicalist group. Part of the syndicalist SAC.
-[Syndikalist Ungdoms
-Frbund](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4811)
-Swedish syndicalist youth organisation. [
+[Syndikalist Ungdoms Förbund](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4811)
+
+Swedish syndicalist youth organisation.
+[
Anarcho-Syndicalist Coalition Against
-Imperialism](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.xoom.com/ASCAI/home.htm)
+Imperialism](http://members.xoom.com/ASCAI/home.htm)
+
Information about ASCAI and anarcho-syndicalism.
-[People for a Free
-Society](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.xoom.com/pfafs/)
-People For A Free Society (PFAFS) is a Non-profit Anarcho-syndicalist
+[People for a Free Society](http://members.xoom.com/pfafs/)
+
+People For A Free Society (PFAFS) is a Non-profit Anarcho-syndicalist
collective based in East Los Angeles, CA.
-[Confederacin Sindical SOLIDARIDAD OBRERA](http://www.nodo50.org/sobrera/)
+[Confederación Sindical SOLIDARIDAD OBRERA](http://www.nodo50.org/sobrera/)
+
Webpage of another Spanish anarcho-syndicalist union.
[Syndicalist Solidarity Network - Ireland](http://www.struggle.ws/ssn.html)
+
Name says it all.
[ASF City and South Local](http://www.anarchosyndicalism.org/asfcity/)
+
Australian Anarcho-Syndicalist Group.
[Organise! Anarcho-Syndicalist Federation](http://www.oasf.org.uk)
-[ Organise! Anarcho-Syndicalist
-Federation](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/asf_ireland/)
+
+[
+Organise! Anarcho-Syndicalist
+Federation](http://www.geocities.com/asf_ireland/)
+
Home page of the Northern Ireland based anarcho-syndicalist group.
[KC Industrial Workers of the World](http://www.kcdirectaction.net/IWW/)
+
Kansas City branch of the IWW.
+
+
## Anarchist and Anarcho-Syndicalist Web-Page Rings
-**_Anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist web-page rings. These links contain information on how to join._**
+**_Anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist web-page rings. These links
+contain information on how to join._**
-[Welcome to the Anarchy, Anarchism & Libertarian Socialism
+[Welcome to the Anarchy,
+Anarchism & Libertarian Socialism
Ring!](http://www.iww.org/~jah/aring.html)
+
Web-page ring for anarchist sites.
-[ Anarcho-Syndicalist Ring](http://flag.blackened.net/huelga/asring/)
+[
+Anarcho-Syndicalist Ring](http://flag.blackened.net/huelga/asring/)
+
Web-page ring for anarcho-syndicalist sites and organisations.
-[Self-Management
-Ring](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.xoom.com/autogestion/)
-Extensive list of webpages on the topic of self-management, a key idea of
-anarchism.
+[Self-Management Ring](http://members.xoom.com/autogestion/)
+
+Extensive list of webpages on the topic of self-management, a key
+idea of anarchism.
-[Anarchy
-Ring!](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4372/anaring.htm)
+[](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4372/anaring.htm) >Anarchy Ring!
+
+
+
An attempt to get all the anarchist web-pages into a common link rink.
[Anarcho-Punk Web Ring](http://members.tripod.com/~xjwalkx/anarchopunk.html)
+
Place to go to find anarcho-punk related web-pages.
-[ The Pansexual Sex-Positive Libertarian Socialist
-Webring](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5326/pansxlsxposlswr.html)
-This Webring consists of websites which are pansexual, sex-positive, and are
-Libertarian Socialist (anarchist) in nature, or derivative fellow travellers.
+[
+The Pansexual Sex-Positive Libertarian Socialist
+Webring](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5326/pansxlsxposlswr.html)
+
+This Webring consists of websites which are pansexual, sex-positive,
+and are Libertarian Socialist (anarchist) in nature, or derivative fellow
+travellers.
+
+
## Anarchist and Libertarian Papers and Magazines
-**_On-line anarchist, libertarian and revolutionary unionist journals, papers, newsheets and magazines._**
+**_On-line anarchist, libertarian and revolutionary unionist journals,
+papers, newsheets and magazines._**
[Workers Solidarity](http://www.struggle.ws/worksol.html)
-Paper of the Irish Anarchist Organisation, the WSM, along with other
-publications.
+
+Paper of the Irish Anarchist Organisation, the WSM, along with
+other publications.
-[Red and Black Revolution](http://www.struggle.ws/rbr.html )
+[Red and Black Revolution](http://www.struggle.ws/rbr.html%20)
+
Exellent magazine of the Irish Anarchist Organisation, the WSM
[Black Flag](http://flag.blackened.net/blackflag)
+
Excellent British based anarchist magazine. Recommended.
[Direct Action](http://www.direct-action.org.uk/)
+
Magazine of the British Section of the IWA, the Solidarity Federation.
[Organise!](http://flag.blackened.net/af/org/index.html)
-Quarterly theoretical journal of the British Class Struggle Anarchist
-Organisation, the Anarchist Federation.
+
+Quarterly theoretical journal of the British Class Struggle
+Anarchist Organisation, the Anarchist Federation.
[resistance](http://flag.blackened.net/af/res/index.html)
-resistance is the monthly agitational bulletin of the British Anarchist
+
+resistance is the monthly agitational bulletin of the British Anarchist
Federation.
[Counter Information](http://www.counterinfo.org.uk/)
-Counter Information is a free newsheet detailing class struggle across the
-globe from an anarchist perspective. Tells the truth of the many struggles
-that the capitalist press ignores. Based in Scotland.
+
+Counter Information is a free newsheet detailing
+class struggle across the globe from an anarchist perspective. Tells the truth
+of the
+many struggles that the capitalist press ignores. Based in Scotland.
[Freedom](http://www.ecn.org/freedom/)
+
British Anarchist Paper, started in 1886 by Kropotkin
[Social Anarchism](http://socialanarchism.org/)
+
[Social Anarchism Online](http://www.nothingness.org/sociala/)
+
Archive for the US anarchist magazine. Well worth checking out.
[The New Formulation: An Anti-Authoritarian Review of
Books](http://www.newformulation.org/index.html)
+
Excellent source for anarchist book reviews.
[Industrial Worker](http://parsons.iww.org/~iw/)
+
Paper of the revoluntary union, the I.W.W.
[Ideas and Action (WSA-IWA)](http://www.uncanny.net/~wsa)
-Web-site has articles from **Ideas and Action**, paper of the U.S. anarcho-
-syndicalist group Workers Solidarity Alliance as well as related material.
+
+
+Web-site has articles from **Ideas and Action**, paper of the U.S.
+anarcho-syndicalist group Workers Solidarity Alliance as well as related
+material.
[Anarchist Studies](http://www.erica.demon.co.uk/AS.html)
+
Journal concerned with all aspects of anarchist theory, history and culture.
-[Rebel Worker Magazine](http://www.pitzer.edu/~dward/anarchy/rebelworker/)
+[](http://www.pitzer.edu/~dward/anarchy/rebelworker/) >Rebel Worker
+Magazine
+
+
+
Paper of the Australian anarcho-syndicalist group, the ASF-IWA
[Anarchist News](http://www.struggle.ws/anindx.html)
+
Free newsheet of the Irish anarchist group, the WSM.
[Practical Anarchy Online](http://www.practicalanarchy.org/)
+
Name says it all really. Excellent home page for a great magazine!
-[Anarchist Age -
-W.W.W.](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3879/)
+[Anarchist Age - W.W.W.](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3879/)
+
[Anarchist Age](http://www.freespeech.org/anarchistAge/)
+
Australian based anarchist paper.
-[Kaurapuuro - Sisllys](http://www.jyu.fi/~jimisi/kp.htm)
-An anarchist cultural magazine from Finland. Aims to inspire people to discuss
-and create a world based on voluntary co-operation and mutual aid.
+[Kaurapuuro - Sisällys](http://www.jyu.fi/~jimisi/kp.htm)
+
+An anarchist cultural magazine from Finland. Aims to inspire people to
+discuss and create a world based on voluntary co-operation and mutual aid.
[Le Combat Syndicaliste](http://www.ifrance.com/cnt-ait/general/lecs.html)
+
Paper of the French anarcho-syndicalist union the CNT-AIT
-[ Le Monde libertaire -- Organe de la Federation anarchiste](http://www
+[
+Le Monde libertaire -- Organe de la Federation anarchiste](http://www
.federation-anarchiste.org/ml/index.html)
+
Webpage for the French anarchist paper.
-[Umanit Nova - Settimanale Anarchico](http://www.ecn.org/uenne/)
+[Umanità Nova - Settimanale Anarchico](http://www.ecn.org/uenne/)
+
Webpage of the weekly Italian Anarchist Paper.
[Solidaridad Obrera](http://www.ecn.org/solidaridad-obrera/)
+
Webpage of **Workers' Solidarity**, paper of the Spanish C.N.T.
[Tierra y Libertad](http://www.arrakis.es/~grupotea/tylini.htm)
-Webpage of **Land and Liberty**, paper of the F.A.I. (Anarchist Federation of
-Iberia).
+
+Webpage of **Land and Liberty**, paper of the F.A.I. (Anarchist
+Federation of Iberia).
[Kaspahraster Homepage](http://www.teleport.com/~jaheriot/kr.htm)
+
An anarcho-situationist fanzine. For the revolution of everyday life.
-[Utopia](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8336/)
+[Utopia](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8336/)
+
Anarchist magazine of culture and intervention from Portugal.
[The Raven](http://www.tao.ca/~freedom/Raven/raven.html)
+
Home page and articles from Freedom Press' quarterly journal.
[Direkte Aktion](http://www.fau.org/FAU/Seiten/Direkte%20Aktion/da.html)
-Home page and articles from the paper of the German anarcho-syndicalists the
-FAU.
+
+Home page and articles from the paper of the German anarcho-syndicalists
+the FAU.
-[ Democracy & Nature: The International Journal of Inclusive
+[
+Democracy & Nature: The International Journal of Inclusive
Democracy](http://www.democracynature.org/dn/index.htm)
-[ Democracy & Nature: The International Journal of Inclusive
-Democracy](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/democracy_nature/)
-[ Democracy & Nature: The International Journal of Inclusive
+
+[
+Democracy & Nature: The International Journal of Inclusive
+Democracy](http://www.geocities.com/democracy_nature/)
+
+[
+Democracy & Nature: The International Journal of Inclusive
Democracy](http://www.aigis.com/dn/)
-International journal of libertarian socialist, anarchist, social ecologist
-and other thought. Included in past issues articles by the likes of Murray
-Bookchin and Noam Chomsky.
+
+International journal of libertarian socialist, anarchist, social
+ecologist and other thought. Included in past issues articles by the
+likes of Murray Bookchin and Noam Chomsky.
[Tidningen BRAND](http://www.motkraft.net/brand/)
+
Swedish anarchist magazine.
[Anarcho-Syndicalist Review](http://www.syndicalist.org)
-US based anarcho-syndicalist magazine. Contains articles on many different
+
+US based anarcho-syndicalist magazine. Contains articles on many different
issues and events - including articles on anarchist economics, union
-organising and so on.
+organising
+and so on.
[IAS Newsletter - Perspectives on Anarchist Theory](http://perspectives
.anarchist-studies.org/)
-[IAS Newsletter](http://home.newyorknet.net/ias/newsletter.htm)
-Publication of the **Institute for Anarchist Studies**. Pretty interesting
-selection of articles and interviews.
+
+[](http://home.newyorknet.net/ias/newsletter.htm) >IAS Newsletter
+
+Publication of the **Institute for Anarchist Studies**.
+Pretty interesting selection of articles and interviews.
[CLAUSTROPHOBIA homepage](http://www.charm.net/~claustro/index.shtml)
+
Anarchist newsletter produced in Baltimore, USA. Very good it is too.
[Eat the State!](http://eatthestate.org/)
+
A forum for anti-authoritarian political opinion, research and humour.
-[ALPHA](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4002/)
+[ALPHA](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4002/)
+
Greek Anarchist Newspaper. Nice looking site!
[la mistoufle](http://www.mygale.org/06/santacru/)
-Webpage of the anarchist newspaper of the same name. Produced by an anarchist
-group based on Dijon, France.
+
+Webpage of the anarchist newspaper of the same name. Produced by an
+anarchist group based on Dijon, France.
-[Communist
-Anarchy](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/7086/)
+[Communist Anarchy](http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/7086/)
+
Irregularly produced anarchist zine.
[Alternative Libertaire](http://users.skynet.be/AL/)
+
Belgium anarchist paper.
-[The
-Answer](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/1009/)
-Webpage of Ahimsa, an anarcho-pacifist zine based in North America. Large
-number of articles.
+[The Answer](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/1009/)
+
+Webpage of Ahimsa, an anarcho-pacifist zine based in North America.
+Large number of articles.
[Alternative Press Review - Zines - Your Guide Beyond the Mainstream
](http://www.altpr.org/)
+
Useful American based anarchist magazine.
[Venomous Butterfly](http://www.angelfire.com/or/vbuterfly/index.html)
-[Venomous
-Butterfly](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/vbutterfly.html)
+
+[Venomous Butterfly](http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/vbutterfly.html)
+
Magazine based in San Francisco, California, USA.
-[Revista
-Polemica](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2846/)
+[Revista Polemica](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2846/)
+
Barcelona, Spain/Catalonia, based anarchist paper.
[The Northeastern Anarchist](http://flag.blackened.net/nefac/magazine.html)
-Magazine of the North Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists in North
-America.
+
+Magazine of the North Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists
+in North America.
[Kaurapuuro](http://www.jyu.fi/~jimisi/eng.htm)
+
An anarchist culture magazine from Finland.
-[ Schwarzer Faden](http://www.anares.org/)
+[
+Schwarzer Faden](http://www.anares.org/)
+
Anarchist magazine published in Grafenau, Germany.
[Konfrontace](http://come.to/konfrontace)
+
An anarchist magazine from the Czech Republic.
[A-Kontra](http://a-kontra.revoluce.cz/)
+
Another anarchist magazine from the Czech Republic.
[Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed](http://www.anarchymag.org/)
+
Always interesting US based anarchist magazine.
[The Match!](http://ri.xu.org/arbalest/matchindex.html)
+
Selections from an Anarchist magazine from the USA.
-[Exceso](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/excesso.geo/)
+[Exceso](http://www.geocities.com/excesso.geo/)
+
Spanish language anarchist zine from San Francisco, USA.
-[ Sin Bandera](http://www.sindominio.net/clm/sinbandera.htm)
-Spanish anarchist publication, paper of the **Coordinadora Libertaria de
-Madrid**
+[
+Sin Bandera](http://www.sindominio.net/clm/sinbandera.htm)
+
+Spanish anarchist publication, paper of the **Coordinadora
+Libertaria de Madrid**
-[Rivista Anarchica Online]( http://www.anarca-bolo.ch/a-rivista/)
-Italian Anarchist Magazine. Contains some English translations of articles and
-summaries.
+[Rivista Anarchica Online](http://www.anarca-bolo.ch/a-rivista/)
+
+Italian Anarchist Magazine. Contains some English translations
+of articles and summaries.
[Harbinger, A Journal of Social Ecology ](http://www.social-
ecology.org/harbinger/)
-Harbinger, A Journal of Social Ecology, publishes analysis relevant to the
-growing social ecology movement and news of the activities of the Institute
-for Social Ecology.
+
+Harbinger, A Journal of Social Ecology, publishes analysis relevant to
+the growing social ecology movement and news of the activities of the
+Institute for Social Ecology.
[Thrall](http://www.freespeech.org/thrall/)
+
Anarchist news and views from Aotearoa/NZ
[Do or Die - Voices from the Ecological Resistance](http://www.eco-
action.org/dod/)
+
Excellent UK based ecological/direct action/anarchist journal.
[Arsenal Magazine Home Page](http://www.azone.org/arsenalmag/)
+
Anarchist Magazine from the US.
[NOT BORED!](http://www.notbored.org/)
-Excellent anarcho-situationist magazine (from the USA). Now with [European
-mirror site](http://archon.ifoer.tuwien.ac.at/notbored/).
-
-[ Regeneration ](http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~gonzo/regeneration/)
-[ Regeneration](http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~gonzo/regeneration/)
+
+Excellent anarcho-situationist magazine (from the USA).
+Now with [European mirror site](http://archon.ifoer.tuwien.ac.at/notbored/).
+
+[
+Regeneration ](http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~gonzo/regeneration/)
+
+[
+Regeneration](http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~gonzo/regeneration/)
+
Los Angeles (USA) Anarchist Newsletter
-[ Zabalaza (struggle)](http://www.struggle.ws/africa/safrica/zabamag.html)
+[
+Zabalaza (struggle)](http://www.struggle.ws/africa/safrica/zabamag.html)
+
South African revolutionary anarchist magazine
-[ Onward Anarchist Newspaper](http://www.onwardnewspaper.org/)
+[
+Onward Anarchist Newspaper](http://www.onwardnewspaper.org/)
+
Excellent looking anarchist paper!
[Criminal Anarchy](http://www.criminalanarchy.com/)
+
US based revolutionary anarchist zine.
[The New Formulation - An Anti-Authoritarian Review of
Books](http://flag.blackened.net/nf/index.htm)
+
Name says it all!
[Welcome to Barricada Online](http://www.barricada.org/)
+
North American anarchist magazine.
[The Utopian](http://www.utopianmag.com/)
+
US based anarchist magazine.
[Fifth Estate](http://216.127.72.138/~admin137/)
-Promoting Rebellion since 1965! The website of North America's oldest anti-
-authoritarian periodical. Not much there, more an advert for the paper than
-anything else.
+
+Promoting Rebellion since 1965! The website of North America's
+oldest anti-authoritarian periodical. Not much there, more an advert
+for the paper than anything else.
+
+
## Anarchist and Libertarian Books and Pamphlets
-**_On-line anarchist books and pamphlets - from the classics to more recent works._**
+**_On-line anarchist books and pamphlets - from the classics to more recent
+works._**
[Anarchism: Arguments for and
against](http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/meltzer/sp001500.html) \-- by
Albert Meltzer
-Short but excellent introduction to anarchist ideas by a leading activist in
-the British anarchist movement.
+
+Short but excellent introduction to anarchist ideas by a leading
+activist in the British anarchist movement.
[Now and After: The ABC of Communist
Anarchism](http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu:16080/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
\-- by Alexander Berkman
-Classic introduction to the ideas of Communist Anarchism, written by a leading
-activist. Recommended.
+
+Classic introduction to the ideas of Communist Anarchism, written by a
+leading activist. Recommended.
-[ Anarcho-
+[
+Anarcho-
Syndicalism](http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/rocker/sp001495/rocker_as1.html)
\-- by Rudolf Rocker
+
Classic introduction to both anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism.
[Anarchism: From Theory to
-Practice](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/guerin/contents.html)
-\-- by Daniel Guerin.
+Practice](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/guerin/contents.html) \--
+by Daniel Guerin.
+
[Anarchism: From Theory to
-Practice](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/nestor_mcnab/guerin/contents.html)
-\-- by Daniel Guerin.
-The complete text of Daniel Guerins excellent history of and introduction to
-anarchism. A classic.
-
-[ The Floodgates of
+Practice](http://www.geocities.com/nestor_mcnab/guerin/contents.html) \-- by
+Daniel Guerin.
+
+The complete text of Daniel Guerins excellent history of and
+introduction to anarchism. A classic.
+
+[
+The Floodgates of
Anarchy](http://www.afmltd.demon.co.uk/meltzer/books/floodgates/floodgates.html)
\-- by Albert Meltzer and Stuart Christie
-Excellent introduction to (class struggle) anarchist ideas. Still a classic
-after nearly 30 years. Recommended.
+
+Excellent introduction to (class struggle) anarchist ideas. Still a
+classic after nearly 30 years. Recommended.
[Objections to Anarchism](http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp000146.html) \--
by George Barrett
-Classic introduction to anarchism in easy "question and answer" format.
+
+Classic introduction to anarchism in easy "question and answer" format.
Recommended.
[The Poverty of Statism: Anarchism VS.
Marxism](http://www.zabalaza.net/texts/poverty_of_statism/contents.htm)
+
Classic rebutal of Bolshevik nonsense about anarchism by Luigi Fabbri.
Recommended.
-[ Marxism, Freedom and the
+[
+Marxism, Freedom and the
State](http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bakunin/marxnfree.html)
\-- by Micheal Bakunin
-Selections of Bakunin's critique of Marxism. A classic statement of the
-dangers of authoritarian socialism and the need for a libertarian approach to
-socialism.
+
+Selections of Bakunin's critique of Marxism. A classic statement of the
+dangers of authoritarian socialism and the need for a libertarian approach
+to socialism.
-[ Modern Science and
+[
+Modern Science and
Anarchism](http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/science/toc.html)
\-- by Peter Kropotkin
-Kropotkin's classic essay on anarchism, what it is, where it comes from and
-how it analyses society. A must read.
+
+Kropotkin's classic essay on anarchism, what it is, where it comes
+from and how it analyses society. A must read.
+
+[](<br)
+"http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.html">
+Anarchism
-[
-Anarchism](http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.html)
\-- by Peter Kropotkin
-Kropotkin's famous 1905 essay on anarchism for **The Encyclopedia
+
+Kropotkin's famous 1905 essay on anarchism for **The Encyclopedia
Britannica**. Still an excellent introduction to anarchism.
[The Conquest of
Bread](http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html)
\-- by Peter Kropotkin
-Kropotkin's classic vision on how an anarchist revolution would develop and
-how anarchism would work.
+
+Kropotkin's classic vision on how an anarchist revolution would develop
+and how anarchism would work.
-[ Listen,
+[
+Listen,
Marxist!](http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bookchin/listenm.html)
\-- by Murray Bookchin
+
Murray Bookchin's classic critique of Leninism. A must read!
-[ Towards Anarchism](http://www.irational.org/sic/anarchism/malatesta.html)
-\-- by Errico Malatesta
-Excellent essay by Malatesta on how anarchism is about the here and now and
-changing it rather than an ideal future.
+[
+Towards Anarchism](http://www.irational.org/sic/anarchism/malatesta.html) \--
+by Errico Malatesta
+
+Excellent essay by Malatesta on how anarchism is about the
+here and now and changing it rather than an ideal future.
[Beyond Resistance - a Revolutionary Manifesto for the
Millennium](http://flag.blackened.net/af/ace/manifest.html) \-- by the AF.
-The British Anarchist Federation's ideas on the case for a revolutionary
-social transformation into to a libertarian society, the outlines of such a
-society and the role of a globally united anarchist communist movement in this
-process.
-
-[ International Workers Association / Asociacion Internacional de los
+
+The British Anarchist Federation's ideas on the case for a
+revolutionary social transformation into to a libertarian society,
+the outlines of such a society and the role of a globally united
+anarchist communist movement in this process.
+
+[
+International Workers Association / Asociacion Internacional de los
Trabajadores](http://flag.blackened.net/agony/iwa.html)
+
Principles, goals and statutes of the anarcho-syndicalist union international.
-Excellent introduction to the ideas and aims of the IWA/AIT and its various
-sections.
+Excellent introduction to the ideas and aims of the IWA/AIT and
+its various sections.
-[ What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of
+[
+What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of
Government.](http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgibin/browse-
-mixed?id=ProProp&tag=public&images=images/modeng&data=/lv1/Archive/eng-parsed)
+mixed?id=ProProp&tag=public&images=images/modeng&data=/lv1/Archive/eng-parsed)
\-- by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.
-On-line version of Proudhon's famous and classic work. Another version (broken
-into smaller pieces) can be found [ here](http://www.best.com/~dhm/archives
-/proudhon-property-is-theft.html)
+
+On-line version of Proudhon's famous and classic work. Another version
+(broken into smaller pieces) can be found [
+here](http://www.best.com/~dhm/archives/proudhon-property-is-theft.html)
[System of Economical Contradictions: or, the Philosophy of
Misery](http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgibin/browse-
mixed?id=ProMise&tag=public&images=images/modeng&data=/lv1/Archive/eng-parsed)
\-- by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.
+
On-line version of another of Proudhon's books against capitalism and for
mutualism.
[God and the
State](http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bakunin/godandstate/godandstate_ch1.html)
\-- By Micheal Bakunin
-Bakunin's classic work on materialism and idealism. Find out why most
+
+Bakunin's classic work on materialism and idealism. Find out why most
anarchists do not believe in god.
[Mutual Aid - A Factor of
Evolution](http://www.pitzer.edu/~dward/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html)
\-- by Peter Kropotkin
+
Kropotkin's classic work on-line. A must read for all anarchists.
-[ The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists](
-http://www.struggle.ws/platform/plat_preface.html) \-- by Dielo Trouda
-(Workers' Cause)
+[
+The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian
+Communists](http://www.struggle.ws/platform/plat_preface.html) \-- by Dielo
+Trouda (Workers' Cause)
+
Classic text that initiated the **Platformist** current in the revolutionary
anarchist movement. Authors included Nestor Makhno, Ida Mett and Peter
Arshinov (all participants of the Makhnovist movement during the Russian
Revolution).
-[ Anarchism: What It Really Stands
+[
+Anarchism: What It Really Stands
For](http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/goldman/aando/anarchism.html)
\-- by Emma Goldman
+
Emma Goldman's classic introduction to the ideas and ideals of anarchism.
[Notes on Anarchism](http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/sp000281.html) \-- by
Noam Chomsky
+
Chomsky's classic introduction to anarchism. The introduction to Daniel
Guerin's **Anarchism: From Theory to Practice**.
-[Towards a Fresh Revolution](http://www.struggle.ws/fod/towardsintro.html) \--
-by The Friends of Durruti.
+[](http://www.struggle.ws/fod/towardsintro.html) >Towards a Fresh
+Revolution -- by The Friends of Durruti.
+
Produced in Spain in 1937, this is an analysis of the mistakes made by the
-anarchists during the Spanish Revolution by anarchist militants and a
+anarchists during the Spanish Revolution by anarchist militants and a
suggestion on how to fix them.
[Direct
Action](http://www.etext.org/Politics/Spunk/library/writers/decleyre/sp001334.html)
\-- by Voltairine De Cleyre
-Voltairine's classic essay on direct action and why anarchists support it. One
-of the best introductions to the subject.
+
+Voltairine's classic essay on direct action and why anarchists support it.
+One of the best introductions to the subject.
[Quiet Rumours](http://www.cluefactory.org.uk/ace/rumours/)
+
Excellent collection of anarcha-feminist articles.
-[Malatesta on Syndicalism](http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/malatesta-
-syndicalism.html)
-Extracts from the book **The Anarchist Revolution** on Errico Malatesta's
-viewpoints on syndicalism and its relation to anarchism. Very important series
-of essays and recommended.
-
-[Malatesta on the
-Platform](http://www.struggle.ws/platform/malatesta_project.html)
-Malatesta's thoughts on the Platform and anarchist organisation, including a
-discussion between him and Nestor Makhno on his comments. A very important
-exchange.
-
-[ What is
+[](http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/malatesta-syndicalism.html) >Malatesta
+on Syndicalism
+
+Extracts from the book **The Anarchist Revolution** on Errico
+Malatesta's viewpoints on syndicalism and its relation to anarchism. Very
+important series of essays and recommended.
+
+[](http://www.struggle.ws/platform/malatesta_project.html) >Malatesta on
+the Platform
+
+Malatesta's thoughts on the Platform and anarchist organisation,
+including a discussion between him and Nestor Makhno on his comments.
+A very important exchange.
+
+[
+What is
Communalism?](http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bookchin/CMMNL2.MCW.html)
\-- by Murray Bookchin
-Excellent essay on the need for social anarchism and the importance of
-directly democractic social organisation.
+
+Excellent essay on the need for social anarchism and the importance
+of directly democractic social organisation.
[The Writings of Camillo Berneri](http://www.struggle.ws/berneri.html)
-A few works by the Italian anarchist thinker and activist murdered by the
-Stalinists during the May Days in Barcelona, 1937.
-
-[ Peter Kropotkin: His Federalist ideas](
+
+A few works by the Italian anarchist thinker and activist murdered by
+the Stalinists during the May Days in Barcelona, 1937.
-http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/coldoffthepresses/bernerikropotkin.html)
+[ Peter Kropotkin: His Federalist
+ideas](<br%20/>%0Ahttp://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/coldoffthepresses/bernerikropotkin.html)
\-- by C. Berneri
+
Excellent introduction to Kropotkin's ideas on federalism by Berneri.
-[Social Anarchism or Lifestyle
-Anarchism](http://www.etext.org/Politics/Spunk/library/writers/bookchin/sp001512/)
-\-- by Murray Bookchin
-Bookchin's sometimes over the top analysis and attack on Lifestyle anarchism.
-Important for its commitment to social action and its restatement of the
-socialist nature of anarchism. Part's of Bob Black's reply **Anarchy after
-Leftism** can be found [here](http://www.teleport.com/~jaheriot/ch11.htm) and
-[here](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/mbms.html).
+[](http://www.etext.org/Politics/Spunk/library/writers/bookchin/sp001512/)
+>Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism -- by Murray Bookchin
+
+Bookchin's sometimes over the top analysis and attack on Lifestyle
+anarchism. Important for its commitment to social action and its
+restatement of the socialist nature of anarchism. Part's of Bob Black's
+reply **Anarchy after Leftism** can be found
+[here](http://www.teleport.com/~jaheriot/ch11.htm) and
+[here](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/mbms.html).
[The Ego and His Own](http://www.leikestova.org/solan/stirner/the_ego/) \-- by
Max Stirner
+
Stirner's classic work on egoism.
[The Abolition Of
-Work](http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/black/sp000156.txt) \-- by Bob
-Black
-Classic essay explaining why work must be abolished. Click [here](
-http://www.deoxy.org/endwork.htm) for a html version.
-See [ The Abolition of Work and Other
-Myths](http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/aow.html) for less optimistic
+Work](http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/black/sp000156.txt)
+\-- by Bob Black
+
+Classic essay explaining why work must be abolished. Click
+[here](http://www.deoxy.org/endwork.htm) for a html
+version.
+
+See [
+The Abolition of Work and Other
+Myths](http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/aow.html) for less optimistic
approach to the question of work.
-[The Libertarian as
-Conservative](http://hamp.hampshire.edu/~cmnF93/wrblack.txt) \-- by Bob Black
-Bob Black's brilliant essay exploding the myths that right-Libertarians are
-radicals, anarchists or even interested in liberty. A must read!
+[](http://hamp.hampshire.edu/~cmnF93/wrblack.txt) >The Libertarian as
+Conservative -- by Bob Black
+
+Bob Black's brilliant essay exploding the myths that right-Libertarians
+are radicals, anarchists or even interested in liberty. A must read!
[The State: Its Historic
Role](http://www.dis.org/daver/anarchism/kropotkin/tsihr1.html) \-- by P.A.
Kropotkin.
+
Kropotkin's classic analysis of the rise of the state.
-[An Appeal to the
-Young](http://www.dis.org/daver/anarchism/kropotkin/atty.html) \-- by P.A.
-Kropotkin.
+[](http://www.dis.org/daver/anarchism/kropotkin/atty.html) >An Appeal to
+the Young -- by P.A. Kropotkin.
+
One of Kropotkin's best known and most inspiring essays. A must read!
-[Instead of a Book](http://208.206.78.232/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker.html)
-\-- by Benjamin R. Tucker
+[](http://208.206.78.232/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker.html) >Instead of a
+Book -- by Benjamin R. Tucker
+
Excerpts from the classic work by the leading US individualist anarchist.
-[The Political Philosophy of
-Bakunin](http://208.206.78.232/daver/anarchism/bakunin/bakunin.html) \-- G.P.
-Maximoff (ed.)
-Extracts from **The Political Philosophy of Bakunin** on various topics, such
-as Bakunin thoughts on the nature of the state and the ideas and methods of
-anarchism.
+[](http://208.206.78.232/daver/anarchism/bakunin/bakunin.html) >The
+Political Philosophy of Bakunin -- G.P. Maximoff (ed.)
+
+Extracts from **The Political Philosophy of Bakunin** on various
+topics, such as Bakunin thoughts on the nature of the state and the ideas
+and methods of anarchism.
[My Social Credo](http://texts.anarchosyndicalism.org/credo.htm) \-- by G.P.
Maximoff
-Excellent short introduction to the ideas of one of the leading anarcho-
-syndicalists in the Russian Revolution.
+
+Excellent short introduction to the ideas of one of the leading
+anarcho-syndicalists in the Russian Revolution.
[Direct Action](http://texts.anarchosyndicalism.org/da.htm) \-- by Emile
Pouget
+
Classic essay by the French syndicalist thinker and activist.
[Libertarian Communism](http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libcom.html) \-- by
Isaac Puente
-Classic introduction to anarchist ideas on a free society by the noted C.N.T.
-militant and activist who was shot by the fascists in 1936.
+
+Classic introduction to anarchist ideas on a free society by the noted
+C.N.T. militant and activist who was shot by the fascists in 1936.
[Manifesto of Libertarian
Communism](http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/mlc/) \-- by Georges
Fontenis
-A excellent and important work written in 1953 by a French anarchist active in
-**Communiste Libertaire**.
+
+A excellent and important work written in 1953 by a French anarchist
+active in **Communiste Libertaire**.
[How to fire your boss](http://fletcher.iww.org/direct_action/title.html)
-Classic IWW introduction to the forms of direct action which workers can use
-against their bosses. Essential reading for all working people.
+
+Classic IWW introduction to the forms of direct action which workers
+can use against their bosses. Essential reading for all working people.
[Direct Action in
Industry](http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/practice/sp001703.html)
-Good introduction to direct action and organisation in the workplace by the
-British section of the anarcho-syndicalist IWA. Essential reading for all
-working people.
+
+Good introduction to direct action and organisation in the workplace by
+the British section of the anarcho-syndicalist IWA. Essential reading for
+all working people.
[Spectacular Times](http://www.cat.org.au/spectacular/)
-Situationism for beginners! Excellent short pamphlets on anarchism and the
-revolution of everyday life. Most by the late Larry Law. Classics.
+
+Situationism for beginners! Excellent short pamphlets on anarchism and
+the revolution of everyday life. Most by the late Larry Law. Classics.
-[ The Beast of Property](http://www.eclipse.net/~basket42/beast.html) \-- by
+[
+The Beast of Property](http://www.eclipse.net/~basket42/beast.html) \-- by
Johann Most
+
Most's famous essay. A classic.
[The Soul of Man Under
-Socialism](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/oscar.html)
-\-- by Oscar Wilde
+Socialism](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/oscar.html) \-- by
+Oscar Wilde
+
Oscar Wilde's classic essay on libertarian socialism and how it will produce a
true individualism to replace capitalism's false one. Recommended.
-[ Situationist International
+[
+Situationist International
Anthology](http://www.slip.net/~knabb/SI/contents.htm)
+
Useful collection of Situationist Texts.
[News From Nowhere, or, An Epoch of
Rest](http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgibin/toccer?id=MorNews&tag=public&images=images/modeng&data=/lv1/Archive
/eng-parsed&part=0) \-- by William Morris
+
Morris' classic account of a communist-anarchist utopia on-line!
-[Study Guide for Ursula LeGuin: The Dispossessed
-(1974)](http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/science_fiction/dispossessed.html)
-LeGuin's The Dispossessed is a recent science fiction account of a communist-
-anarchist utopia. This study aid provides a good introduction to this classic
-work.
+[](http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/science_fiction/dispossessed.html)
+>Study Guide for Ursula LeGuin: The Dispossessed (1974)
+
+LeGuin's The Dispossessed is a recent science fiction account of a
+communist-anarchist utopia. This study aid provides a good introduction to
+this classic work.
[Enquiry Concerning Political
Justice](http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/godwin/pj.html)
\-- William Godwin
-On-line version of Godwin's classic good, considered by many as the first
-book-length account of anarchist theory.
+
+On-line version of Godwin's classic good, considered by many as the
+first book-length account of anarchist theory.
-[ Anarchy and
+[
+Anarchy and
Christianity](http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/ellul/aac.html) \-- by
-Jacques Ellul
-Interesting discussion of the relationship between anarchism and Christianity.
-A classic of religious anarchist thought.
+Jacques Ellul
+
+
+Interesting discussion of the relationship between anarchism and
+Christianity. A classic of religious anarchist thought.
-[ The struggle against the state and other
+[
+The struggle against the state and other
essays](http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/makhno/sp001781/index.html) \--
by Nestor Makhno
-Collected essays by the most famous Urkainian anarchist ever. Important
-documents, as they are first translated works by the leading militant of the
+
+Collected essays by the most famous Urkainian anarchist ever. Important
+documents, as they are first translated works by the leading militant of the
Makhnovist movement and co-author of the always controversial "Platform."
[ Proudhon's Bank of the
People](http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/proudhon/dana.html) \--
by Charles Dana
+
Classic introduction to the ideas of Proudhon and mutualist-anarchism.
-[ Anarchism and the National Liberation
+[
+Anarchism and the National Liberation
Struggle](http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~jenne/bonanno.htm) \-- Alfredo M
Bonanno
+
Classic introduction to anarchist ideas on National Liberation struggles.
[On the Poverty of Student Life](http://www.slip.net/~knabb/SI/poverty.htm)
+
[BUREAU OF PUBLIC SECRETS](http://www.bopsecrets.org/)
+
Classic Situationist texts.
-[ Everything you wanted to know about
+[
+Everything you wanted to know about
anarchism](http://hal.csd.auth.gr/~hkosmidi/Anarchy/anarchy_theory.txt)
+
Good, short, introduction to anarchist ideas.
[The Tyranny of
Structurelessness](http://www.slip.net/~knabb/CF/structurelessness.htm) \-- Jo
Freeman
-Classic anarcha-feminist essay on the need for clear organisation to eliminate
-informal domination by small cliques. Essential.
+
+Classic anarcha-feminist essay on the need for clear organisation
+to eliminate informal domination by small cliques. Essential.
-[ Anarchism and the Black
+[
+Anarchism and the Black
Revolution](http://www.illegalvoices.org/apoc/books/abr/index.html) \--
Lorenzo Komboa Ervin
+
Excellent introduction to anarchist ideas from a working class black
perspective.
-[ Proposed Roads to Freedom - Socialism, Anarchism and
+[
+Proposed Roads to Freedom - Socialism, Anarchism and
Syndicalism](http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/socl/politicalscience/ProposedRoads/Chap0.html)
-\-- by Bertrand Russell
-Classic overview of anarchist, syndicalist and Marxian Socialist ideas by a
-leading thinker of the 20th century (at the time a follower of **Guild
-Socialism**, a syndicalist influenced libertarian socialist movement in
+\--
+by Bertrand Russell
+
+Classic overview of anarchist, syndicalist and Marxian Socialist ideas by
+a leading thinker of the 20th century (at the time a follower of **Guild
+Socialism**, a syndicalist influenced libertarian socialist movement in
Britain). Critical, but sympathetic, introduction to anarchism and
syndicalism.
[The Miners' Next Step](http://www.llgc.org.uk/ymgyrchu/Llafur/1926/MNS.htm)
+
Classic British syndicalist pamphlet.
+
+
## Sites on Famous Anarchists
**_Web-pages on famous anarchists, living and dead._**
[Prominent Anarchists and Left-
Libertarians](http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libertarians.html)
+
Excellent site, with short biographies and pictures of all your favourite
anarchists and libertarian socialists (living and dead).
[Anarchist Archives](http://anarchyarchives.org)
-[ Anarchist
+
+[
+Anarchist
Archives](http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/archivehome.html)
-Extensive information on many anarchists, from Bookchin to Malatesta.
+
+Extensive information on many anarchists, from Bookchin to Malatesta.
Recommended!
[An Anarchist
-Reader](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/8559/anread.htm)
-Excellent webpage containing essays and links on all the famous anarchists (as
-well as other texts and links).
+Reader](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/8559/anread.htm)
+
+Excellent webpage containing essays and links on all the
+famous anarchists (as well as other texts and links).
-[ Anarchy and Radical Left Wing
+[
+Anarchy and Radical Left Wing
Thought](http://www.alphalink.com.au/~pashton/thinkers/left.htm)
+
Extensive lists of writings from numerous famous anarchists.
[Biographies and writings of well known
anarchists](http://www.struggle.ws/anarchists.html)
-The place to find out more about famous anarchists and to get a feel for their
-work.
+
+The place to find out more about famous anarchists and to get a feel
+for their work.
[chomsky.info: The Noam Chomsky Website](http://www.chomsky.info/)
+
Extensive and well organised archive of works by and about Noam Chomsky.
[ZNet's Chomsky Archive](http://www.zmag.org/Chomsky/)
+
ZNet's archive of works by and about Noam Chomsky.
-[ Bad News: Noam Chomsky Archive](http://monkeyfist.com/ChomskyArchive)
+[
+Bad News: Noam Chomsky Archive](http://monkeyfist.com/ChomskyArchive)
+
Another Noam Chomsky Archive.
[Max Stirner](http://www.nonserviam.com/stirner/)
-A web-site about the arch-egoist Max Stirner. Contains e-texts of his less
-famous works along with his classic **The Ego and Its Own**.
+
+A web-site about the arch-egoist Max Stirner. Contains e-texts of his
+less famous works along with his classic **The Ego and Its Own**.
-[Emma
-Goldman](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8522/emma_eng.html)
-Excellent webpage on Emma Goldman, one of America's greatest anarchists.
-Includes many of her essays.
+[Emma Goldman](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8522/emma_eng.html)
+
+Excellent webpage on Emma Goldman, one of America's greatest
+anarchists. Includes many of her essays.
[The Emma Goldman Papers (DL SunSITE)](http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Goldman/)
+
The Emma Goldman papers collection.
[Basic Bakunin](http://flag.blackened.net/af/ace/bakunbas.html)
-Excellent introduction to the ideas of Michael Bakunin. Essential reading for
-anyone wanting to get an accurate account of Bakunin's theories.
+
+Excellent introduction to the ideas of Michael Bakunin. Essential
+reading for anyone wanting to get an accurate account of Bakunin's theories.
[Errico Malatesta: The Biography of an
Anarchist](http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/malatesta/nettlau/nettlauonmalatesta.html)
-Biography by Max Nettlau of one of the greatest anarchist thinkers and
-activists ever. Click [here](http://www.struggle.ws/anarchists.html) for more
-information about, and works by, Malatesta.
+
+Biography by Max Nettlau of one of the greatest anarchist thinkers
+and activists ever. Click [here](http://www.struggle.ws/anarchists.html) for
+more information about, and works by, Malatesta.
[Marie Louise Berneri](http://www.euro.net/mark-
space/bioMarieLouiseBerneri.html)
-Very short Biography of Marie-Louise Berneri, daughter of the Italian
+
+Very short Biography of Marie-Louise Berneri, daughter of the Italian
anarchist Camillo Berneri. An important anarchist activist in her own right.
[Lucy Parsons (1853-1942): The Life of an Anarchist Labor
Organizer](http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/parsonsl-bio.html)
-Biography of Lucy Parsons, the wife of Haymarket Martyr Albert Parsons.
+
+Biography of Lucy Parsons, the wife of Haymarket Martyr Albert Parsons.
Important activist of the US anarchist movement for over 40 years.
[Lucy Parsons Project](http://www.lucyparsonsproject.org/)
-Webpage about leading anarchist and IWW activist Lucy Parsons. Includes essays
-and talks by her.
+
+Webpage about leading anarchist and IWW activist Lucy Parsons.
+Includes essays and talks by her.
[The Case of Sacco and
Vanzetti](http://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/atlweb/flashbks/oj/frankff.htm)
and
+
[70th Anniversary of Sacco and Vanzetti
Execution](http://burn.ucsd.edu/~mai/sacco_vanzetti.html)
-Sacco and Vanzetti were two Italian anarchists framed in the United States in
-the early 20s for a robbery and murder they did not commit. In spite of world-
-wide protest, they were murdered by the state because they were anarchists.
+
+Sacco and Vanzetti were two Italian anarchists framed in the United States
+in the early 20s for a robbery and murder they did not commit. In spite of
+world-wide protest, they were murdered by the state because they were
+anarchists.
[The Sacco and Vanzetti Project](http://www.saccovanzettiproject.org/)
+
Name says it all!
-[ Kropotkin, Self-Valorization and the Crisis of
+[
+Kropotkin, Self-Valorization and the Crisis of
Marxism](http://www.eco.utexas.edu/Homepages/Faculty/Cleaver/kropotkin.html)
by Harry Cleaver
-Analysis of Kropotkin's ideas and methodology by an Autonomist Marxist. The
-author correctly points out Kropotkin's method of analysing social struggle
-and using this information to inform his anarchist ideas and actions.
+
+Analysis of Kropotkin's ideas and methodology by an Autonomist Marxist.
+The author correctly points out Kropotkin's method of analysing social
+struggle and using this information to inform his anarchist ideas and actions.
+
+[](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/3345/chomsky.html) >Noam
+Chomsky
-[Noam
-Chomsky](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/3345/chomsky.html)
+
+
Good introductary site on Noam Chomsky. Extensive links to other Chomsky
sites.
[Joe Hill](http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk:80/~matt/choir/hill.html)
+
Short introduction to the IWW song writer Joe Hill.
[Buenaventura Durruti, Libertarian Communist Militant of
Spain](http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/durruti.html)
-Introduction to the life of Durruti, one of the most famous leading militants
-of the Spanish Anarchist movement. As well as being a worker, union activist
-and organiser of numerous strikes and insurrections, Durruti led the anarchist
-militias which liberated 60% of Aragon from the fascists in 1936.
-
-[ Buenaventura Durruti](
-http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/durruti/sp001877.html) \-- by Peter E
-Newell
+
+Introduction to the life of Durruti, one of the most famous leading
+militants of the Spanish Anarchist movement. As well as being a worker,
+union activist and organiser of numerous strikes and insurrections, Durruti
+led the anarchist militias which liberated 60% of Aragon from the fascists
+in 1936.
+
+[
+Buenaventura
+Durruti](http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/durruti/sp001877.html) \-- by
+Peter E Newell
+
Useful introductory essay on Durruti.
[The Nestor Makhno Archive](http://www.nestormakhno.info/)
+
[Nestor Makhno
-Archive](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/8559/makhno.htm)
-Excellent collection of articles by and on Nestor Makhno, famous for fighting
-both White and Red tyranny for anarchism and working class freedom in the
-Ukraine during the Russian Civil War
-
-[ The Anarchist Thought of Rudolf
+Archive](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/8559/makhno.htm)
+
+Excellent collection of articles by and on Nestor Makhno,
+famous for fighting both White and Red tyranny for anarchism
+and working class freedom in the Ukraine during the Russian Civil War
+
+[
+The Anarchist Thought of Rudolf
Rocker](http://rocker.anarchosyndicalism.org/main.htm)
-[ The Anarchist Thought of Rudolf Rocker]( http://flag.blackened.net/rocker/)
+
+[
+The Anarchist Thought of Rudolf Rocker](http://flag.blackened.net/rocker/)
+
Web-page dedicated to the anarcho-syndicalist activist and writer Rudolf
-Rocker. Includes biographical information along with on-line versions of his
-many works (including **Anarcho-Syndicalism** and **Nationalism and
+Rocker. Includes biographical information along with on-line versions of his
+many works (including **Anarcho-Syndicalism** and **Nationalism and
Culture**).
[ Organizing for Radical Social Change Voltairine de Cleyre and anarcha-
feminism](http://burn.ucsd.edu/~mai/texts/voltairine_FST.html)
+
[Voltairine de Cleyre, the Anarchist Tradition and the Political
Challenge](http://burn.ucsd.edu/~mai/texts/voltairine_APT.html)
+
Introductionary essays on Voltairine de Cleyre and her ideas.
[Camillo Berneri](http://www.struggle.ws/berneri/bio.html)
-Biography of the leading anarchist militant Camillo Berneri, who was murdered
-by the Stalinists during the May Days in Barcelona, 1937.
+
+Biography of the leading anarchist militant Camillo Berneri, who was
+murdered by the Stalinists during the May Days in Barcelona, 1937.
-[Francisco
-Ferrer](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5422/)
-Excellent introduction to the life and ideas of Modern School activist,
+[Francisco Ferrer](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5422/)
+
+Excellent introduction to the life and ideas of Modern School activist,
Francisco Ferrer.
[Starhawk's Home Page](http://www.starhawk.org/)
-Webpage of Starhawk, an influential anti-gobalisation activist. Contains
-excellent reports and analyses of actions.
-
-[Joseph Labadie -- Anarchist and Labour
-Agitor](http://members.aol.com/labadiejo/)
-Webpage about Individualist Anarchist Joseph Labadie. Contains a section of
-his writings and details of a new book about this influential American
-anarchist and union activist.
-
-[ Radical Politics, Radical Love: The Life of Dr. Marie
+
+Webpage of Starhawk, an influential anti-gobalisation
+activist. Contains excellent reports and analyses of actions.
+
+[Joseph Labadie -- Anarchist
+and Labour Agitor](http://members.aol.com/labadiejo/)
+
+Webpage about Individualist Anarchist Joseph Labadie. Contains a
+section of his writings and details of a new book about this influential
+American anarchist and union activist.
+
+[
+Radical Politics, Radical Love: The Life of Dr. Marie
Equi](http://www.teleport.com/~glapn/ar04007.html)
+
Webpage about Lesbian anarchist and wobbly Dr. Marie Equi.
-[William Morris Home Page](http://www.ccny.cuny.edu/wmorris/morris.html)
-Home page of the English libertarian socialist and artist (and friend of
-Kropotkin) William Morris, author of the classic utopian novel **News from
+[](http://www.ccny.cuny.edu/wmorris/morris.html) >William Morris Home Page
+
+Home page of the English libertarian socialist and artist (and friend of
+Kropotkin) William Morris, author of the classic utopian novel **News from
Nowhere**.
[William Blake](http://history.hanover.edu/early/blake.htm)
+
[The William Blake Page](http://www.aa.net/~urizen/blake.html)
-Webpages devoted to the works of the English poet, painter, engraver and
-printer. Claimed by many to be a proto-Anarchist
+
+Webpages devoted to the works of the English poet, painter, engraver
+and printer. Claimed by many to be a proto-Anarchist
[B. Traven](http://www.dreamgarden.com/ksb/authors/traven.html)
-Webpage of the German anarchist who became a world famous author. Works
-include the Zapata-like **Jungle** series and other classic class struggle and
-anti-capitalist works.
+
+Webpage of the German anarchist who became a world famous author. Works
+include the Zapata-like **Jungle** series and other classic class struggle
+and anti-capitalist works.
[Leo Tolstoy](http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tolstoy/)
-Essays and information about the famous Russian author who was alway a
+
+Essays and information about the famous Russian author who was alway a
Christian anarcho-pacifist.
[George Orwell](http://www.levity.com/corduroy/orwell.htm)
+
[George Orwell Homepage](http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/)
-[ Political Writings of George Orwell](http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/)
-While not an anarchist, Orwell was a democratic socialist with many ideas in
-common with anarchism. He wrote **Homage to Catalonia**, one of the best books
-on the Spanish Revolution. Orwell wanted to join the CNT militia, so that
-entitles him to being put in this section!
+
+[
+Political Writings of George Orwell](http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/)
+
+While not an anarchist, Orwell was a democratic socialist with many ideas
+in common with anarchism. He wrote **Homage to Catalonia**, one of the
+best books on the Spanish Revolution. Orwell wanted to join the CNT militia,
+so that entitles him to being put in this section!
[Jacques Ellul](http://www.well.com/user/dhawk/ellul.html)
+
Webpage about the anarcho-Christian Jacques Ellul.
-[RECOLLECTION BOOKS ON-LINE TEXTS BY JOHN
-ZERZAN](http://www.eskimo.com/~recall/zercon.html)
-[ Spunk/library/writers/zerzan - John
+[RECOLLECTION BOOKS
+ON-LINE TEXTS BY JOHN ZERZAN](http://www.eskimo.com/~recall/zercon.html)
+
+[
+Spunk/library/writers/zerzan - John
Zerzan](http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/zerzan/)
+
Works by a leading "Primitivist" anarchist.
[BY BOB BLACK](http://elaine.teleport.com/~jaheriot/bobblack.htm)
+
Collection of essays by Bob Black.
[Lysander Spooner Pages](http://www.lysanderspooner.org/)
-Website for the individualist anarchist Lysander Spooner. Has links to some of
-his works.
-
-[ FRENCH ANARCHIST-INDIVIDUALIST HOMEPAGE](http://www.endehors.homepage.com/)
-Contains, in English, articles on and about such french individualist
-anarchists as E. Armand.
-
-[ ! Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) Sommaire (0)](http://perso.wanadoo.fr
+
+Website for the individualist anarchist Lysander Spooner. Has links
+to some of his works.
+
+[
+FRENCH ANARCHIST-INDIVIDUALIST HOMEPAGE](http://www.endehors.homepage.com/)
+
+Contains, in English, articles on and about such french
+individualist anarchists as E. Armand.
+
+[
+! Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) Sommaire (0)](http://perso.wanadoo.fr
/jean-pierre.proudhon/p_j_prou/pierre_j.htm)
+
Webpage on Proudhon (in French)
[EUROPEAN INDIVIDUALIST
ANARCHISTS](http://home.talkcity.com/Route66/acraticus/home.html)
-Find out more about the likes of Armand and other anti-capitalist
-individualists. [deadanarchists home](http://www.deadanarchists.org/)
+
+Find out more about the likes of Armand and other anti-capitalist
+individualists.
+[deadanarchists home](http://www.deadanarchists.org/)
+
Find out about anarchists of the past.
## Anarchist Publishers, Bookshops, Infoshops and Social Centres
-**_Home pages for anarchist social centres and bookshops. Find out about anarchy in action across the world. Also useful for on-line sources for getting anarchist and libertarian books and papers. _**
+**_Home pages for anarchist social centres and bookshops. Find out about
+anarchy in action across the world. Also useful for on-line sources for
+getting anarchist and libertarian books and papers.
+_**
[Jura Books Collective](http://www.zeta.org.au/~anarchie/jura/home.htm)
+
Australian based anarchist group and bookshop.
[AK Press Homepage](http://www.akpress.org/)
+
[AK Press (Britain)](http://www.akuk.com/)
-Home Pages of the anarchist publishers and book distribution service. If you
-need an anarchist book, this is the place to find it!
+
+Home Pages of the anarchist publishers and book distribution service. If
+you need an anarchist book, this is the place to find it!
[Left Bank Books Homepage](http://www.leftbankbooks.com)
-Home page for **Left Bank Distribution**. Produces, amongst other things the
-situationist classic **The Revolution of Everyday Life**.
+
+Home page for **Left Bank Distribution**. Produces, amongst other things
+the situationist classic **The Revolution of Everyday Life**.
-[223 Freedom and Mutual Aid Center](http://www.ee.pdx.edu/~spice/main.html)
+[](http://www.ee.pdx.edu/~spice/main.html) >223 Freedom and Mutual Aid
+Center
+
Anarchist self-managed centre based in Portland, Oregan, USA.
-[ Blackout Books: Anarchist Politics & Culture in New York City
+[ Blackout Books:
+Anarchist Politics & Culture in New York City
](http://www.panix.com/~blackout)
+
New York based infoshop.
[Barricade Books](http://www.anarki.net/barricade)
+
Info and bookshop in Melbourne, Australia.
-[ Freedom Press Home Page](http://www.freedompress.org.uk/)
-[ freedompress.org.uk](http://www.enrager.net/hosted/freedom/index.htm)
-Publishers of anarchist books and papers since 1886. Based in London, Britain.
+[
+Freedom Press Home Page](http://www.freedompress.org.uk/)
+
+[
+freedompress.org.uk](http://www.enrager.net/hosted/freedom/index.htm)
+
+Publishers of anarchist books and papers since 1886. Based in London,
+Britain.
[ATTACK INTERNATIONAL](http://www.attackinternational.freewire.co.uk/)
-UK based anarchist publishers. Producers of the excellent anarcho-Tin Tin
-classic _"Breaking Free"_.
+
+UK based anarchist publishers. Producers of the excellent
+anarcho-Tin Tin classic _"Breaking Free"_.
-[Lucy Parsons
-Center](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7251/lpc.html)
+[Lucy Parsons Center](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7251/lpc.html)
+
A radical left education project in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
[Lucy Parsons Center](http://tao.ca/~lucyparsons/)
-An autonomous radical community center/bookstore in Boston, Massachusetts,
-USA.
+
+An autonomous radical community center/bookstore in
+Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
[Black Rose Books](http://www.web.net/~blakrose/index.htm)
-Excellent, well organised homepage for the anarchist publishers ** Black
-Rose**. Based in Canada. Visit [ for Black Rose in Australia.
+
+Excellent, well organised homepage for the anarchist publishers **
+Black Rose**. Based in Canada. Visit
+[ for Black Rose in
+Australia.](http://www.cat.org.au/blackrose/)
[Black Planet Radical Bookstore](http://www.blackplanetbooks.org/)
+
An anarchist and radical bookshop in the USA.
-[ Black Planet](http://blackplanetdirect.com/)
+[
+Black Planet](http://blackplanetdirect.com/)
+
An anarchist and radical book mail order service
-[ Centro Social Libertario](http://www.tao.ca/~csl/index.html)
-Self-managed anarchist social centre in Spain. Includes the journal [El
-Acratador](http://csl.tao.ca/acratador/index.html).
+[
+Centro Social Libertario](http://www.tao.ca/~csl/index.html)
+
+Self-managed anarchist social centre in Spain. Includes the journal
+[El Acratador](http://csl.tao.ca/acratador/index.html).
[Westhuman Anarchist Press](http://members.tripod.com/~westhuman/)
+
Anarchist publishing base in Canada.
[Anarres Books Home Page](http://www.anarres.org.au/)
-Anarchist Bookshop in, East Brunswick Australia. Named after the fictional
-moon which was home to the anarchist society created by Ursula Le Guin in her
+
+Anarchist Bookshop in, East Brunswick Australia. Named after the fictional
+moon which was home to the anarchist society created by Ursula Le Guin in her
classic Science Fiction novel **The Dispossessed**.
-[Autonmous Centre of Edinburgh]( http://www.j12.org/lothian/ace/)
+[Autonmous Centre of Edinburgh](http://www.j12.org/lothian/ace/)
+
Self-managed social centre in Edinburgh, Scotland.
[1 in 12 Club](http://merlin.legend.org.uk/~1in12/)
+
Long running self-managed anarchist social centre in Bradford, England.
[Kate Sharpley Library](http://www.katesharpleylibrary.net/)
+
+
[Kate Sharpley Library](http://flag.blackened.net/ksl/index.html)
-UK based anarchist library and publishers. The late Albert Meltzer helped
+
+UK based anarchist library and publishers. The late Albert Meltzer helped
start it.
[See Sharp Press Web Site](http://www.seesharppress.com/)
-Anarchist printers, based in Tucson, USA. For books, pamphlets and bumper
-stickers.
+
+Anarchist printers, based in Tucson, USA. For books, pamphlets and
+bumper stickers.
-[Elephant
-Editions](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/elephant_editions)
+[Elephant Editions](http://www.geocities.com/elephant_editions)
+
Elephant Editions are an anarchist publishers who produce cheap versions of
-anarchist classics by the likes of Kropotkin and Malatesta, plus more recent
-works.
+anarchist classics
+by the likes of Kropotkin and Malatesta, plus more recent works.
[Autonomedia/Semiotext(e)](http://www.autonomedia.org/index.htm)
-New York based publishers. Includes books on libertarian marxism and
+
+New York based publishers. Includes books on libertarian marxism and
situationism.
[The Albert Meltzer Press](http://www.afmltd.demon.co.uk/meltzer/)
-British based publishers. Named after one of the leading members of the
-British (and international) anarchist movement who died in 1996. Contains
+
+British based publishers. Named after one of the leading members of the
+British (and international) anarchist movement who died in 1996. Contains
short reviews of various books, plus links to other anarchist sites.
[Kasa de la Muntanya](http://personal.redestb.es/gurmanyach/okupa.htm)
-Excellent looking webpage for anarchist social centre in Barcelona, Spain.
+
+Excellent looking webpage for anarchist social centre in Barcelona,
+Spain.
-[Catalyst
-Distribution](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.xoom.com/pfafs/catalyst/)
-Catalyst Distribution is a non-profit anarchist book distribution service
+[Catalyst Distribution](http://members.xoom.com/pfafs/catalyst/)
+
+Catalyst Distribution is a non-profit anarchist book distribution service
based in L.A. in the USA.
[The Red and Black Book Project](http://www.radio4all.org/redblack)
+
Project to publish anarchist books.
-[ The Anarchist Teapot - free community cafe & info centre in
+[
+The Anarchist Teapot - free community cafe & info centre in
Worthing](http://www.worthing.eco-action.org/teapot/index.html)
+
Name says it all!
[SYNDIKALISTISKT FORUM](http://www.angelfire.com/biz2/SyndikalistisktForum/)
+
Anarchist bookstore in Sweden.
[the Emma Center](http://www.nashville.com/~Christopher.Lugo/chris.htm)
+
An Integrative anarchist center for creativity, learning and community in
urban Nashville, USA.
[Paupers Bookshop](http://wcnet.org/~paupers/)
+
Anarchist Bookshop in Bowling Green, OH, USA.
[El Lokal](http://www.pangea.org/ellokal/)
+
Anarchist Bookshop and social centre in Barcelona, Catalonia/Spain.
[Confronto](http://www.azul.net/confronto/html/f_editorial.htm)
+
Anarchist booksellers from Portugal.
[Libertad Verlag
-Berlin/Kln](http://www.azul.net/confronto/html/f_editorial.htm)
+Berlin/Köln](http://www.azul.net/confronto/html/f_editorial.htm)
+
German Language Anarchist Publisher.
-[Ncleo de Sociabilidade
-Libertria](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/5606/)
+[Núcleo de Sociabilidade
+Libertária](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/5606/)
+
Brazilian anarchist publishers
[Anarchist Bookfair](http://www.anarchistbookfair.org/)
+
Webpage of the yearly London based anarchist bookfair.
-[ Zabalaza Books - "Knowledge is the Key to be
+[
+Zabalaza Books - "Knowledge is the Key to be
Free!"](http://www.zabalaza.net/zababooks/)
+
+
[Zabalaza Books](http://www.struggle.ws/africa/safrica/zababooks/HomePage.htm)
-Zabalaza (struggle) Books is based on Southern Africa and aims to make
-Anarchist literature cheaply available to working and poor people there --
-_"Knowledge is the Key to be Free."_
+
+Zabalaza (struggle) Books is based on Southern Africa
+and aims to make Anarchist literature cheaply available to
+working and poor people there -- _"Knowledge is the Key to
+be Free."_
[Christie Books](http://www.christiebooks.com/html/frameset.html)
-Webpage for books produced by the publishing project of Stuart Christie
-(Scotland's most famous anarchist). Has articles for download as well.
+
+Webpage for books produced by the publishing project of Stuart
+Christie (Scotland's most famous anarchist). Has articles for download
+as well.
[Wooden Shoe Books](http://woodenshoebooks.com/)
+
Anarchist bookshop in Philadelphia, USA.
+
+
## Anarchist and Radical Music and Art
-**_Home pages for anarchist and radical singers, bands, songs, art and artists. Cultural anarchy at its best!_**
+**_Home pages for anarchist and radical singers, bands, songs, art
+and artists. Cultural anarchy at its best!_**
-_"A pamphlet, no matter how good, is never read more than once, but a song is
-learned by heart and repeated over and over"_ \-- Joe Hill
+_"A pamphlet, no matter how good, is never read more than once, but a
+song is learned by heart and repeated over and over"_ \-- Joe Hill
-[ Songs of the IWW](http://www.bloomington.in.us/~mitch/iww/lrs.html)
-Classic songs from the Wobblies' **_"Little Red Song Book"_**. Fan those
-flames of discontent!
+[
+Songs of the IWW](http://www.bloomington.in.us/~mitch/iww/lrs.html)
+
+Classic songs from the Wobblies' **_"Little Red Song Book"_**.
+Fan those flames of discontent!
[The First Church of Chumbawamba](http://www.chumba.com/)
+
[Chumba.org](http://www.chumba.org/)
+
Home pages for the anarchist band Chumbawamba.
[Phil Ochs](http://www.cs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/)
-Home page about the radical sixities folk singer Phil Ochs. Member of the
-Industrial Workers of the World, he wrote many classic songs (including **Love
-me, I'm a Liberal**, **Links on the Chain**, **Joe Hill** and **There but for
-Fortune**). Well worth checking out.
+
+Home page about the radical sixities folk singer Phil Ochs. Member of
+the Industrial Workers of the World, he wrote many classic songs (including
+**Love me, I'm a Liberal**, **Links on the Chain**, **Joe Hill** and
+**There but for Fortune**). Well worth checking out.
[The Levellers Page](http://chem-www.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pfleming/lvlrs/)
-Home page of the anarchist influenced folk bank **The Levellers**. There is
-one way of life and that's your own!
+
+Home page of the anarchist influenced folk bank **The Levellers**.
+There is one way of life and that's your own!
[Uit de Sloot](http://www.cwi.nl/~jack/uds/index.html)
-Dutch anarcho-punk band. One of its members is maintainer of the anarchy-list
-(a mailing list on anarchism).
+
+Dutch anarcho-punk band. One of its members is maintainer of the
+anarchy-list (a mailing list on anarchism).
[Mutual Aid Recordings](http://www.mutualaid.com/)
-Includes the likes of Chumbawamba and Noam Chomsky (!) in their catalogue.
+
+Includes the likes of Chumbawamba and Noam Chomsky (!) in their
+catalogue.
-[ Anarchist, libertarian and rebel songs from around the
+[
+Anarchist, libertarian and rebel songs from around the
world](http://www.struggle.ws/songs.html)
+
Find out the words for your favourite anarchist song!
[Rage Against the Machine](http://www.ratm.com/)
+
Official homepage of the famous radical band.
[Brigada Flores Magon](http://www.multimania.com/brigada/)
+
Anarchist band from France.
[Utah Phillips](http://flemtam.com/up.html)
+
US radical/IWW folk singer and story teller.
-[ Donald Rooum's Art and
-Argument](http://www.sudval.org/~sdg/rooum/index.html)
-Webpage of anarchist comic artist Donald Rooum. Contains examples of his
-**_Wildcat_** comic (takes time to load).
+[
+Donald Rooum's Art and Argument](http://www.sudval.org/~sdg/rooum/index.html)
+
+Webpage of anarchist comic artist Donald Rooum. Contains
+examples of his **_Wildcat_** comic (takes time to
+load).
-[ ANARCHY AND THE ARTS](http://www.gis.net/~scatt/anarchy.html)
+[
+ANARCHY AND THE ARTS](http://www.gis.net/~scatt/anarchy.html)
+
Extensive listing of anarchist artists and art. Very good.
[Anarchist Art](http://www.anarchism.ca/art/)
-This site is the home to all kinds of anarchist and anarchistic art. They hope
-that eventually the art here will take many forms - cartoons, music, poetry,
-digital or multimedia art and more.
+
+This site is the home to all kinds of anarchist and anarchistic
+art. They hope that eventually the art here will take many forms -
+cartoons, music, poetry, digital or multimedia art and more.
-[ Joe Hill's Songs (and
+[
+Joe Hill's Songs (and
tributes)](http://www.fortunecity.com/tinpan/parton/2/hill.html)
+
Webpage on IWW song writer and martyr.
-[ The Mark Thomas Product](http://www.channel4.com/mark_thomas/)
-[Mark Thomas @ MTCP.CO>UK](http://www.mtcp.co.uk)
+[
+The Mark Thomas Product](http://www.channel4.com/mark_thomas/)
+
+[Mark Thomas @ MTCP.CO>UK](http://www.mtcp.co.uk)
+
Offical and unofficial homepages of radical comic Mark Thomas.
-[ Anarcho-Syndicalism in Audio](http://www.anarchosyndicalism.org/audio/)
+[
+Anarcho-Syndicalism in Audio](http://www.anarchosyndicalism.org/audio/)
+
Collection of anarchist and syndicalist songs.
+
+
## Sites on Anarchist History
-_**Web-pages on events which are of interest to anarchists, such as
-revolutions, social rebellions, general strikes and so on._**
+_**Web-pages on events which are of interest to anarchists, such as
+revolutions, social rebellions, general strikes and so on.**_
-[ Internet Anarchist University - Anarchist
+[
+Internet Anarchist University - Anarchist
History](http://www.infoshop.org/iau/history.html)
-Links to sites about anarchist history. Part of the Mid-Atlantic Infoshop.
+
+Links to sites about anarchist history. Part of the
+Mid-Atlantic Infoshop.
[C.I.R.A. - Lausanne](http://www.anarca-bolo.ch/cira/)
-International Center for Research on Anarchism (CIRA). This houses works on
-the anarchist movement and philosophy in more than 25 languages. Based in
-Switzerland.
-
-[ Anarchism in the Spanish Revolution](http://www.struggle.ws/spaindx.html)
-A web-page celebrating the role of anarchists in the Spanish revolution and
-their achievements in trying to create a new society free from oppression and
-exploitation. Links to over 60 articles and webpages.
+
+International Center for Research on Anarchism (CIRA).
+This houses works on the anarchist movement and philosophy
+in more than 25 languages. Based in Switzerland.
+
+[
+Anarchism in the Spanish Revolution](http://www.struggle.ws/spaindx.html)
+
+A web-page celebrating the role of anarchists in the Spanish revolution
+and their achievements in trying to create a new society free from oppression
+and exploitation. Links to over 60 articles and webpages.
[The Bolsheviks and Workers
-Control](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/2163/bolintro.html)
-\-- by Maurice Brinton
-A remarkable pamphlet exposing the struggle that took place over the running
-of workplaces in the immediate aftermath of the Russian Revolution. It exposes
-the myth that Leninism has anything to do with socialism.
-
-[ Special Collections - The Siege and Commune of
+Control](http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/2163/bolintro.html) \-- by
+Maurice Brinton
+
+A remarkable pamphlet exposing the struggle that took place over
+the running of workplaces in the immediate aftermath of the
+Russian Revolution. It exposes the myth that Leninism has anything to do
+with socialism.
+
+[
+Special Collections - The Siege and Commune of
Paris](http://www.library.nwu.edu/spec/siege/)
+
Collection of documents and pictures about the Paris Commune of 1871.
-[ The German
-Revolution](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8195/ger_int.htm)
-Documents about the German Revolution of 1918 to 1923. Concentrates on Council
-Communists involved in it.
-
-[ Hungary, 1956](http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/hungary-rev.html)
+[
+The German
+Revolution](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8195/ger_int.htm)
+
+Documents about the German Revolution of 1918 to 1923. Concentrates
+on Council Communists involved in it.
+
+[
+Hungary, 1956](http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/hungary-rev.html)
+
+
[The Hungarian Revolution](http://www.skysail.clara.net/hungarev.html)
-Short introductions to the revolution against Russian imposed state capitalism
-that occured in Hungary, 1956. In fighting against state capitalism, they also
-rejected market capitalism in favour of a system of self-managed workers'
-councils.
-
-[Russia's Revolutionary Anarchist Movement](http://iww.org/~jah/russia-rev-
-anar.html)
-Excellent introduction to the anarchist role in the Russian Revolution.
-Originally from Clifford Harper's excellent book, **Anarchy: A Graphic Guide**
-
-[ Collectives In
+
+Short introductions to the revolution against Russian imposed state
+capitalism that occured in Hungary, 1956. In fighting against state
+capitalism, they also rejected market capitalism in favour of a system
+of self-managed workers' councils.
+
+[Russia's Revolutionary
+Anarchist Movement](http://iww.org/~jah/russia-rev-anar.html)
+
+Excellent introduction to the anarchist role in the Russian Revolution.
+Originally from Clifford Harper's excellent book, **Anarchy: A Graphic
+Guide**
+
+[
+Collectives In
Spain](http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/leval/collectives.html)
-Gaston Level's excellent summary of the self-managed collectives created in
-the Spanish Revolution.
-
-[ To Remember Spain: The Anarchist and Syndicalist Revolution of
-1936](http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/bookchin/sp001642/toc.html) \-- by
-Murray Bookchin
-Useful introductory essays on the anarchist inspired social revolution in
-Spain, 1936.
-
-[Another Spain - Forgotten
-Heroes](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5602/scwar5.html)
-Article on Spanish Resistance to Fascism in France during the second world war
-from the anti-fascist magazine **Fighting Talk**. Find out about the anarchist
-militia's involvement against German occupation.
-
-[Another Spain - The People
-Armed](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5602/scwar4.html)
-Article on the role of anarchist women in the Spanish Revolution, their part
-in the street fighting in the first days, on the front line and creating the
-revolution in the "home front."
-
-[The Spanish Revolution & Civil War
-1936-1939](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9820/)
-Introductory essay on the Spanish Civil War in which anarchists played a major
-role. Has links to anarchist related sites and various viewpoints on the civil
-war (from fascist and right-libertarian perspectives to anarchist and marxist
-ones).
-
-[ The Rattle of the Thompson Gun: Resistance to Franco
-1939-52](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5602/scwar6.html)
-Anarchist resistance to the Franco dictatorship after the end of the civil
-war.
-
-[ The First Anti-
-Fascists](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5602/italfasc.html)
-Short, but excellent, introduction to resistance against the rise of Fascism
-in Italy, in the early 1920s. Anarchists played a key role in the struggle.
-
-[Makhnovists & The Russian
+
+Gaston Level's excellent summary of the self-managed collectives created
+in the Spanish Revolution.
+
+[
+To Remember Spain: The Anarchist and Syndicalist Revolution of
+1936](http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/bookchin/sp001642/toc.html)
+\-- by Murray Bookchin
+
+Useful introductory essays on the anarchist inspired social revolution
+in Spain, 1936.
+
+[](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5602/scwar5.html) >Another
+Spain - Forgotten Heroes
+
+
+
+Article on Spanish Resistance to Fascism in France during the second
+world war from the anti-fascist magazine **Fighting Talk**. Find out
+about the anarchist militia's involvement against German occupation.
+
+[](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5602/scwar4.html) >Another
+Spain - The People Armed
+
+
+
+Article on the role of anarchist women in the Spanish Revolution, their
+part in the street fighting in the first days, on the front line and
+creating the revolution in the "home front."
+
+[](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9820/) >The Spanish Revolution
+& Civil War 1936-1939
+
+Introductory essay on the Spanish Civil War in which anarchists played a
+major role. Has links to anarchist related sites and various viewpoints on
+the civil war (from fascist and right-libertarian perspectives to anarchist
+and marxist ones).
+
+[
+The Rattle of the Thompson Gun: Resistance to Franco
+1939-52](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5602/scwar6.html)
+
+Anarchist resistance to the Franco dictatorship after the end of
+the civil war.
+
+[
+The First Anti-
+Fascists](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5602/italfasc.html)
+
+Short, but excellent, introduction to resistance against the rise
+of Fascism in Italy, in the early 1920s. Anarchists played a key role
+in the struggle.
+
+[Makhnovists & The Russian
Revolution](http://members.aol.com/ThryWoman/MRR.html)
-[ Nestor Makhno et la
+
+[
+Nestor Makhno et la
Makhnovstchina](http://people.nirvanet.net/m/makhno/public_html/prin.html)
-Short introductions about the anarchist Makhnovist movement and the role they
-played in the Russian revolution.
+
+Short introductions about the anarchist Makhnovist movement and the role
+they played in the Russian revolution.
-[ October 1917 : A lost opportunity for socialism? The Russian
+[
+October 1917 : A lost opportunity for socialism? The Russian
Revolution](http://www.struggle.ws/russia.html)
+
Anarchist analysis of the Russian Revolution.
-[ The Kronstadt Uprising](http://www.struggle.ws/russia/mett.html) \-- Ida
-Mett.
-Excellent account of the 1921 uprising against Lenin's dictatorship. A classic
-introduction to a key event of the Russian Revolution.
+[
+The Kronstadt Uprising](http://www.struggle.ws/russia/mett.html) \-- Ida Mett.
+
+Excellent account of the 1921 uprising against Lenin's dictatorship.
+A classic introduction to a key event of the Russian Revolution.
-[ Translation of Izvestiia of the Kronstadt rebellion -
+[
+Translation of Izvestiia of the Kronstadt rebellion -
1921](http://www.struggle.ws/russia/izvestiia_krons1921.html)
-Newspaper of the Kronstadt rebels. Essential reading to counter Leninist lies
-about the Kronstadt revolt.
+
+Newspaper of the Kronstadt rebels. Essential reading to counter
+Leninist lies about the Kronstadt revolt.
[Pravda o Kronshtadte: The Truth About Kronstadt](http://www-
personal.umich.edu/~mhuey/)
-Good introduction to the Kronstadt uprising in 1921. Contains all the issues
-of the newspaper produced by the rebels.
+
+Good introduction to the Kronstadt uprising in 1921. Contains all the
+issues of the newspaper produced by the rebels.
[Left Bank Books Collective: Mayday
Histories](http://www.leftbankbooks.com/mayday.html)
-Short introduction to the history importance of May Day, International Workers
-Day. Has links and references on the subject.
+
+Short introduction to the history importance of May Day, International
+Workers Day. Has links and references on the subject.
[Women's History Information Project of the
IWW](http://iww.org/whip/index.html)
-Name says it all. Information about anarchist and other revolutionary women
-and their history.
+
+Name says it all. Information about anarchist and other revolutionary
+women and their history.
[Origins and Ideals of the Modern
-School](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5422/origins.html)
-Excellent introduction to the Modern School movement and its ideas. See also
-[Finding Aid : Intro & History : Stelton Modern School
+School](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5422/origins.html)
+
+Excellent introduction to the Modern School movement and its ideas. See also
+[Finding Aid : Intro & History : Stelton Modern School
Collection](http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rulib/spcol/modern.htm).
-[ The Italian Factory Occupations of 1920](
-http://www.uncanny.net/~wsa/ital1920.html)
-Important article on the near revolution in Italy in 1920 in which anarchists
-and anarcho-syndicalists played an important role.
-
-[Workers Power & the Spanish
-Revolution](http://www.uncanny.net/~wsa/spain.html)
-Excellent analysis of the role of the CNT-FAI in the Spanish Revolution from
-an anarcho-syndicalist perspective.
-
-[ The Friends of Durruti Group:
+[
+The Italian Factory Occupations of
+1920](http://www.uncanny.net/~wsa/ital1920.html)
+
+Important article on the near revolution in Italy in 1920
+in which anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists played an important
+role.
+
+[Workers Power &
+the Spanish Revolution](http://www.uncanny.net/~wsa/spain.html)
+
+Excellent analysis of the role of the CNT-FAI in the Spanish
+Revolution from an anarcho-syndicalist perspective.
+
+[
+The Friends of Durruti Group:
1937-1939](http://www.spunk.org/library/places/spain/sp001780/index.html)
-Excellent, if flawed, book about one of the anarchist groups during the
-Spanish Revolution which opposed the CNT-FAI's disasterous policy of co-
-operating with the Republican state. Author, as a libertarian Marxist, tries
-to paint the Friends as Marxists rather than anarchists, but an important work
-on an otherwise little documented group.
+
+Excellent, if flawed, book about one of the anarchist groups during the
+Spanish Revolution which opposed the CNT-FAI's disasterous policy of
+co-operating with the Republican state. Author, as a libertarian Marxist,
+tries to paint the Friends as Marxists rather than anarchists, but an
+important work on an otherwise little documented group.
[Biographie de Jules Bonnot](http://www.chez.com/durru/bonnot/bonnot.htm)
-Information about one of the French "illegalist" group active in France at the
-start of the twentieth century. Influenced by Stirner, they expropriated
-wealth all across France and in the process invented the get-away-car! Victor
-Serge was associated with them in his anarchist days.
-
-[ DAILY BLEED: Calendar of Eclectic events, Public
+
+Information about one of the French "illegalist" group active
+in France at the start of the twentieth century. Influenced by Stirner,
+they expropriated wealth all across France and in the process invented
+the get-away-car! Victor Serge was associated with them in his
+anarchist days.
+
+[
+DAILY BLEED: Calendar of Eclectic events, Public
Secrets](http://www.eskimo.com/~recall/bleed/calmast.htm)
-Extensive listing of events, people, links of a radical and interesting
-nature. Find out what happened on a given day!
-
-[ The Anarchist Timeline/Chronology (1300+ Dates & Events)](
-http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/indexTimeline.htm)
+
+Extensive listing of events, people, links of a radical and
+interesting nature. Find out what happened on a given day!
+
+[
+The Anarchist Timeline/Chronology (1300+ Dates &
+Events)](http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/indexTimeline.htm)
+
Name says it all!
[Radical Tradition](http://www.takver.com/history/index.htm)
+
Australian radical and anarchist history.
[May 1968 Graffiti](http://www.slip.net/~knabb/CF/graffiti.htm)
+
Graffiti from the general strike and near revolution in France, 1968.
[History of the CNT ](http://www.peddie.org/princip/arothman/Es97-aar.htm)
-Short introduction to the history of the Spanish CNT. Includes powerpoint
+
+Short introduction to the history of the Spanish CNT. Includes powerpoint
presentation.
-[ The Anarchist Movement in
-Japan](http://flag.blackened.net/af/ace/japan.html)
+[
+The Anarchist Movement in Japan](http://flag.blackened.net/af/ace/japan.html)
+
Excellent introduction to the anarchist movement in Japan.
-[ Cuban Anarchism: The History of a
+[
+Cuban Anarchism: The History of a
Movement](http://www.illegalvoices.org/apoc/books/cuban/front.html) \-- by
Frank Fernandez
-Excellent account of the history of the Cuban anarchist movement, from its
-beginnings to its suppression under Castro's dictatorship.
+
+Excellent account of the history of the Cuban anarchist movement,
+from its beginnings to its suppression under Castro's dictatorship.
-[ Haymarket Affair (American Memory, Library of
+[
+Haymarket Affair (American Memory, Library of
Congress)](http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/award98/ichihtml/hayhome.html)
+
[The Dramas of Haymarket](http://www.chicagohistory.org/dramas/)
+
Two excellent pages on the Haymarket events of 1886.
[Anarchism in Africa: A history of a
-movement](http://www.illegalvoices.org/apoc/books/aa/toc.html) \-- by Sam Mbah
-and I.E. Igariwey
+movement](http://www.illegalvoices.org/apoc/books/aa/toc.html)
+\-- by Sam Mbah and I.E. Igariwey
+
Excellent introduction to both anarchism and anarchism in Africa.
+
+
## Sites with useful Anarchist Resources
-_**Web-pages with useful resources for pratical uses (such as leaflets in pdf
-format, organising suggestions, etc.)._**
+_**Web-pages with useful resources for pratical uses (such as
+leaflets in pdf format, organising suggestions, etc.).**_
[libcom.org | libertarian community and organising resource for
Britain](http://libcom.org/)
+
An impression site with news, library, forums, and a whole lot more.
Recommended.
[Listing of PDF files accessable on Revolt](http://struggle.ws/pdf.html)
-Excellent collection of leaflets and pamphlets available in pdf format and
-suitable for printing.
-
-[ On-Line Literature](
-http://www.struggle.ws/africa/safrica/zababooks/Downloads.htm)
-[ Zabalaza Books - Downloads](http://www.zabalaza.net/zababooks/downloads.htm)
-Another excellent collection of pdf format pamphlets from Zabalaza Books in
-South Africa.
+
+Excellent collection of leaflets and pamphlets available
+in pdf format and suitable for printing.
+
+[
+On-Line
+Literature](http://www.struggle.ws/africa/safrica/zababooks/Downloads.htm)
+
+[
+Zabalaza Books - Downloads](http://www.zabalaza.net/zababooks/downloads.htm)
+
+Another excellent collection of pdf format pamphlets from
+Zabalaza Books in South Africa.
[A practical guide to anarchist organisation for
beginners](http://struggle.ws/ap/organise.html)
-Introduction and suggestions for organising an anarchist group.
+
+Introduction and suggestions for organising
+an anarchist group.
-[ Anarchism in Action: Methods, Tactics, Skills, and
+[
+Anarchism in Action: Methods, Tactics, Skills, and
Ideas](http://www.radio4all.org/aia/)
+
Excellent introduction. Full of useful information.
[Organize Your Own IWW Branch](http://everest.iww.org/)
+
Find out how to organise an IWW branch where you work or live.
[Organizing Center](http://bari.iww.org/homesites/organize.html)
+
Useful IWW webpage on organising radical labour unions.
[AG Kiosk: Anti-Authoritarian Poster
Network](http://www.infoshop.org/aapn.html)
+
Anarchist images.
[Anarchist Images](http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/france/510/main.htm)
+
Yet more Anarchist graphics!
+
+
## Anarchist Newsgroups
**_News-groups which are explicitly anarchist._**
@@ -2857,8 +3783,9 @@ mail, pro-capitalist libertarians (some of them claiming to be anarchists),
off the subject comments and personal attacks. But what else can you expect
from a completely uncensored news-channel? You also find interesting debates
and announcements about events, and newsgroups have one advantage over
-mailing-lists: You only read the posts you pick out yourselves, while the
-contents of mailing lists keep dumping down in your mailbox.
+mailing-lists: You only read the
+posts you pick out yourselves, while the contents of mailing lists keep
+dumping down in your mailbox.
[alt.anarchism](news:alt.anarchism)
@@ -2868,13 +3795,16 @@ contents of mailing lists keep dumping down in your mailbox.
[alt.anarchism.syndicalist](news:alt.anarchism.syndicalist)
-[alt.politics.socialism.libertarian](news:alt.politics.socialism.libertarian )
+[alt.politics.socialism.libertarian](news:alt.politics.socialism.libertarian%20)
+
+
## Anarchist Related Newsgroups
-**_Here are a list of the news-groups which anarchists will find interesting and useful._**
+**_Here are a list of the news-groups which anarchists will find interesting
+and useful._**
-[alt.org.iww](news:alt.org.iww )
+[alt.org.iww](news:alt.org.iww%20)
[alt.society.civil-disob](news:alt.society.civil-disob)
@@ -2892,211 +3822,289 @@ contents of mailing lists keep dumping down in your mailbox.
## Anarchist and Syndicalist Mailing Lists
-**_E-mail based lists which are explicitly anarchist or for supporters of revolutionary unionism._**
-
-[anarchy-list](mailto: majordomo@lists.village.virginia.edu)
-List for discussions about anarchism with over 200 members. Heavy traffic,
-most of which can easily be ignored but does have very interesting discussions
-very frequently. Its like a virtual anarchist pub (or bar). To subscribe send
-a message and ask politely to be subscribed to the anarchy-list. There is also
-an [ archive of the anarchy-
+**_E-mail based lists which are explicitly anarchist or for supporters of
+revolutionary unionism._**
+
+[anarchy-list](mailto:%20majordomo@lists.village.virginia.edu)
+
+List for discussions about anarchism with over 200 members. Heavy traffic,
+most of which can easily be ignored but does have very interesting discussions
+very frequently. Its like a virtual anarchist pub (or bar). To subscribe
+send a message and ask politely to be subscribed to the anarchy-list. There is
+also an
+[
+archive of the anarchy-
list.](http://www.cwi.nl/cwi/people/Jack.Jansen/anarchy/anarchy.html)
[Research on Anarchism](mailto:ra-l@bred.univ-montp3.fr)
-This list is moderated, which means less traffic and less arguing than the
-anarchy-list. To join, send them a message and ask to be subscribed. Visit
-their webpage [here](http://melior.univ-montp3.fr/ra_forum/index.html)
+
+This list is moderated, which means less traffic and less arguing than
+the anarchy-list. To join, send them a message and ask to be subscribed.
+Visit their webpage [here](http://melior.univ-montp3.fr/ra_forum/index.html)
[A-Infos](mailto:majordomo@lglobal.com)
-News, reports and analysis from international anarchist newsagencies. To
-subscribe send send a message with the words _SUBSCRIBE A-INFOS _ in the body
-of the message. There is a seperate list for discussing the contents of
-A-INFOS. To subscribe add the words _SUBSCRIBE A-INFOS-D_ to the body of your
-message.
-
-[IWW-news](mailto:majordomo@igc.apc.org)
-The IWW's list for alternative news. Fairly active mailing-lists, but the
-postings are not always all that interesting. To subscribe send a message with
+
+News, reports and analysis from international anarchist newsagencies.
+To subscribe send send a message with the words _SUBSCRIBE A-INFOS _ in
+the body of the message. There is a seperate list for discussing the contents
+of A-INFOS. To subscribe add the words _SUBSCRIBE A-INFOS-D_ to the body
+of your message.
+
+[
+
+IWW-news
+
+](mailto:majordomo@igc.apc.org)
+
+The IWW's list for alternative news. Fairly active mailing-lists, but the
+postings are not always all that interesting. To subscribe send a message with
the words _SUBSCRIBE IWW-NEWS_ in the body of the message.
[OneUnion](mailto:oneunion-request@list.uncanny.net)
-List for discussing syndicalism and anarchosyndicalism. To subscribe send a
-message with the word _SUBSCRIBE_ in the subject line.
+
+List for discussing syndicalism and anarchosyndicalism. To subscribe send
+a message with the word _SUBSCRIBE_ in the subject line.
[AIT-IWA-list](mailto:AIT-IWA-list-request@list.uncanny.net)
-Mailing list about the syndicalist international. To subscribe send a message
-with the word _SUBSCRIBE _ in the subject line.
+
+Mailing list about the syndicalist international. To subscribe send a
+message with the word _SUBSCRIBE _ in the subject line.
[Organise](mailto:platform@geocities.com)
-This is a private, invitation-only list run by dedicated "class struggle
-anarchists" (libertarian socialists, anarcho-syndicalists, and anarchist
-communists). To ask to see the guidelines in order to join, send email to the
-above address.
-
-[Solidarity](mailto: majordomo@flag.blackened.net)
-This list is a sister list of the Organise list. The list has the same
-guidelines as Organise -- class struggle anarchism, but the guidelines are not
-enforced. Anyone is free to join. To subscribe, send an email to with
+
+This is a private, invitation-only list run by dedicated
+"class struggle anarchists" (libertarian socialists, anarcho-syndicalists,
+and anarchist communists). To ask to see the guidelines in order to join, send
+email to the above address.
+
+[Solidarity](mailto:%20majordomo@flag.blackened.net)
+
+
+This list is a sister list of the Organise list. The list has the same
+guidelines as Organise -- class struggle anarchism, but the guidelines are
+not enforced. Anyone is free to join. To subscribe, send an email to with
"subscribe solidarity" in the message body to the above address.
[AUSANET](mailto:ausanet-request@lyst.apana.org.au)
-This is a list for anarchist discussion for Australians (and New Zealanders
-too, we assume). To subscribe send them a message and ask to be added.
+
+
+This is a list for anarchist discussion for Australians (and New
+Zealanders too, we assume). To subscribe send them a message and
+ask to be added.
[Anarchy-Ireland](mailto:Majordomo@morrigan.alabanza.com)
-Mailing list about anarchism and/in Ireland. To subscribe send a message with
-the word _SUBSCRIBE _ in the subject line.
+
+Mailing list about anarchism and/in Ireland. To subscribe send a
+message with the word _SUBSCRIBE _ in the subject line.
[Anarcha-feminist](mailto:listserv@socsci.smith.ed)
-Monster, a anarcho-feminist group in the US is running an anarcha-feminist
-list. To join mail the above address and ask to subscribe.
+
+Monster, a anarcho-feminist group in the US is running
+an anarcha-feminist list. To join mail the above address and ask
+to subscribe.
[Anetdev](mailto:majordomo@tao.ca)
-Forum for discussing setting up an international anarchist computer network,
-linking BBS'es, internet sites, etc. To join send a message with the words
+
+Forum for discussing setting up an international
+anarchist computer network, linking BBS'es, internet
+sites, etc. To join send a message with the words
_SUBSCRIBE ANETDEV_ in the body of the message.
-[ Mid-Atlantic Infoshop - Infoshop.org News and Opinion
+[
+Mid-Atlantic Infoshop - Infoshop.org News and Opinion
Wire](http://www.infoshop.org/infoshop-news.html)
-Up to date anarchist and activist news and opinion. Infoshop-news contains the
-best from the alternative press, as well as news from the corporate/boss press
-that is of interest to activists. To subscribe to Infoshop-news, send a
-message to [
+
+Up to date anarchist and activist news and opinion.
+Infoshop-news contains the best from the alternative
+press, as well as news from the corporate/boss press
+that is of interest to activists. To subscribe to
+Infoshop-news, send a message to
+[
majordomo@flag.blackened.net](mailto:majordomo@flag.blackened.net) with
-nothing in the subject line and _"subscribe infoshop-news"_ in the body.
+nothing in the
+subject line and _"subscribe infoshop-news"_
+in the body.
[Anarchist Educational List](mailto:majordomo@boink.clark.net)
-To Subscribe, send email with _"subscribe anoked-l"_ in the message BODY.
-
-[ Alternative Network for Eastern Europe](mailto:listserv@plearn.edu.pl )
-Started by the Polish Anarchist Federation. To join send a mail with the words
-_"SUBSCRIBE ALTER-EE"_ in the body of the message.
+
+To Subscribe, send email with _"subscribe anoked-l"_ in the
+message BODY.
+
+[
+Alternative Network for Eastern Europe](mailto:listserv@plearn.edu.pl%20)
+
+Started by the Polish Anarchist Federation. To join send
+a mail with the words _"SUBSCRIBE ALTER-EE"_ in the body
+of the message.
-[ Anarq-Lat](mailto:majordomo@majordomo.ucv.edu.ve)
-ANARQLAT es un foro para usuarios de correo electronico, constituido en torno
-a la tematica del Anarquismo en America Latina - Para suscribirse a la lista
-envie un mensaje sin subject, colocando en el cuerpo del mismo: "subscribe
-anarqlat"
-[Spanish/ Portuguese language list for Latin American anarchism].
+[
+Anarq-Lat](mailto:majordomo@majordomo.ucv.edu.ve)
+
+ANARQLAT es un foro para usuarios
+de correo electronico, constituido en torno a la tematica
+del Anarquismo en America Latina - Para suscribirse a
+la lista envie un mensaje sin subject,
+colocando en el cuerpo del mismo: "subscribe anarqlat"
+
+[Spanish/ Portuguese language list for Latin
+American anarchism].
[anarchist propaganda list](mailto:geton.anarchoprop@cat.org.au)
-The idea of this list is that people and groups will post copies of their
-fliers, pamphlets, articles etc for anyone to copy and use. To subscribe, send
-an empty message to the above address.
+
+The idea of this list is that people and groups will post copies of
+their fliers, pamphlets, articles etc for anyone to copy and use. To
+subscribe, send an empty message to the above address.
[Freedom Press International](mailto:majordomo@tao.ca)
-A discussion list for anarchists, libertarian socialists and other radicals.
-Themes will be varied but it is hoped that discussion will centre on practical
-anarchism and its role in the wider political community. To join the list send
-a message to the above address with the message _subscribe fpi-d_
+
+A discussion list for anarchists, libertarian socialists and other
+radicals. Themes will be varied but it is hoped that discussion will
+centre on practical anarchism and its role in the wider political
+community. To join the list send a message to the above address
+with the message _subscribe fpi-d_
[Mujeres Libres](mailto:majordomo@tao.ca)
-[Mujeres
-Libres](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Paris/2159/mujeres_mail.html)
-is a new anarcha-feminist mailing list. It is a list for anarchist women. It
-is a space for to meet, exchange information, and learn about each other and
-each other's struggles. It is not just concerned with "women's issues", but
-with all issues that affect us. We are not content to sit on the sidelines, we
-are all actively engaged in opposing capitalism. To join send a message to the
-above address and with first line of your message should read _subscribe
-MujeresLibres_. There is no need to include a subject line.
+
+[Mujeres Libres](http://www.geocities.com/Paris/2159/mujeres_mail.html) is a
+new anarcha-feminist mailing list. It is a list for anarchist women. It is a
+space for to meet, exchange information, and learn
+about each other and each other's struggles. It is not just concerned with
+"women's issues", but with all issues that affect us. We are not content to
+sit on the sidelines, we are all actively engaged in opposing capitalism. To
+join send a message to the above address and with first line of your
+message should read _subscribe MujeresLibres_. There is no need to
+include a subject line.
[INTERNET ACTION GROUP LIST](mailto:daver@flag.blackened.net)
-The list is for people who want to focus on spreading the idea of anarchism by
-Internet-related means. To subscribe, send a message to
-daver@flag.blackened.net with "subscribe iag (email address)" in the message
-body.
+
+The list is for people who want to focus on spreading the idea of
+anarchism by Internet-related means. To subscribe, send a message to
+[daver@flag.blackened.net](mailto:daver@flag.blackened.net) with "subscribe
+iag (email address)" in the
+message body.
[RELIGIOUS ANARCHY LIST](mailto:daver@flag.blackened.net)
-This list is for people who are both religious and anarchists to discuss their
-views with each other. To subscribe, send a message to the above address with
-"subscribe rel-anarchy " in the message body.
+This list is for people who are both religious and anarchists
+to discuss their views with each other. To subscribe, send a message
+to the above address with "subscribe rel-anarchy " in
+the message body.
[Atlantic Anarchist Circle](mailto:majordomo@tao.ca)
-New regional anarchist network for east-coast US & Canada. To join send a mail
-to the above address with the words "subscribe aac" in the body of the
-message.
+
+New regional anarchist network for east-coast US & Canada. To join
+send a mail to the above address with the words "subscribe aac" in the
+body of the message.
[Washington, D.C. area](mailto:majordomo@tao.ca)
-For anarchists and anti-authoritarians living in the Washington, D.C. area,
-including folks living in Maryland, D.C., Northern Virginia, Eastern West
-Virginia, and the DelMarVa Pennisula. To join, send an email with no subject
-to the above address. In the body of the message include: "subscribe dc "
-
-[Red and Black](mailto:red-and-black-request@iww.org) a
-regional list for all varieties of the Libertarian Left in the Midwestern USA.
-To Subscribe mail the above address with the SUBJECT subscribe.
+
+For anarchists and anti-authoritarians living in the Washington,
+D.C. area, including folks living in Maryland, D.C., Northern Virginia,
+Eastern West Virginia, and the DelMarVa Pennisula. To join, send an
+email with no subject to the above address. In the body of the message
+include: "subscribe dc "
+
+[Red and Black](mailto:red-and-black-request@iww.org)
+a
+regional list for all varieties of the Libertarian
+Left in the Midwestern USA. To Subscribe mail the above address
+with the SUBJECT subscribe.
[Anarchy in the South U.S.](mailto:majordomo@tao.ca)
-A new listserv which hopes to become an online community for anarchists, left-
-libertarians, and anti-authoritarians living in the southeastern United
-States. To subscribe email the above address with the message "subscribe south
-"
-
-[Alternative Network for Eastern Europe ](mailto:listserv@plearn.edu.pl)
->br>Started by the Polish Anarchist Federation. To join send mail to the above
-address with the words "SUBSCRIBE ALTER-EE" in the body of the message. Also
-see [this webpage](http://www.most.org.pl/alter/fa).
+
+A new listserv which hopes to become an online community for
+anarchists, left-libertarians, and anti-authoritarians living in the
+southeastern United States. To subscribe email the above address with
+the message "subscribe south "
+
+[Alternative Network for Eastern Europe
+](mailto:listserv@plearn.edu.pl)
+>br>Started by the Polish Anarchist Federation. To join send mail to the
+above address with the words "SUBSCRIBE ALTER-EE" in the body of the message.
+Also see [this webpage](http://www.most.org.pl/alter/fa).
[Ex-yu-a-lista](http://inje.iskon.hr/mailman/listinfo/ex-yu-a-lista)
-Ex-yu-a-lista is meant for circulation of information and discussion among
-anarchists in countries which emerged from what was once SFR Yugoslavia.
-Language(s): southslavic. To subscribe visit the above webpage and fill in the
-details.
+
+Ex-yu-a-lista is meant for circulation of information and discussion
+among anarchists in countries which emerged from what was once SFR Yugoslavia.
+Language(s): southslavic. To subscribe visit the above webpage and fill
+in the details.
[Anarko](mailto:ravelre@dlc.fi)
-Anarchist list for finnish-speaking anarchists. To join, contact the above
+
+Anarchist list for finnish-speaking anarchists. To join, contact the above
address.
[Confederation of Anarchist Youth](mailto:listserv@burn.ucsd.edu)
-This is a new net work of young anarchists. To join their mailing list, send a
-mail to the above address with "SUBSCRIBE CAY (firstname) (lastname)" in body
-of the message.
-
-[WSA-talk](mailto:WSA-talk-request@list.uncanny.net) The list of the American
-section of the IWA. To join send a message to the above address with the word
-SUBSCRIBE in the subject line.
-
-[ Chicano/a, Mexicano/a Anarchists](mailto:yabasta-subscribe@egroups.com)
-Mailing list created by and for Chicano/a, Mexicano/a Anarchists to discuss
-our ideas, culture and projects. To join, send a blank message to the above
-address.
+
+This is a new net work of young anarchists. To join their mailing list,
+send a mail to the above address with "SUBSCRIBE CAY (firstname) (lastname)"
+in body of the message.
+
+[WSA-talk](mailto:WSA-talk-request@list.uncanny.net)
+The list of the American section of the IWA. To join send a message to the
+above address with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject line.
+
+[
+Chicano/a, Mexicano/a Anarchists](mailto:yabasta-subscribe@egroups.com)
+
+Mailing list created by and for Chicano/a, Mexicano/a Anarchists
+to discuss our ideas, culture and projects. To join, send a blank message
+to the above address.
[Kansas City Anarchists List](mailto:majordomo@tao.c)
-Organizing and announcements list for anarchists living in the Kansas
-City/Lawrence region of the U.S. To subscribe send an email to the above
-address with "subscribe kc"
+
+Organizing and announcements list for anarchists living in the
+Kansas City/Lawrence region of the U.S. To subscribe send an
+email to the above address with "subscribe kc"
[Black/African American Anarchists](mailto:majordomo@flag.blackened.net)
-A mailing list for black/African American people interested in
-anarchism/libertarian socialism. To subscribe, send a message to the above
-address with "subscribe black-libertarians" in the message body.
+
+A mailing list for black/African American people interested
+in anarchism/libertarian socialism. To subscribe, send a
+message to the above address with "subscribe black-libertarians"
+in the message body.
[Anarchism](mailto:anarchism-subscribe@egroups.com)
-A list like the popular "Anarchy-List" but moderated to eliminate abuse and
-spam. To subscribe send an empty message to the above address. To subscribe to
-an unmoderated version, send an empty message to [this address](mailto
-:anarchism-subscribe@onelist.com). These lists are anti-capitalist.
+
+A list like the popular "Anarchy-List" but moderated to eliminate
+abuse and spam. To subscribe send an empty message to the above address.
+To subscribe to an unmoderated version, send an empty message to
+[this address](mailto:anarchism-subscribe@onelist.com).
+These lists are anti-capitalist.
[Anarchist Teachers list](mailto:lists@tao.ca)
-A list for anarchist and anti-authoritarian teachers, educators,
-schoolworkers, free skool instructors, and educational workers has been set
-up. You don't have to teach a class in anarchism to join. If you teach math,
-but consider yourself an anarchist, please feel free to join. If you work in a
-school cafeteria, you can also join. To subscribe, send an email to the above
+
+
+A list for anarchist and anti-authoritarian teachers, educators,
+schoolworkers, free skool instructors, and educational workers
+has been set up. You don't have to teach a class in anarchism to
+join. If you teach math, but consider yourself an anarchist,
+please feel free to join. If you work in a school cafeteria,
+you can also join. To subscribe, send an email to the above
address and in the body, type: "subscribe teachers"
-[ Anarchism and the Spanish Revolution email
+[
+Anarchism and the Spanish Revolution email
list](http://www.struggle.ws/lists/spain.html)
+
For those interested in discussing the Spanish Revolution.
-[ The Anarchist Platform - a mailing list for anarchists
+[
+The Anarchist Platform - a mailing list for anarchists
](http://www.struggle.ws/platform.html)
-For those interested in discussing Platformist anarchism and the Platform of
-Libertarian Communism.
+
+For those interested in discussing Platformist anarchism and
+the Platform of Libertarian Communism.
[ATUN](http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atundiscussiongroup/)
-Discussion list for UK based Anarchists interested in industrial networking,
-organising and struggle.
+
+Discussion list for UK based Anarchists interested in industrial
+networking, organising and struggle.
+
+
+
+[‹ An Anarchist FAQ links](/afaq/links.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/links.html "Go to parent page" ) [Sites of interest to Anarchists
+›](/afaq/arlinks.html "Go to next page" )
diff --git a/markdown/append1.md b/markdown/append1.md
index cc4cfe3a0f8fc658b56a07bd18a22a76a48e420a..384404e8c5007746565eb1fb67396ad0ddf3231e 100644
--- a/markdown/append1.md
+++ b/markdown/append1.md
@@ -44,12 +44,13 @@ opposed capitalism and always will.
##
-* [Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory FAQ" version 5.2](append11.html)
+ * [Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory FAQ" version 5.2](append11.html)
###
[1 Individualist Anarchists and the socialist movement.
-[2 Why is Caplan's definition of socialism wrong?](append11.html#app2)
+](append11.html#app1)[2 Why is Caplan's definition of socialism
+wrong?](append11.html#app2)
[3 Was Proudhon a socialist or a capitalist? ](append11.html#app3)
[4 Tucker on Property, Communism and Socialism. ](append11.html#app4)
[5 Anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism.](append11.html#app5)
@@ -57,7 +58,7 @@ opposed capitalism and always will.
##
-* [Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory FAQ" version 4.1.1](append12.html)
+ * [Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory FAQ" version 4.1.1](append12.html)
###
@@ -69,5 +70,14 @@ opposed capitalism and always will.
##
-* [Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?](append13.html)
+ * [Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?](append13.html)
+
+ * [Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory FAQ" version 5.2](/afaq/append11.html)
+ * [Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory FAQ" version 4.1.1](/afaq/append12.html)
+ * [Appendix - Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?](/afaq/append13.html)
+
+[‹ J.7 What do anarchists mean by "social revolution"?](/afaq/secJ7.html "Go
+to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/index.html "Go to parent page" ) [Replies to
+Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory FAQ" version
+5.2 ›](/afaq/append11.html "Go to next page" )
diff --git a/markdown/append11.md b/markdown/append11.md
index 858d51b4b985d659e18ebcf162b8e22cf8ea4255..22802f0d93065b908bc99ef505b8178f66e46d05 100644
--- a/markdown/append11.md
+++ b/markdown/append11.md
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
#
-* Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory FAQ" version 5.2
+ * Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory FAQ" version 5.2
-## 1 - Individualist Anarchists and the socialist movement.
+## 1 - Individualist Anarchists and the socialist movement
Caplan, in his FAQ, attempts to rewrite anarchist history by trying to claim
that the individualist anarchists were forerunners of the so-called "anarcho-
@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ was _"the most profound thinker among pre-Marxian socialists."_ [p. 67] Given
that Caplan elsewhere in his FAQ tries to co-opt Proudhon into the
"anarcho"-capitalist school as well as Tucker, his citing of Landauer seems
particularly dishonest. Landauer presents Proudhon's ideas in some depth in
-his work within a chapter headed _**"The three Anticapitalistic Movements."_**
+his work within a chapter headed _**"The three Anticapitalistic Movements."**_
Indeed, he starts his discussion of Proudhon's ideas with the words _"In
France, post-Utopian socialism begins with Peter Joseph Proudhon."_ [p. 59]
Given that both Kropotkin and Tucker indicated that Individualist Anarchism
@@ -578,23 +578,24 @@ his dictum that it was theft)"_[**Anarchism: Arguments For and Against**, pp.
Malatesta makes the same point:
> _"Our opponents . . . are in the habit of justifying the right to private
-property by stating that property is the condition and guarantee of liberty.
+property by stating that property is the condition and guarantee of liberty. _
>
-> "And we agree with them. Do we not say repeatedly that poverty is slavery?
+> _"And we agree with them. Do we not say repeatedly that poverty is slavery?
+_
>
-> "But then why do we oppose them?
+> _"But then why do we oppose them? _
>
-> "The reason is clear: in reality the property that they defend is capitalist
-property. . . which therefore depends on the existence of a class of the
-disinherited and dispossessed, forced to sell their labour to the property
-owners for a wage below its real value. . . This means that workers are
-subjected to a kind of slavery."_ [**The Anarchist Revolution**, p. 113]
+> _"The reason is clear: in reality the property that they defend is
+capitalist property. . . which therefore depends on the existence of a class
+of the disinherited and dispossessed, forced to sell their labour to the
+property owners for a wage below its real value. . . This means that workers
+are subjected to a kind of slavery."_ [**The Anarchist Revolution**, p. 113]
As does Kropotkin:
@@ -623,7 +624,7 @@ _"by nature autocratic"_ and that its _"politics could be summed up in a
single word,"_ namely _"exploitation."_ [p. 141, p. 140, p. 134]
Moreover, Proudhon argues that _"spread[ing] it more equally and
-establish[ing] it more firmly in society"_ is the means by which "property"_
+establish[ing] it more firmly in society"_ is the means by which "property"
_"becomes a guarantee of liberty and keeps the State on an even keel."_ [p.
133, p. 140] In other words, rather than "property" **as such** limiting the
state, it is "property" divided equally through society which is the key,
@@ -1068,6 +1069,8 @@ In other words, "anarcho"-capitalism is a development of ideas which have
little in common with anarchism. Jeremy Jennings, in his overview of anarchist
theory and history, agrees:
+
+
> _"It is hard not to conclude that these ideas ["anarcho"-capitalism] -- with
roots deep in classical liberalism -- are described as anarchist only on the
basis of a misunderstanding of what anarchism is."_ [**Contemporary Political
@@ -1114,28 +1117,47 @@ theory and history. Ignored is any attempt to understand their ideas on
property and instead Caplan just concentrates on the fact they use the word.
Caplan also ignores:
-> * their many statements on being socialists and part of the wider socialist
-movement.
+> * their many statements on being socialists and part of the wider
+socialist movement.
+
+>
+
+>
>
-> * their opposition to capitalist property-rights in land and other scarce
+> * their opposition to capitalist property-rights in land and other scarce
resources.
>
-> * their recognition that capitalism was based on usury and that it was
+>
+
+>
+
+> * their recognition that capitalism was based on usury and that it was
exploitation.
>
-> * their attacks on government **and** capital, rather than just government.
+>
>
-> * their support for strikes and other forms of direct action by workers to
+> * their attacks on government **and** capital, rather than just
+government.
+
+>
+
+>
+
+>
+
+> * their support for strikes and other forms of direct action by workers to
secure the full product of their labour.
+>
+
In fact, the only things considered useful seems to be the individualist
anarchist's support for free agreement (something Kropotkin also agreed with)
and their use of the word "property." But even a cursory investigation
@@ -1505,3 +1527,8 @@ new label to call themselves rather than steal our name.
Although most anarchists disagree on many things, the denial of our history is
not one of them.
+[‹ Appendix : Anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism](/afaq/append1.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/append1.html "Go to parent page" ) [Replies to
+Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory FAQ" version
+4.1.1 ›](/afaq/append12.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/append12.md b/markdown/append12.md
index eafc75d1b982d512e02893c77b69a7335ef4f3e1..d0bc4ff82425f0eae0a7ceb0bdaf76ca7c4cb63d 100644
--- a/markdown/append12.md
+++ b/markdown/append12.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
#
-* Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory FAQ" version 4.1.1.
+ * Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory FAQ" version 4.1.1.
There have been a few "anarchist" FAQ's produced before. Bryan Caplan's
anarchism FAQ is one of the more recent. While appearing to be a "neutral"
@@ -426,7 +426,7 @@ their right would be respected (although, of course, anarchists would seek to
convince those who live in such a regime of the benefits of anarchism!). As
Malatesta pointed out, _"free and voluntary communism is ironical if one has
not the right and the possibility to live in a different regime, collectivist,
-mutualist, individualist \-- as one wishes, always on condition that there is
+mutualist, individualist -- as one wishes, always on condition that there is
no oppression or exploitation of other"_ as _"it is clear that all, and only,
those ways of life which respect freedom, and recognise that each individual
has an equal right to the means of production and to the full enjoyment of the
@@ -497,10 +497,11 @@ about within a "inegalitarian" legal framework! Thus, given that everything
would be privatised, dissenters could only experiment if they could afford it
**and** accepted the legal system based on capitalist property rights (and, of
course, survive the competition of capitalist companies within the capitalist
-framework). As we have argued in sections [B.4](secB4.html) and [F.3why**
-should we have to **pay** the stealers of the earth for the privilege to life
-our own lives? Caplan, in effect, ignores the barriers to experimentation in
-his system while distorting the anarchist position.
+framework). As we have argued in sections [B.4](secB4.html) and
+[F.3](secF3.html) **why** should we have to **pay** the stealers of the earth
+for the privilege to life our own lives? Caplan, in effect, ignores the
+barriers to experimentation in his system while distorting the anarchist
+position.
## 5 How would anarcho-capitalism work?
@@ -563,7 +564,7 @@ the have-nots (as history again and again shows).
Moreover, the capitalism can easily lead to resources being allocated to the
most profitable uses rather than those which are most needed by individuals. A
classic example is in the case of famines. Amartya Sen (who won the 1998 Nobel
-Prize for economics) developed an _**"entitlement"_** approach to the study of
+Prize for economics) developed an _**"entitlement"**_ approach to the study of
famine. This approach starts with the insight that having food available in a
country or region does not mean everyone living there is "entitled" to it. In
market economies, people are entitled to food according to their ability to
@@ -669,7 +670,7 @@ high progress for deregulated systems seems at odds with this evidence.
As far as technological innovation goes, it is also not clear that
deregulation has aided that process. Much of our modern technology owns its
origins to the US Pentagon system, in which public money is provided to
-companies for military R&D; purposes. Once the technology has been proven
+companies for military R&D purposes. Once the technology has been proven
viable, the companies involved can sell their public subsidised products for
private profit. The computer industry (as we point out in [section
J.4.7](secJ4.html#secj47)) is a classic example of this -- indeed it is
@@ -1204,6 +1205,10 @@ law, etc. And Friedman admits that 'focal points' including prevalent norms
are likely to circumscribe and somewhat standardise the menu of available
legal codes."_
+>
+
+>
+
The argument that "consumer demand" would determine a "philosophically
neutral" content of the law cannot be sustained. Any law code will reflect the
philosophy of those who create it. Under "anarcho"-capitalism, as we have
@@ -1405,6 +1410,10 @@ more moderate libertarian. Services should be privatised and opened to free
competition; regulation of personal AND economic behaviour should be done away
with."_
+>
+
+>
+
The "anarcho"-capitalist's professed desire to "do away" with the "regulation"
of economic behaviour is entirely disingenuous. For, by giving capitalists the
ability to protect their exploitative monopolies of social capital by the use
@@ -1509,6 +1518,10 @@ hasten to add that a deregulated economy would greatly increase the economic
opportunities of the poor, and elimination of taxation would lead to a large
increase in charitable giving.)"_
+>
+
+>
+
Notice the implication that poverty is now caused by laziness and
irresponsibility rather than by the inevitable workings of an economic system
that **requires** a large _"reserve army of the unemployed"_ as a condition of
@@ -1550,3 +1563,9 @@ or the rabble, hinders their Lockean right to amass capital."_ [**Social
Anarchism**, no. 23, p.101] Caplan seems to expect them to turn over a new
leaf and give **more** to that same rabble!
+[‹ Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory
+FAQ" version 5.2](/afaq/append11.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/append1.html "Go to parent page" ) [Appendix - Is
+"anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism? ›](/afaq/append13.html "Go to next
+page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/append13.md b/markdown/append13.md
index 278f725000fa39f5cc97c85e58afbdd130f3a52d..03c7a6b2b43e519f050728ce9b0467566e9b0202 100644
--- a/markdown/append13.md
+++ b/markdown/append13.md
@@ -1,25 +1,25 @@
# Appendix -- Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?
+
+
## [Introduction](append13int.html)
-[
-## 1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?](append131.html)
-### [1.1 Why is the failure to renounce hierarchy the Achilles Heel of right-
+## [1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?](append131.html)
+
+### [1.1 Why is the failure to renounce hierarchy the Achilles Heel of right-
wing libertarianism?](append131.html#secf11)
[1.2 How libertarian is right-Libertarian theory?](append131.html#secf12)
[1.3 Is right-Libertarian theory scientific in nature?](append131.html#secf13)
[1.4 Is "anarcho"-capitalism a new form of individualist
-anarchism?](append131.html#secf14)
+anarchism?](append131.html#secf14)
-[
-
-## 2 What do "anarcho"-capitalists mean by "freedom?"
+###
-](append132.html)
+## [2 What do "anarcho"-capitalists mean by "freedom?"](append132.html)
-### [2.1 What are the implications of defining liberty in terms of (property)
+### [2.1 What are the implications of defining liberty in terms of (property)
rights?](append132.html#secf21)
[2.2 How does private property affect freedom?](append132.html#secf22)
[2.3 Can "anarcho"-capitalist theory justify the
@@ -32,71 +32,69 @@ objected to?](append132.html#secf25)
[2.7 But surely abolishing capitalism would restrict
liberty?](append132.html#secf27)
[2.8 Why should we reject the "anarcho"-capitalist definitions of freedom and
-justice?](append132.html#secf28)
+justice?](append132.html#secf28)
-[
+##
-## 3 Why do "anarcho"-capitalists generally place little or no value on
-"equality"?
+## [3 Why do "anarcho"-capitalists generally place little or no value on
+"equality"?](append133.html)
###
[3.1 Why is this disregard for equality important?](append133.html#secf31)
[3.2 But what about "anarcho"-capitalist support for
-charity?](append133.html#secf32)
+charity?](append133.html#secf32)
-[
+## [4 What is the right-libertarian position on private
+property?](append134.html)
-## 4 What is the right-libertarian position on private property?
-
-](append134.html)
-
-### [4.1 What is wrong with a "homesteading" theory of
+### [4.1 What is wrong with a "homesteading" theory of
property?](append134.html#secf41)
[4.2 Why is the "Lockean Proviso" important?](append134.html#secf42)
[4.3 How does private property affect individualism?](append134.html#secf43)
[4.4 How does private property affect relationships?](append134.html#secf44)
[4.5 Does private property co-ordinate without
-hierarchy?](append134.html#secf45)
+hierarchy?](append134.html#secf45)
+
+
-[
+## [5 Will privatising "the commons" increase liberty?
+](append135.html)
-## 5 Will privatising "the commons" increase liberty?
-](append135.html) [
-## 6 Is "anarcho" capitalism against the state?
+## [6 Is "anarcho" capitalism against the state?](append136.html)
-](append136.html)
-### [6.1 What's wrong with this "free market"
-justice?](append136.html#secf61)
+
+### [6.1 What's wrong with this "free market" justice?](append136.html#secf61)
[6.2 What are the social consequences of such a
system?](append136.html#secf62)
[6.3 But surely Market Forces will stop abuse by the
rich?](append136.html#secf63)
[6.4 Why are these "defence associations" states?](append136.html#secf64)
[6.5 What other effects would "free market" justice
-have?](append136.html#secf65)
+have?](append136.html#secf65)
+
-[
-## 7 How does the history of "anarcho"-capitalism show that it is not
-anarchist?
+## [7 How does the history of "anarcho"-capitalism show that it is not
+anarchist?](append137.html)
-](append137.html)
-### [7.1 Are competing governments anarchism?](append137.html#secf71)
+
+### [7.1 Are competing governments anarchism?](append137.html#secf71)
[7.2 Is government compatible with anarchism?](append137.html#secf72)
-[7.3 Can there be a "right-wing" anarchism?](append137.html#secf73)
+[7.3 Can there be a "right-wing" anarchism?](append137.html#secf73)
+
-[
-## 8 What role did the state take in the creation of capitalism?
+## [8 What role did the state take in the creation of
+capitalism?](append138.html)
-](append138.html)
-### [8.1 What social forces lay behind the rise of
+
+### [8.1 What social forces lay behind the rise of
capitalism?](append138.html#secf81)
[8.2 What was the social context of the statement "laissez-
faire"?](append138.html#secf82)
@@ -107,33 +105,29 @@ take?](append138.html#secf83)
Americas?](append138.html#secf85)
[8.6 How did working people view the rise of
capitalism?](append138.html#secf86)
-[8.7 Why is the history of capitalism important?](append138.html#secf87)
+[8.7 Why is the history of capitalism important?](append138.html#secf87)
-###
+## [9 Is Medieval Iceland an example of "anarcho"-capitalism working in
+practice?](append139.html)
-[
-## 9 Is Medieval Iceland an example of "anarcho"-capitalism working in
-practice?
-[
+## [10 Would laissez-faire capitalism be stable?](append1310.html)
-## 10 Would laissez-faire capitalism be stable?
-](append1310.html)
-### [10.1 Would privatising banking make capitalism
+### [10.1 Would privatising banking make capitalism
stable?](append1310.html#secf101)
[10.2 How does the labour market effect capitalism?](append1310.html#secf102)
-[10.3 Was laissez-faire capitalism stable?](append1310.html#secf103)
+[10.3 Was laissez-faire capitalism stable?](append1310.html#secf103)
+
+
-[
+## [11 What is the myth of "Natural Law"?](append1311.html)
-## 11 What is the myth of "Natural Law"?
-](append1311.html)
-### [11.1 Why "Natural Law" in the first place?](append1311.html#secf111)
+### [11.1 Why "Natural Law" in the first place?](append1311.html#secf111)
[11.2 But "Natural Law" provides protection for individual rights from
violation by the State. Those against Natural Law desire total rule by the
state.](append1311.html#secf112)
@@ -142,5 +136,25 @@ state.](append1311.html#secf112)
liberty?](append1311.html#secf114)
[11.5 But Natural Law was discovered, not invented!](append1311.html#secf115)
[11.6 Why is the notion of "discovery"
-contradictory?](append1311.html#secf116)
+contradictory?](append1311.html#secf116)
+
+
+
+ * [0 Introduction](/afaq/append13int.html)
+ * [1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?](/afaq/append131.html)
+ * [2 What do "anarcho"-capitalists mean by "freedom"?](/afaq/append132.html)
+ * [3 Why do anarcho"-capitalists place little or no value on "equality"?](/afaq/append133.html)
+ * [4 What is the right-libertarian position on private property?](/afaq/append134.html)
+ * [5 Will privatising "the commons" increase liberty?](/afaq/append135.html)
+ * [6 Is "anarcho"-capitalism against the state?](/afaq/append136.html)
+ * [7 How does the history of "anarcho"-capitalism show that it is not anarchist?](/afaq/append137.html)
+ * [8 What role did the state take in the creation of capitalism?](/afaq/append138.html)
+ * [9 Is Medieval Iceland an example of "anarcho"-capitalism working in practice?](/afaq/append139.html)
+ * [10 Would laissez-faire capitalism be stable?](/afaq/append1310.html)
+ * [11 What is the myth of "Natural Law"?](/afaq/append1311.html)
+
+[‹ Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory
+FAQ" version 4.1.1](/afaq/append12.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/append1.html "Go to parent page" ) [0 Introduction
+›](/afaq/append13int.html "Go to next page" )
diff --git a/markdown/append131.md b/markdown/append131.md
index 7603ef0c9460e29beca388b57c93517a2aebee3e..4724d80232f5b0593879f4dbccb51c9e5a07fb63 100644
--- a/markdown/append131.md
+++ b/markdown/append131.md
@@ -525,7 +525,7 @@ his method of deducing his (and, we stress, they are just his -- not natural)
"man." Whether these assumptions seem far or not is besides the point, by
using the term "natural law" Rothbard is arguing that any actions that violate
**his** ethical laws are somehow "against nature" (but if they were against
-nature, they could not occur \-- see [section 11](append137.html) for more on
+nature, they could not occur -- see [section 11](append137.html) for more on
this). Deductions from assumptions is a Procrustean bed for humanity (as
Rothbard's ideology shows).
@@ -837,7 +837,7 @@ used to bolster the right-Libertarian argument? Any such example is just as
to the assumptions and steps of the theory but to other factors totally
ignored by it. If economic (or other) theory is untestable then **no**
conclusions can be drawn from history, including claims for the superiority of
-laissez-faire capitalism. You cannot have it both ways \-- although we doubt
+laissez-faire capitalism. You cannot have it both ways -- although we doubt
that right-libertarians will stop using history as evidence that their ideas
work.
@@ -1156,11 +1156,11 @@ since no case is exactly the same, a jury would have considerable say about
the heinousness of the offence in each case, realising that circumstances
alter cases, and prescribing penalty accordingly. This appeared to Spooner and
Tucker to be a more flexible and equitable administration of justice possible
-or feasible, human beings being what they are.. . .
+or feasible, human beings being what they are.. . . _
>
-> "But when Mr. Rothbard quibbles about the jurisprudential ideas of Spooner
+> _"But when Mr. Rothbard quibbles about the jurisprudential ideas of Spooner
and Tucker, and at the same time upholds **presumably in his courts** the very
economic evils which are at bottom the very reason for human contention and
conflict, he would seem to be a man who chokes at a gnat while swallowing a
@@ -1370,16 +1370,16 @@ do not equate to capitalism:
private property, one of which rests on the labour of the producers himself,
and the other on the exploitation of the labour of others. It forgets that the
latter is not only the direct antithesis of the former, but grows on the
-former's tomb and nowhere else.
+former's tomb and nowhere else. _
>
-> "In Western Europe, the homeland of political economy, the process of
-primitive accumulation is more of less accomplished. . . .
+> _"In Western Europe, the homeland of political economy, the process of
+primitive accumulation is more of less accomplished. . . . _
>
-> "It is otherwise in the colonies. There the capitalist regime constantly
+> _"It is otherwise in the colonies. There the capitalist regime constantly
comes up against the obstacle presented by the producer, who, as owner of his
own conditions of labour, employs that labour to enrich himself instead of the
capitalist. The contradiction of these two diametrically opposed economic
@@ -1441,7 +1441,7 @@ anarchists who extolled mutualism and the abolition of all monopolies was,
then, a society where everyone willing to work would have the tools and raw
materials necessary for production in a non-exploitative system . . . the
dominant vision of the future society . . . [was] underpinned by individual,
-self-employed workers."__ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 95]
+self-employed workers."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 95]
As such, a limited amount of wage labour within a predominantly self-employed
economy does not make a given society capitalist any more than a small amount
@@ -1451,7 +1451,7 @@ conditions of labour and from the soil . . . does not yet exist, or only
sporadically, or on too limited a scale . . . Where, amongst such curious
characters, is the 'field of abstinence' for the capitalists? . . . Today's
wage-labourer is tomorrow's independent peasant or artisan, working for
-himself. He vanishes from the labour-market \-- but not into the workhouse."_
+himself. He vanishes from the labour-market -- but not into the workhouse."_
There is a _"constant transformation of wage-labourers into independent
producers, who work for themselves instead of for capital"_ and so _"the
degree of exploitation of the wage-labourer remain[s] indecently low."_ In
@@ -1553,11 +1553,11 @@ landlords, who notoriously have no equitable titles to their lands, but
individuals. . . . Almost all possessors of great wealth enjoy neither what
they nor their ancestors rightfully acquired (and if Mr. Herbert wishes to
challenge the correctness of this statement, we are ready to go with him into
-a full discussion of the subject). . . .
+a full discussion of the subject). . . . _
>
-> "If he holds that the landlords are justly entitled to their lands, let him
+> _"If he holds that the landlords are justly entitled to their lands, let him
make a defence of the landlords or an attack on our unjust proposal."_ [quoted
by Carl Watner, _"The English Individualists As They Appear In Liberty,"_ pp.
191-211, **Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of Liberty**, Coughlin,
@@ -1591,3 +1591,8 @@ miserable -- so miserable as to lead us to inquire if the talk of 'No force'
be merely an excuse for supporting landlord and capitalist domination."_
[**Act For Yourselves**, p. 98]
+[‹ 0 Introduction](/afaq/append13int.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/append13.html "Go to parent page" ) [2 What do
+"anarcho"-capitalists mean by "freedom"? ›](/afaq/append132.html "Go to next
+page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/append1310.md b/markdown/append1310.md
index bea16315385e15c1fda368d19c57c5c96c2b90cd..156cc4cc040bff6d1ed904fbd35eb35e51ba6eb3 100644
--- a/markdown/append1310.md
+++ b/markdown/append1310.md
@@ -74,6 +74,8 @@ We hope to indicate in the next two sections why the business cycle is
inherent in the system (see also sections [C.7](secC7.html), [C.8](secC8.html)
and [C.9](secC9.html)).
+
+
## 10.1 Would privatising banking make capitalism stable?
It is claimed that the existence of the state (or, for minimal statists,
@@ -893,8 +895,8 @@ class of people?
## 10.3 Was laissez-faire capitalism stable?
-Firstly, we must state that a pure laissez-faire capitalist system has not
-existed. This means that any evidence we present in this section can be
+> Firstly, we must state that a pure laissez-faire capitalist system has
+not existed. This means that any evidence we present in this section can be
dismissed by right-libertarians for precisely this fact -- it was not "pure"
enough. Of course, if they were consistent, you would expect them to shun all
historical and current examples of capitalism or activity within capitalism,
@@ -908,7 +910,7 @@ industrialisation [in] the nineteenth century"_ [**The Ethics of Liberty**, p.
is usually taken as being the closest to pure laissez-faire -- in order to see
if laissez-faire is stable or not.
-Yes, we are well aware that 19th century USA was far from laissez-faire \--
+Yes, we are well aware that 19th century USA was far from laissez-faire --
there was a state, protectionism, government economic activity and so on --
but as this example has been often used by right-Libertarians' themselves (for
example, Ayn Rand) we think that we can gain a lot from looking at this
@@ -989,3 +991,8 @@ everything will be fine are very optimistic at best (and, ironically, it was
members of the capitalist class who lead the movement towards state-managed
capitalism in the name of "sound money").
+[‹ 9 Is Medieval Iceland an example of "anarcho"-capitalism working in
+practice?](/afaq/append139.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/append13.html "Go to parent page" ) [11 What is the myth of
+"Natural Law"? ›](/afaq/append1311.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/append1311.md b/markdown/append1311.md
index d2af47f39a1fa0fb2e394e8664f2c93276d1eaec..f85c56ae7d94122cf8f99be53892ed5e2b76045a 100644
--- a/markdown/append1311.md
+++ b/markdown/append1311.md
@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ will in the place of them."_ [**A Letter to Grover Cleveland**, p. 88]
Rothbard and other capitalist supporters of "Natural Law" make the same sort
of claims (as we will see). Now, why, if they are aware of the fact that
unlike gravity their "Natural Laws" can be violated, do they use the term at
-all? Benjamin Tucker said that "Natural Law" was a _"religious"_ concept \--
+all? Benjamin Tucker said that "Natural Law" was a _"religious"_ concept --
and this provides a clue. To say "Do not violate these rights, otherwise I
will get cross" does not have **quite** the same power as "Do not violate
these rights, they are facts of natural and you are violating nature" (compare
@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ to "Do not violate these laws, or you will go to hell"). So to point out that
enforced by humans) is not attacking some kind of "straw man" -- it is
exposing the fact that these "Natural Laws" are just the personal prejudices
of those who hold them. If they do not want then to be exposed as such then
-they should call their laws what they are \-- personal ethical laws -- rather
+they should call their laws what they are -- personal ethical laws -- rather
than compare them to the facts of nature.
## 11.1 Why the term "Natural Law" in the first place?
@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ this means that as every individual is unique (have different attributes),
they have different natures? Skin and hair colour are different attributes,
does this mean that red haired people have different natures than blondes?
That black people have different natures than white (and such a "theory" of
-"natural law" was used to justify slavery \-- yes, slaves **are** human but
+"natural law" was used to justify slavery -- yes, slaves **are** human but
they have "different natures" than their masters and so slavery is okay). Of
course Rothbard aggregates "attributes" to species level, but why not higher?
Humans are primates, does that mean we have the same natures are monkeys or
@@ -357,7 +357,7 @@ economic power associated with one class of people being dispossessed and
another empowered by this fact results in relations of domination which cannot
be considered "voluntary" by any stretch of the imagination (although, of
course, Rothbard refuses to see the economic power associated with capitalism
--- when its capitalism, he cannot see the wood for the trees \-- and we are
+-- when its capitalism, he cannot see the wood for the trees -- and we are
ignoring the fact that capitalism was created by extensive use of coercion and
violence -- see section [8](append138.html)).
@@ -548,3 +548,7 @@ be a death blow to this process of critical thought, development and
evaluation of the facts of reality by individual's consciousness. Human
thought would be subsumed by dogma.
+[‹ 10 Would laissez-faire capitalism be stable?](/afaq/append1310.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/append13.html "Go to parent page" ) [Appendix -
+The Symbols of Anarchy ›](/afaq/append2.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/append132.md b/markdown/append132.md
index c6039375b9daf5b14d423bb0fa192f0b58bbc127..6e79ec0f37cbd203e7f6a92a0b4faaba4ac4d7f4 100644
--- a/markdown/append132.md
+++ b/markdown/append132.md
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ is weak.
Another important implication of this "liberty as property" concept is that it
produces a strangely alienated concept of freedom. Liberty, as we noted, is no
-longer considered absolute, but a derivative of property \-- which has the
+longer considered absolute, but a derivative of property -- which has the
important consequence that you can "sell" your liberty and still be considered
free by the ideology. This concept of liberty (namely "liberty as property")
is usually termed "self-ownership." But, to state the obvious, I do not "own"
@@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ control while being an autocrat to their subordinated employees. Again, we
find the right-"libertarian" acknowledging that the capitalist managerial
structure is a hierarchy and workers are subordinated while denying it is
autocratic to the workers! Thus we have "free" workers within a relationship
-distinctly **lacking** freedom (in the sense of self-government) \-- a strange
+distinctly **lacking** freedom (in the sense of self-government) -- a strange
paradox. Indeed, if your personal life were as closely monitored and regulated
as the work life of millions of people across the world, you would rightly
consider it oppression.
@@ -590,7 +590,7 @@ makes the same point:
> _"The emphasis [right-wing] libertarians place on the opposition of liberty
and political power tends to obscure the role of authority in their worldview
-. . . the authority exercised in private relationships, however \-- in the
+. . . the authority exercised in private relationships, however -- in the
relationship between employer and employee, for instance -- meets with no
objection. . . . [This] reveals a curious insensitivity to the use of private
authority as a means of social control. Comparing public and private
@@ -658,7 +658,7 @@ Secondly, much property in "actually existing" capitalism is the product
(directly or indirectly) of state laws and violence (_"the emergence of both
agrarian and industrial capitalism in Britain [and elsewhere, we must add] . .
. could not have got off the ground without resources to state violence --
-legal or otherwise"_ [Brian Morris, **Ecology & Anarchism**, p. 190]). If
+legal or otherwise"_ [Brian Morris, **Ecology & Anarchism**, p. 190]). If
state claims of ownership are invalid due to their history, then so are many
others (particularly those which claim to own land). As the initial creation
was illegitimate, so are the transactions which have sprung from it. Thus if
@@ -795,21 +795,21 @@ option but to take part in the labour market. As Alexander Berkman put it:
> _"The law says your employer does not sell anything from you, because it is
done with your consent. You have agreed to work for your boss for certain pay,
-he to have all that you produce . . .
+he to have all that you produce . . . _
>
-> "But did you really consent?
+> _"But did you really consent? _
>
-> "When the highway man holds his gun to your head, you turn your valuables
+> _"When the highway man holds his gun to your head, you turn your valuables
over to him. You 'consent' all right, but you do so because you cannot help
-yourself, because you are **compelled** by his gun.
+yourself, because you are **compelled** by his gun. _
>
-> "Are you not **compelled** to work for an employer? Your need compels you
+> _"Are you not **compelled** to work for an employer? Your need compels you
just as the highwayman's gun. You must live. . . You can't work for yourself .
. .The factories, machinery, and tools belong to the employing class, so you
**must** hire yourself out to that class in order to work and live. Whatever
@@ -926,7 +926,7 @@ and justify capitalist and landlord domination and denounce any attempts to
resist that domination as "initiation of force."
Anarchists, in contrast, oppose **hierarchy** (and so domination within
-relationships -- bar S&M; personal relationships, which are a totally
+relationships -- bar S&M personal relationships, which are a totally
different thing altogether; they are truly voluntary and they also do not
attempt to hide the power relationships involved by using economic jargon).
This opposition, while also including opposition to the use of force against
@@ -1092,7 +1092,7 @@ theory, of voluntary slave contracts"_ see **The Ethics of Liberty**, pp.
134-135 -- of course, **other** libertarian theorists claim the exact opposite
so _"libertarian theory"_ makes no such claims, but nevermind! Essentially,
his point revolves around the assertion that a person _"cannot, in nature,
-sell himself into slavery and have this sale enforced \- for this would mean
+sell himself into slavery and have this sale enforced - for this would mean
that his future will over his own body was being surrendered in advance"_ and
that if a _"labourer remains totally subservient to his master's will
voluntarily, he is not yet a slave since his submission is voluntary."_ [p.
@@ -1489,7 +1489,7 @@ Simply because they lead to the creation of authoritarian social relationships
and so to restrictions on liberty. A political theory which, when consistently
followed, has evil or iniquitous consequences, is a bad theory.
-For example, any theory that can justify slavery is obviously a bad theory \-
+For example, any theory that can justify slavery is obviously a bad theory -
slavery does not cease to stink the moment it is seen to follow your theory.
As right-Libertarians can justify slave contracts as a type of wage labour
(see [section 2.6](append132.html#secf26)) as well as numerous other
@@ -1501,23 +1501,23 @@ It is worth quoting Noam Chomsky at length on this subject:
[a]ccording to this theory, a person has a right to whatever he has acquired
by means that are just. If, by luck or labour or ingenuity, a person acquires
such and such, then he is entitled to keep it and dispose of it as he wills,
-and a just society will not infringe on this right.
+and a just society will not infringe on this right. _
>
-> "One can easily determine where such a principle might lead. It is entirely
+> _"One can easily determine where such a principle might lead. It is entirely
possible that by legitimate means - say, luck supplemented by contractual
arrangements 'freely undertaken' under pressure of need - one person might
gain control of the necessities of life. Others are then free to sell
themselves to this person as slaves, if he is willing to accept them.
Otherwise, they are free to perish. Without extra question-begging conditions,
-the society is just.
+the society is just. _
>
-> "The argument has all the merits of a proof that 2 + 2 = 5. . . Suppose that
-some concept of a 'just society' is advanced that fails to characterise the
-situation just described as unjust. . . Then one of two conclusions is in
+> _"The argument has all the merits of a proof that 2 + 2 = 5. . . Suppose
+that some concept of a 'just society' is advanced that fails to characterise
+the situation just described as unjust. . . Then one of two conclusions is in
order. We may conclude that the concept is simply unimportant and of no
interest as a guide to thought or action, since it fails to apply properly
even in such an elementary case as this. Or we may conclude that the concept
@@ -1528,11 +1528,11 @@ the sort described as grossly unjust, then the sole interest of a
demonstration that this outcome might be 'just' under a given 'theory of
justice' lies in the inference by **reductio ad absurdum** to the conclusion
that the theory is hopelessly inadequate. While it may capture some partial
-intuition regarding justice, it evidently neglects others.
+intuition regarding justice, it evidently neglects others. _
>
-> "The real question to be raised about theories that fail so completely to
+> _"The real question to be raised about theories that fail so completely to
capture the concept of justice in its significant and intuitive sense is why
they arouse such interest. Why are they not simply dismissed out of hand on
the grounds of this failure, which is striking in clear cases? Perhaps the
@@ -1542,11 +1542,11 @@ and conceptual shortcomings, he observes that such work 'plays an important
function in the process of . . . 'blaming the victim,' and of protecting
property against egalitarian onslaughts by various non-propertied groups.' An
ideological defence of privileges, exploitation, and private power will be
-welcomed, regardless of its merits.
+welcomed, regardless of its merits. _
>
-> "These matters are of no small importance to poor and oppressed people here
+> _"These matters are of no small importance to poor and oppressed people here
and elsewhere."_ [**The Chomsky Reader**, pp. 187-188]
It may be argued that the reductions in liberty associated with capitalism is
@@ -1678,3 +1678,8 @@ Fundamentally, it is for this reason that anarchists reject the right-
Libertarian theories of freedom and justice -- it just does not ensure
individual freedom or individuality.
+[‹ 1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?](/afaq/append131.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/append13.html "Go to parent page" ) [3 Why do
+anarcho"-capitalists place little or no value on "equality"?
+›](/afaq/append133.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/append133.md b/markdown/append133.md
index af6bbc9bf997726e83b6a6991fef2839d9ad0ec5..2d7f47e28bb77341c005e48bd1c4d6cd92975672 100644
--- a/markdown/append133.md
+++ b/markdown/append133.md
@@ -304,21 +304,21 @@ personally, all goods and services needed, not only food, clothing and shelter
but also education, medicine, sanitation, justice, police, all forms of
security and insurance, even permission to use the streets (for these also
would be privately owned), as one reads about all this a curious feature
-emerges: everybody always has enough money to buy all these things.
+emerges: everybody always has enough money to buy all these things. _
>
-> "There are no public casual wards or hospitals or hospices, but neither is
+> _"There are no public casual wards or hospitals or hospices, but neither is
there anybody dying in the streets. There is no public educational system but
no uneducated children, no public police service but nobody unable to buy the
services of an efficient security firm, no public law but nobody unable to buy
the use of a private legal system. Neither is there anybody able to buy much
more than anybody else; no person or group possesses economic power over
-others.
+others. _
>
-> "No explanation is offered. The anarcho-capitalists simply take it for
+> _"No explanation is offered. The anarcho-capitalists simply take it for
granted that in their favoured society, although it possesses no machinery for
restraining competition (for this would need to exercise authority over the
competitors and it is an **anarcho**\- capitalist society) competition would
@@ -336,7 +336,7 @@ against the elements and so forth. It does **not** invoke the idea of
transnational corporations employing tens of thousands of people or a
population without land, resources and selling their labour to others. Indeed,
Rothbard argues that economic power does not exist (at least under capitalism;
-as we saw in section [2.1](append132.html#secf21) he does make \-- highly
+as we saw in section [2.1](append132.html#secf21) he does make -- highly
illogical -- exceptions). Similarly, David Friedman's example of a pro-death
penalty and anti-death penalty "defence" firm coming to an agreement (see
section [6.3](append136.html#secf63)) assumes that the firms have equal
@@ -467,13 +467,13 @@ Ayn Rand, _"[u]nder capitalism . . . politics (state) and economics
(capitalism) are separated . . . This, of course, is pure ideology, for Rand's
justification of the state is that it 'protects' private property, that is, it
supports and upholds the economic power of capitalists by coercive means."_
-[**Ecology & Anarchism**, p. 189] The same can be said of "anarcho"-capitalism
-and its "protection agencies" and "general libertarian law code." If within a
-society a few own all the resources and the majority are dispossessed, then
-any law code which protects private property **automatically** empowers the
-owning class. Workers will **always** be initiating force if act against the
-code and so "equality before the law" reinforces inequality of power and
-wealth.
+[**Ecology & Anarchism**, p. 189] The same can be said of
+"anarcho"-capitalism and its "protection agencies" and "general libertarian
+law code." If within a society a few own all the resources and the majority
+are dispossessed, then any law code which protects private property
+**automatically** empowers the owning class. Workers will **always** be
+initiating force if act against the code and so "equality before the law"
+reinforces inequality of power and wealth.
This means that a system of property rights protects the liberties of some
people in a way which gives them an unacceptable degree of power over others.
@@ -562,14 +562,14 @@ parasites, even if they inherited all their money). All things considered,
little wonder that Proudhon argued that:
> _"Even charitable institutions serve the ends of those in authority
-marvellously well.
+marvellously well. _
>
-> "Charity is the strongest chain by which privilege and the Government, bound
-to protect them, holds down the lower classes. With charity, sweeter to the
-heart of men, more intelligible to the poor man than the abstruse laws of
-Political Economy, one may dispense with justice."_ [**The General Idea of the
+> _"Charity is the strongest chain by which privilege and the Government,
+bound to protect them, holds down the lower classes. With charity, sweeter to
+the heart of men, more intelligible to the poor man than the abstruse laws of
+Political Economy, one may dispense with justice."_ [**General Idea of the
Revolution**, pp. 69-70]
As noted, the right-libertarian (passing) acknowledgement of poverty does not
@@ -578,3 +578,8 @@ themselves how can someone be free if their social situation is such that they
are drowning in a see of usury and have to sell their labour (and so liberty)
to survive.
+[‹ 2 What do "anarcho"-capitalists mean by "freedom"?](/afaq/append132.html
+"Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/append13.html "Go to parent page" ) [4 What
+is the right-libertarian position on private property? ›](/afaq/append134.html
+"Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/append134.md b/markdown/append134.md
index 0a7f827b520bb65065116406df9734805f730ff4..67046e41515777cf7579f99f7ba143af75c078ca 100644
--- a/markdown/append134.md
+++ b/markdown/append134.md
@@ -30,11 +30,11 @@ on individual liberty when he wrote :
> _"Property in the civic sense means **sacred** property, such that I must
**respect** your property... Be it ever so little, if one only has somewhat of
his own - to wit, a **respected** property: The more such owners... the more
-'free people and good patriots' has the State.
+'free people and good patriots' has the State. _
>
-> "Political liberalism, like everything religious, counts on **respect,**
+> _"Political liberalism, like everything religious, counts on **respect,**
humaneness, the virtues of love. . . . For in practice people respect nothing,
and everyday the small possessions are bought up again by greater proprietors,
and the 'free people' change into day labourers."_ [**The Ego and Its Own**,
@@ -474,7 +474,7 @@ property and the relations of domination it creates). In other words,
Anarchism is not the "politics of envy"; it is the politics of liberty and the
desire to treat others as "ends in themselves".
-Rothbard is aware of what is involved in accepting the Lockean Proviso \--
+Rothbard is aware of what is involved in accepting the Lockean Proviso --
namely the existence of private property (_"Locke's proviso may lead to the
outlawry of **all** private property of land, since one can always say that
the reduction of available land leaves everyone else . . . worse off"_, **The
@@ -565,8 +565,8 @@ engaged in for the mutual benefit of both parties, for workers have no control
over the production process or over the product of their labour. Rand [like
other right-libertarians] misleadingly equates trade, artistic production and
wage-slavery. . . [but] wage-slavery . . . is quite different from the trade
-principle"_ as it is a form of _"exploitation."_ [**Ecology & Anarchism**, p.
-190]
+principle"_ as it is a form of _"exploitation."_ [**Ecology & Anarchism**,
+p. 190]
He further notes that _"[s]o called trade relations involving human labour are
contrary to the egoist values Rand [and other capitalist individualists]
@@ -675,11 +675,11 @@ are less generous that other academics in charitable giving. Undergraduate
economics majors are more likely to defect in the classic prisoner's dilemma
game that are other majors. And on other tests, students grow less honest --
expressing less of a tendency, for example, to return found money -- after
-studying economics, but not studying a control subject like astronomy.
+studying economics, but not studying a control subject like astronomy. _
>
-> "This is no surprise, really. Mainstream economics is built entirely on a
+> _"This is no surprise, really. Mainstream economics is built entirely on a
notion of self-interested individuals, rational self-maximisers who can order
their wants and spend accordingly. There's little room for sentiment,
uncertainty, selflessness, and social institutions. Whether this is an
@@ -794,3 +794,8 @@ does capitalism co-ordinate economic activities without hierarchical
structures. For this reason anarchists support co-operative forms of
production rather than capitalistic forms.
+[‹ 3 Why do anarcho"-capitalists place little or no value on
+"equality"?](/afaq/append133.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/append13.html "Go to parent page" ) [5 Will privatising "the
+commons" increase liberty? ›](/afaq/append135.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/append135.md b/markdown/append135.md
index 1675c72db3b20cb44364bc30f7d8bde23b0cd706..6767f11842e55880467e21f38c5549cbe911664f 100644
--- a/markdown/append135.md
+++ b/markdown/append135.md
@@ -202,3 +202,8 @@ leased, and sold like private property -- what remains for the proletaire? Of
what advantage is it to him that society has left the state of war to enter
the regime of police?"_ [**System of Economic Contradictions**, p. 371]
+[‹ 4 What is the right-libertarian position on private
+property?](/afaq/append134.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/append13.html "Go to parent page" ) [6 Is "anarcho"-capitalism
+against the state? ›](/afaq/append136.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/append136.md b/markdown/append136.md
index 9e263361b468d0b8c5dabd83d7692a4318f8da2e..accacb717d5b9142621d23a1a75b1f824717e21f 100644
--- a/markdown/append136.md
+++ b/markdown/append136.md
@@ -12,9 +12,10 @@ According to Murray Rothbard [_"Society Without A State"_, in **Nomos XIX**,
Pennock and Chapman, eds., p. 192.], a state must have one or both of the
following characteristics:
-1) The ability to tax those who live within it.
-2) It asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of
-defence over a given area.
+ 1) The ability to tax those who live within it.
+
+ 2) It asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the
+provision of defence over a given area.
He makes the same point in **The Ethics of Liberty** [p. 171].
@@ -232,7 +233,9 @@ laws as society progresses.
Thus a system of "defence" on the market will continue to reflect the
influence and power of property owners and wealth and not be subject to
popular control beyond choosing between companies to enforce the capitalist
-laws.
+laws
+
+.
## 6.2 What are the social consequences of such a system?
@@ -244,11 +247,11 @@ forces (although, as suggested above, this could indeed be a problem):
> _"There is something more serious than the 'Mafia danger', and this other
problem concerns the role of such 'defence' institutions in a given social and
-economic context.
+economic context. _
>
-> "[The] context. . . is one of a free-market economy with no restraints upon
+> _"[The] context. . . is one of a free-market economy with no restraints upon
accumulation of property. Now, we had an American experience, roughly from the
end of the Civil War to the 1930's, in what were in effect private courts,
private police, indeed private governments. We had the experience of the
@@ -266,12 +269,12 @@ economic coercion to patronise, the houses they lived in, were commonly
policed by the private police of the United States Steel Corporation or
whatever company owned the properties. The chief practical function of these
police was, of course, to prevent labour organisation and preserve a certain
-balance of 'bargaining.'
+balance of 'bargaining.' _
>
-> "These complexes were a law unto themselves, powerful enough to ignore, when
-they did not purchase, the governments of various jurisdictions of the
+> _"These complexes were a law unto themselves, powerful enough to ignore,
+when they did not purchase, the governments of various jurisdictions of the
American federal system. This industrial system was, at the time, often
characterised as feudalism. . . ."_ [_"Anarchist Justice"_, **Op. Cit.**, pp.
223-224]
@@ -627,8 +630,8 @@ those who reject judgements) will go out of business because of the higher
costs associated with conflict and not arbitration. However, these higher
costs are ensured because the firms in question do not co-operate with others.
If other agencies boycott a firm but co-operate with all the others, then the
-boycotted firm will be at the same disadvantage \-- regardless of whether it
-is a cartel buster or a renegade.
+boycotted firm will be at the same disadvantage -- regardless of whether it is
+a cartel buster or a renegade.
The "anarcho"-capitalist is trying to have it both ways. If the punishment of
non-conforming firms cannot occur, then "anarcho"-capitalism will turn into a
@@ -740,13 +743,12 @@ land. The _"general libertarian law code"_ is a monopoly and property owners
determine the rules that apply to their property. Moreover, if the rules that
property owners enforce are subject to rules contained in the monopolistic
_"general libertarian law code"_ (for example, that they cannot ban the sale
-and purchase of certain products \-- such as defence -- on their own
-territory) then "anarcho"-capitalism **definitely** meets the Weberian
-definition of the state (as described by Ayn Rand as an institution _"that
-holds the exclusive power to **enforce** certain rules of conduct in a given
-geographical area"_ [**Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal**, p. 239]) as its "law
-code" overrides the desires of property owners to do what they like on their
-own property.
+and purchase of certain products -- such as defence -- on their own territory)
+then "anarcho"-capitalism **definitely** meets the Weberian definition of the
+state (as described by Ayn Rand as an institution _"that holds the exclusive
+power to **enforce** certain rules of conduct in a given geographical area"_
+[**Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal**, p. 239]) as its "law code" overrides the
+desires of property owners to do what they like on their own property.
Therefore, no matter how you look at it, "anarcho"-capitalism and its
"defence" market promotes a _"monopoly of ultimate decision making power"_
@@ -854,7 +856,7 @@ In a system based on "private statism," police and justice would be determined
by "free market" forces. As indicated in section [B.4.1](secB4.html#secb41),
right-libertarians maintain that one would have few rights on other peoples'
property, and so the owner's will would be the law (possibly restricted
-somewhat by a "general libertarian law code", perhaps not \-- see [last
+somewhat by a "general libertarian law code", perhaps not -- see [last
section](append136.html#secf64)). In this situation, those who could not
afford police protection would become victims of roving bandits and rampant
crime, resulting in a society where the wealthy are securely protected in
@@ -996,3 +998,8 @@ Of course, we do have another option than either private or public statism.
This is anarchism, the end of hierarchical authority and its replacement by
the "natural" authority of communal and workplace self-management.
+[‹ 5 Will privatising "the commons" increase liberty?](/afaq/append135.html
+"Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/append13.html "Go to parent page" ) [7 How
+does the history of "anarcho"-capitalism show that it is not anarchist?
+›](/afaq/append137.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/append137.md b/markdown/append137.md
index d65445f919a55ccac7c91977fe01deec31411a3c..a273cf3047110a223206423ee9bd689468baab95 100644
--- a/markdown/append137.md
+++ b/markdown/append137.md
@@ -128,8 +128,8 @@ _"called these insurance companies 'governments' even though they did not have
a monopoly within a given geographical area."_ As Hart notes, Molinari was the
sole defender of such free-market justice at the time in France. [David M.
Hart, _"Gustave de Molinari and the Anti-statist Liberal Tradition: Part II"_,
-pp. 399-434,**Journal of Libertarian Studies**, vol. V, no. 4, p. 415 and p.
-411] Molinari was clear that he wanted _"a regime of free government,"_
+pp. 399-434,Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. V, no. 4, p. 415 and p. 411]
+Molinari was clear that he wanted _"a regime of free government,"_
counterpoising _"monopolist or communist governments"_ to _"free
governments."_ This would lead to _"freedom of government"_ rather than its
abolition (not freedom **from** government). For Molinarie the future would
@@ -752,3 +752,8 @@ that laissez-faire capitalism meant _"the victory of the strong over the weak,
of those who own property over those who own nothing."_ [quoted by Peter
Marshall, **Demanding the Impossible**, p. 259]
+[‹ 6 Is "anarcho"-capitalism against the state?](/afaq/append136.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/append13.html "Go to parent page" ) [8 What role
+did the state take in the creation of capitalism? ›](/afaq/append138.html "Go
+to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/append138.md b/markdown/append138.md
index 2a0625b2d7f87501b4965b00477b55bc48fbc69a..d4a09c39f93345088f215cd3f936b262e885ddc0 100644
--- a/markdown/append138.md
+++ b/markdown/append138.md
@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ It appears that, for Rothbard, the collusion between state and business is the
fault, not of capitalism, but of particular capitalists. The system is pure;
only individuals are corrupt. But, for anarchists, the origins of the modern
state-capitalist system lies not in the individual qualities of capitalists as
-such but in the dynamic and evolution of capitalism itself \-- a complex
+such but in the dynamic and evolution of capitalism itself -- a complex
interaction of class interest, class struggle, social defence against the
destructive actions of the market, individual qualities and so forth. In other
words, Rothbard's claims are flawed -- they fail to understand capitalism as a
@@ -527,9 +527,9 @@ _ A college economist planned
To live without access to land
He would have succeeded
But found that he needed
-Food, shelter and somewhere to stand.
+Food, shelter and somewhere to stand. _
-_ Thus the Individualist (and other) anarchists' concern over the _"land
+Thus the Individualist (and other) anarchists' concern over the _"land
monopoly"_ of which the Enclosure Acts were but one part. The land monopoly,
to use Tucker's words, _"consists in the enforcement by government of land
titles which do not rest upon personal occupancy and cultivation."_ [**The
@@ -1196,3 +1196,9 @@ history of "actually existing capitalism" also fails. Society is the product
of collective activity and should belong to us all (although whether and how
we divide it up is another question).
+[‹ 7 How does the history of "anarcho"-capitalism show that it is not
+anarchist?](/afaq/append137.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/append13.html "Go to parent page" ) [9 Is Medieval Iceland an
+example of "anarcho"-capitalism working in practice? ›](/afaq/append139.html
+"Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/append139.md b/markdown/append139.md
index f66efaf56b08a812f1e93f885cd36de149457327..81bd16726c69f2c360d9f7fc965aa4bc3e9a1dab 100644
--- a/markdown/append139.md
+++ b/markdown/append139.md
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ that the first settlers in Iceland would have brought such institutions with
them and Iceland did indeed have its equivalent of the commune or "village
community," the **Hreppar**, which developed early in the country's history.
Like the early local assemblies, it is not much discussed in the Sagas but is
-mentioned in the law book, the Grgs, and was composed of a minimum of twenty
+mentioned in the law book, the Grágás, and was composed of a minimum of twenty
farms and had a five member commission. The Hreppar was self-governing and,
among other things, was responsible for seeing that orphans and the poor
within the area were fed and housed. The Hreppar also served as a property
@@ -65,11 +65,11 @@ self-governing . . . .[and] guided by a five-member steering committee . . .
As early as the 900s, the whole country seems to have been divided into
**hreppar** . . . **Hreppar** provided a blanket of local security, allowing
the landowning farmers a measure of independence to participate in the choices
-of political life . . .
+of political life . . . _
>
-> "Through copoperation among their members, **hreppar** organised and
+> _"Through copoperation among their members, **hreppar** organised and
controlled summer grazing lands, organised communal labour, and provided an
immediate local forum for settling disputes. Crucially, they provided fire and
livestock insurance for local farmers. . . [They also] saw to the feeding and
@@ -429,3 +429,8 @@ individual, has always been the necessary precondition for the rise of the
state and rule by the rich. Medieval Iceland is a classic example of this
process at work.
+[‹ 8 What role did the state take in the creation of
+capitalism?](/afaq/append138.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/append13.html "Go to parent page" ) [10 Would laissez-faire
+capitalism be stable? ›](/afaq/append1310.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/append13int.md b/markdown/append13int.md
index aa606c709391640a246c4e61fbd5eae1386d62e8..f2f69a107cb15343eaa2f7f27903c8c1f78bd15c 100644
--- a/markdown/append13int.md
+++ b/markdown/append13int.md
@@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ A few more points before beginning. When debating with "libertarian" or
"anarchist" capitalists it's necessary to remember that while they claim "real
capitalism" does not exist (because all existing forms of capitalism are
statist), they will claim that all the good things we have -- advanced medical
-technology, consumer choice of products, etc. \-- are nevertheless due to
+technology, consumer choice of products, etc. -- are nevertheless due to
"capitalism." Yet if you point out any problems in modern life, these will be
blamed on "statism." Since there has never been and never will be a capitalist
system without some sort of state, it's hard to argue against this "logic."
@@ -179,3 +179,8 @@ face of "free market" capitalism at work: the working men and women (anarchist
or not) murdered in the jails and concentration camps or on the streets by the
hired assassins of capitalism.
+[‹ Appendix - Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of
+anarchism?](/afaq/append13.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/append13.html "Go to parent page" ) [1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists
+really anarchists? ›](/afaq/append131.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/append2.md b/markdown/append2.md
index df99e3b929597a39e0debdf8e0456efabf18b51b..91ab8236892bfc3cab3309aa7390f1b70d82eb6f 100644
--- a/markdown/append2.md
+++ b/markdown/append2.md
@@ -1,8 +1,14 @@
# Appendix - The Symbols of Anarchy
-## [1 What is the history of the Black Flag?](append2.html#black)
-[2 Why the red-and-black flag?](append2.html#redblack)
-[3 Where does the circled A come from?](append2.html#circledA)
+##
+
+## [1 What is the history of the Black Flag?](append2.html#black)
+
+## [2 Why the red-and-black flag?](append2.html#redblack)
+
+## [3 Where does the circled A come from?](append2.html#circledA)
+
+###
### Introduction
@@ -107,21 +113,17 @@ stability of some bloody state. It mourns for those whose labour is robbed
mourns not only the death of the body but the crippling of the spirit under
authoritarian and hierarchic systems; it mourns the millions of brain cells
blacked out with never a chance to light up the world. It is a colour of
-inconsolable grief.
+inconsolable grief. _
->
-
-> "But black is also beautiful. It is a colour of determination, of resolve,
+> _"But black is also beautiful. It is a colour of determination, of resolve,
of strength, a colour by which all others are clarified and defined. Black is
the mysterious surrounding of germination, of fertility, the breeding ground
of new life which always evolves, renews, refreshes, and reproduces itself in
darkness. The seed hidden in the earth, the strange journey of the sperm, the
secret growth of the embryo in the womb all these the blackness surrounds and
-protects.
-
->
+protects. _
-> "So black is negation, is anger, is outrage, is mourning, is beauty, is
+> _"So black is negation, is anger, is outrage, is mourning, is beauty, is
hope, is the fostering and sheltering of new forms of human life and
relationship on and with this earth. The black flag means all these things. We
are proud to carry it, sorry we have to, and look forward to the day when such
@@ -135,9 +137,9 @@ There are ample accounts of the use of black flags by anarchists. Probably the
most famous was Nestor Makhno's partisans during the Russia Revolution. Under
the black banner, his army routed a dozen armies and kept a large portion of
the Ukraine free from concentrated power for a good couple of years. On the
-black flag was embroidered _"Liberty or Death"_ and _"The Land to the Peasant,
-The Factories to the Workers."_ [Voline, **The Unknown Revolution**, pp.
-607-10] In 1925, the Japanese anarchists formed the **Black Youth League**
+black flag was embroidered [_"Liberty or Death"_ and _"The Land to the
+Peasant, The Factories to the Workers."_ [Voline, **The Unknown Revolution**,
+pp. 607-10] In 1925, the Japanese anarchists formed the **Black Youth League**
and, in 1945, when the anarchist federation reformed, their journal was named
**Kurohata** (**Black Flag**). [Peter Marshall, **Demanding the Impossible**,
pp. 525-6] In 1968, students carried black (and red) flags during the street
@@ -193,16 +195,16 @@ Movement of the Unemployed"_, **Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother
Earth**, p. 341]
It seems that black flags did not appear in Russia until the founding of the
-**Chernoe Znamia** (**_"black banner"_**) movement in 1905\. With the defeat
-of that year's revolution, anarchism went underground again. The Black Flag,
-like anarchism in general, re-emerged during the 1917 revolution. Anarchists
-in Petrograd took part in the February demonstrations which brought down
-Tsarism carrying black flags with _"Down with authority and capitalism!"_ on
-them. As part of their activity, anarchists organised armed detachments in
-most towns and cities called _"Black Guards"_ to defend themselves against
-counter-revolutionary attempts by the provisional government. As noted above,
-the Makhnovists fought Bolshevik and White dictatorship under Black Flags. On
-a more dreary note, February 1921 saw the end of black flags in Soviet Russia.
+**Chernoe Znamia** (**_"black banner"_**) movement in 1905. With the defeat of
+that year's revolution, anarchism went underground again. The Black Flag, like
+anarchism in general, re-emerged during the 1917 revolution. Anarchists in
+Petrograd took part in the February demonstrations which brought down Tsarism
+carrying black flags with _"Down with authority and capitalism!"_ on them. As
+part of their activity, anarchists organised armed detachments in most towns
+and cities called _"Black Guards"_ to defend themselves against counter-
+revolutionary attempts by the provisional government. As noted above, the
+Makhnovists fought Bolshevik and White dictatorship under Black Flags. On a
+more dreary note, February 1921 saw the end of black flags in Soviet Russia.
That month saw Peter Kropotkin's funeral take place in Moscow. Twenty thousand
people marched in his honour, carrying black banners that read: _"Where there
is authority there is no freedom."_ [Paul Avrich, **The Russian Anarchists**,
@@ -268,9 +270,9 @@ report sent to the Lyon prefect that said: _"The silk-weavers of the Croix-
Rousse have decided that tomorrow they will go down to Lyon, carrying a black
flag, calling for work or death."_ The revolt saw the Black Flag raised:
-> _ "At eleven a.m. the silk-weavers' columns descended the slops of the
-Croix-Rousse. Some carried black flags, the colour of mourning and a reminder
-of their economic distress. Others pushed loaves of bread on the bayonets of
+> _"At eleven a.m. the silk-weavers' columns descended the slops of the Croix-
+Rousse. Some carried black flags, the colour of mourning and a reminder of
+their economic distress. Others pushed loaves of bread on the bayonets of
their guns and held them aloft. The symbolic force of this action was
reinforced by a repeatedly-shouted slogan: 'bread or lead!': in other words,
if they were not given bread which they could afford, then they were prepared
@@ -302,11 +304,9 @@ Drapeau Noir**, no. 1, 12th August 1883] This was echoed by Louise Michel:
> _"How many wrathful people, young people, will be with us when the red and
black banners wave in the wind of anger! What a tidal wave it will be when the
-red and black banners rise around the old wreck!
+red and black banners rise around the old wreck!_
->
-
-> "The red banner, which has always stood for liberty, frightens the
+> _"The red banner, which has always stood for liberty, frightens the
executioners because it is so red with our blood. The black flag, with layers
of blood upon it from those who wanted to live by working or die by fighting,
frightens those who want to live off the work of others. Those red and black
@@ -359,7 +359,7 @@ congress Kropotkin was formulating the idea that this organisation would be a
_"Strikers' International"_ (**Internationale Greviste**) -- it would be _"an
organisation of resistance, of strikes."_ [quoted by Martin A. Miller,
**Kropotkin**, p. 147] In December 1881 he discussed the revival of the
-International Workers Association as a **_Strikers' International**_ for to
+International Workers Association as a **_Strikers' International_** for to
_"be able to make the revolution, the mass of workers will have to organise
themselves. Resistance and strikes are excellent methods of organisation for
doing this."_ He stressed that the _"strike develops the sentiment of
@@ -385,7 +385,7 @@ through the 1880s. French Anarchists carried three red flags at the funeral of
Louise Michel's mother in 1885 as well as at her own funeral in January 1905.
[Louise Michel, **Op. Cit.**, p. 183 and p. 201] Anarchist in Japan, for
example, demonstrated under red flags bearing the slogans _"Anarchy"_ and
-_"Anarchist Communism"_ in June, 1908\. [John Crump, **Hatta Shuzo and Pure
+_"Anarchist Communism"_ in June, 1908. [John Crump, **Hatta Shuzo and Pure
Anarchism in Interwar Japan**, p. 25] Three years later, the Mexican
anarchists declared that they had _"hoisted the Red Flag on Mexico's fields of
action"_ as part of their _"war against Authority, war against Capital, and
@@ -614,3 +614,7 @@ revolt of 1968"_ particularly as in many, if not most, of the world's
languages the word for anarchy begins with the letter A. [Peter Peterson,
**Op. Cit.**, p. 8]
+[‹ 11 What is the myth of "Natural Law"?](/afaq/append1311.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/index.html "Go to parent page" ) [Appendix :
+Anarchism and Marxism ›](/afaq/append3.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/append3.md b/markdown/append3.md
index afee1b377c9c98e9cc1349ee935b6b04fdae56e2..fc3daa0701331a2872c95a356239b5b1cb82e578 100644
--- a/markdown/append3.md
+++ b/markdown/append3.md
@@ -23,64 +23,64 @@ understands.
##
-* [Reply to errors and distortions in David McNally's pamphlet _"Socialism from Below"_](append3.html#app31)
+ * [Reply to errors and distortions in David McNally's pamphlet _"Socialism from Below"_](append3.html#app31)
##
-* [Marxists and Spanish Anarchism_](append3.html#app32)
+ * [Marxists and Spanish Anarchism](append3.html#app32)
##
-* [Reply to errors and distortions in Phil Mitchinson's **_"Marxism and direct action"**_](append3.html#app33)
+ * [Reply to errors and distortions in Phil Mitchinson's _"Marxism and direct action"_](append3.html#app33)
##
-* [Reply to errors and distortions in the SWP's **_"Marxism and Anarchism"_**](append3.html#app34)
+ * [Reply to errors and distortions in the SWP's _"Marxism and Anarchism"_](append3.html#app34)
##
-* [Reply to errors and distortions in John Fisher's _"Why we must further Marxism and not Anarchism"_**](append3.html#app35)
+ * [Reply to errors and distortions in John Fisher's _"Why we must further Marxism and not Anarchism"_](append3.html#app35)
* * *
-##
+ *
-* [Reply to errors and distortions in David McNally's pamphlet _"Socialism from Below"_ ](append31.html)
+## [Reply to errors and distortions in David McNally's pamphlet _"Socialism
+from Below"_](append31.html)
-### [1\. Introduction](append31.html#app1)
-[ 2\. Is anarchism the politics of the _"small property
+### [ 1\. Introduction](append31.html#app1)
+[2\. Is anarchism the politics of the _"small property
owner"_?](append31.html#app2)
-[ 3\. Does anarchism _"glorify values from the past"_?](append31.html#app3)
-[ 4\. Why are McNally's comments on Proudhon a distortion of his
+[3\. Does anarchism _"glorify values from the past"_?](append31.html#app3)
+[4\. Why are McNally's comments on Proudhon a distortion of his
ideas?](append31.html#app4)
-[ 5\. Why are McNally's comments on Bakunin a distortion of his
+[5\. Why are McNally's comments on Bakunin a distortion of his
ideas?](append31.html#app5)
-[ 6\. Are the _"quirks of personality"_ of Proudhon and Bakunin listed by
-McNally actually rooted _"in the very nature of anarchist
-doctrine"_?](append31.html#app6)
-[ 7\. Are anarchists against democracy?](append31.html#app7)
-[ 8\. Are Leninists in favour of democracy?](append31.html#app8)
-[ 9\. Why is McNally wrong on the relation of syndicalism to
+[6\. Are these _"quirks of personality"_ or _"rooted in the very nature of
+anarchist doctrine"_?](append31.html#app6)
+[7\. Are anarchists against democracy?](append31.html#app7)
+[8\. Are Leninists in favour of democracy?](append31.html#app8)
+[9\. Why is McNally wrong on the relation of syndicalism to
anarchism?](append31.html#app9)
-[ 10\. Do syndicalists reject working class political
+[10\. Do syndicalists reject working class political
action?](append31.html#app10)
-[ 11\. Why is McNally's claim that Leninism supports working class self-
+[11\. Why is McNally's claim that Leninism supports working class self-
emancipation wrong?](append31.html#app11)
-[ 12\. Why is Marxist "class analysis" of anarchism contradictory?
+[12\. Why is Marxist "class analysis" of anarchism contradictory?
](append31.html#app12)
-[ 13\. If Marxism is _"socialism from below,"_ why do anarchists reject
+[13\. If Marxism is _"socialism from below,"_ why do anarchists reject
it?](append31.html#app13)
-[ 14\. Why is McNally's use of the term _"socialism from below"_
+[14\. Why is McNally's use of the term _"socialism from below"_
dishonest?](append31.html#app14)
-[ 15\. Did Trotsky keep alive Leninism's _"democratic
-essence"_?](append31.html#app15)
+[15\. Did Trotsky keep alive Leninism's _"democratic
+essence"_?](append31.html#app15)
-##
+ *
-* [Marxists and Spanish Anarchism ](append32.html)
+## [Marxists and Spanish Anarchism](append32.html)
-### [1\. Were the Spanish Anarchists _"Primitive Rebels"_?
-](append32.html#app1)
+### [1\. Were the Spanish Anarchists _"Primitive
+Rebels"_?](append32.html#app1)
[2\. How accurate is Felix Morrow's book on the Spanish Revolution?
](append32.html#app2)
[3\. Did a _"highly centralised"_ FAI control the CNT?](append32.html#app3)
@@ -113,15 +113,14 @@ ideas?](append32.html#app18)
[19\. Did the experience of the rural collectives refute
anarchism?](append32.html#app19)
[20\. Does the experience of the Spanish Revolution indicate the failure of
-anarchism or the failure of anarchists?](append32.html#app20)
-
-##
+anarchism or the failure of anarchists?](append32.html#app20)
-* [Reply to errors and distortions in Phil Mitchinson's **_"Marxism and direct action"**_
+ *
-](append33.html)
+## [Reply to errors and distortions in Phil Mitchinson's **_"Marxism and
+direct action"_**](append33.html)
-### [1\. How does Mitchinson impoverish the politics of the direct action
+### [1\. How does Mitchinson impoverish the politics of the direct action
groups?](append33.html#app1)
[2\. Does anarchism _"juxtapose"_ theory and action?](append33.html#app2)
[3\. How does Mitchinson distort the London May Day demo?](append33.html#app3)
@@ -164,21 +163,20 @@ society?](append33.html#app23)
[25\. Do anarchists ignore the _"strength of the working
class"_?](append33.html#app25)
[26\. What does Mitchinson's article tell about the nature of
-Trotskyism?](append33.html#app26)
+Trotskyism?](append33.html#app26)
-##
-
-* [ Reply to errors and distortions in the SWP's _"Marxism and Anarchism"_
+ *
-](append34.html)
+## [Reply to errors and distortions in the SWP's _"Marxism and
+Anarchism"_](append34.html)
-### [1\. What does the anti-globalisation movement tell us about the
+### [1\. What does the anti-globalisation movement tell us about the
effectiveness of the "vanguard" parties like the SWP?](append34.html#app1)
[2\. What does the SWP miss out in its definition of
anarchism?](append34.html#app2)
[3\. Why does mentioning the history of anarchism weaken the SWP's
argument?](append34.html#app3)
-[4\. How is the SWP wrong about centralisation? ](append34.html#app4)
+[4\. How is the SWP wrong about centralisation?](append34.html#app4)
[5\. Why does the SWP's _"picket line is 'authoritarian'"_ argument totally
miss the point?](append34.html#app5)
[6\. Why are the SWP's examples of _"state functions"_
@@ -217,33 +215,42 @@ _"open debate and common struggle"_?](append34.html#app22)
workers"_?](append34.html#app23)
[24\. Do anarchists blame workers _"for being insufficiently
revolutionary"_?](append34.html#app24)
-[ 25\. Why does the history of centralised parties refute the SWP's
-arguments?](append34.html#app25)
+[25\. Why does the history of centralised parties refute the SWP's
+arguments?](append34.html#app25)
##
-* [ Reply to errors and distortions in John Fisher's _"Why we must further Marxism and not Anarchism"_
-
-](append35.html)
+ * [Reply to errors and distortions in John Fisher's _"Why we must further Marxism and not Anarchism"_](append35.html)
-### [ 1\. Why should _"the so-called Anarchistic youth of today"_ be
-concerned that Trotskyists consider them allies? ](append35.html#app1)
-[ 2\. What else do people learn about when they discover anarchism is more
-than _"utter rebellion"_?](append35.html#app2)
-[ 3\. What do anarchists think will _"replace the smashed state
+### [1\. Why should _"the so-called Anarchistic youth of today"_ be concerned
+that Trotskyists consider them allies? ](append35.html#app1)
+[2\. What else do people learn about when they discover anarchism is more than
+_"utter rebellion"_?](append35.html#app2)
+[3\. What do anarchists think will _"replace the smashed state
machine"_?](append35.html#app3)
-[ 4\. What did Trotsky and Lenin think must replace the bourgeois
+[4\. What did Trotsky and Lenin think must replace the bourgeois
state?](append35.html#app4)
-[ 5\. Is the _"proletarian 'state'"_ really a new kind of
+[5\. Is the _"proletarian 'state'"_ really a new kind of
state?](append35.html#app5)
-[ 6\. Do anarchists _"hope the capitalists do not make any attempts of
+[6\. Do anarchists _"hope the capitalists do not make any attempts of
counterrevolution"_?](append35.html#app6)
-[ 7\. Are Anarchists simply _"potential Marxists"_?](append35.html#app7)
-[ 8\. Is Marxism a scientific?](append35.html#app8)
-[ 9\. What does the Russian Revolution tell us about
+[7\. Are Anarchists simply _"potential Marxists"_?](append35.html#app7)
+[8\. Is Marxism a scientific?](append35.html#app8)
+[9\. What does the Russian Revolution tell us about
Trotskyism?](append35.html#app9)
-[ 10\. Do anarchists reject "leadership"?](append35.html#app10)
-[ 11\. Does the Spanish Revolution show anarchism is
+[10\. Do anarchists reject "leadership"?](append35.html#app10)
+[11\. Does the Spanish Revolution show anarchism is
flawed?](append35.html#app11)
-[ 12\. Does anarchism believe in spontaneous revolution?](append35.html#app12)
+[12\. Does anarchism believe in spontaneous revolution?](append35.html#app12)
+
+ * [Reply to errors and distortions in David McNally's pamphlet "Socialism from Below"](/afaq/append31.html)
+ * [Marxists and Spanish Anarchism](/afaq/append32.html)
+ * [Reply to errors and distortions in Phil Mitchinson's "Marxism and direct action"](/afaq/append33.html)
+ * [Reply to errors and distortions in the SWP's "Marxism and Anarchism"](/afaq/append34.html)
+ * [Reply to errors and distortions in John Fisher's "Why we must further Marxism and not Anarchism"](/afaq/append35.html)
+
+[‹ Appendix - The Symbols of Anarchy](/afaq/append2.html "Go to previous page"
+) [up](/afaq/index.html "Go to parent page" ) [Reply to errors and distortions
+in David McNally's pamphlet "Socialism from Below" ›](/afaq/append31.html "Go
+to next page" )
diff --git a/markdown/append31.md b/markdown/append31.md
index ef6e2799f6129fe0e7e855653015eb428b5d7088..fbd856c40738ada747e550b3f3a2c376a17820e3 100644
--- a/markdown/append31.md
+++ b/markdown/append31.md
@@ -1,76 +1,194 @@
-# Reply to errors and distortions in David McNally's pamphlet _"Socialism
-from Below"_
+# Reply to errors and distortions in David McNally's pamphlet _"Socialism from
+Below"_
-Since this appendix was first written, David McNally has distanced himself
-from his pamphlet's critique of anarchism. In an end-note in his book
-**Another World Is Possible: Globalization & Anti-Capitalism** he wrote:
+In chapter three of his pamphlet _[Socialism from
+Below](http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/contemp/pamsetc/socfrombel/sfb_main.htm)_,
+David McNally decides to expose (what he calls) _"The Myth Of Anarchist
+Libertarianism."_ In reality, his account is so distorted and, indeed,
+dishonest that all it proves is that Marxists will go to extreme lengths to
+attack anarchist ideas. As Brain Morris points out, defending the Leninist
+tradition and ideology _"implies . . . a compulsive need to rubbish
+anarchism."_ [**Ecology & Anarchism**, p. 128] McNally's pamphlet is a
+classic example of this. As we will prove, his "case" is a mishmash of
+illogical assertions, lies and, when facts do appear, their use is almost
+always a means of painting a false picture of reality.
+
+It must be stressed that there is nothing new or original in McNally's
+pamphlet. It is simply an unthinking repetition of previous Marxists attacks
+on anarchism, starting with Marx's dishonest diatribe against Proudhon **The
+Poverty of Philosophy**, and is mostly based on Hal Draper's **The Two Souls
+of Socialism** (McNally states he _"should also record here a debt of
+inspriation of [this] now-out-of-print pamphlet by Draper"_). While McNally's
+errors are commonplace within what passes for Marxist scholarship, this does
+not excuse his repeating of them without first checking their accuracy (or,
+more correctly, their inaccuracy). If more Marxists took the time to validate
+their prejudices and assumptions against what Proudhon, Bakunin and other
+anarchists wrote then it would be possible to have a real discussion on what
+**genuine** socialism (one, as Proudhon and Bakunin stressed long before
+Marxists appropriated the term, _"from below"_) entails.
+
+It must be noted that since this appendix was first written in 2000, David
+McNally has distanced himself from his pamphlet's critique of anarchism. In an
+end-note in a book written in 2006 he described this welcome rethink:
> _"I dissent from Draper's one-sided critique of anarchism . . . Draper is
not fair to some of the currents within social anarchism. I also reject my own
restatement of Draper's interpretation in the first edition of my booklet
-**Socialism from Below**"_ [David McNally, **Another World Is Possible**, p.
-393]
+**Socialism from Below**"_ [**Another World Is Possible: Globalization &
+Anti-Capitalism**, p. 393]
While it seems unlikely this was in response to reading our critique, it does
show that it was correct. Unfortunately it took McNally over 20 years to
-acknowledge that his 1980 essay gave a distinctly distorted account of
-anarchism. Perhaps significantly, McNally no longer seems to be associated
-with the sister organisations of the British **Socialist Workers Party** (a
-group whose distortions of anarchism are infamous).
-
+acknowledge that his essay from 1984 gave a distinctly distorted account of
+anarchism (a distortion originally circulated in Marxist circles in the 1960s
+with Draper's pamphlet). Perhaps significantly, McNally no longer seems to be
+associated with the sister organisations of the British **Socialist Workers
+Party** (a group whose distortions of anarchism are many and infamous). Sadly,
+the damage has been done and his and Draper's flawed account of anarchism (and
+Marxism) has become all-too-commonplace within radical circles -- even in
+libertarian circles, some take these assertions on Proudhon and Bakunin at
+face value and do not seek to verify the claims made. This is unfortunate for,
+as we will see, while sometimes correct (for example, Proudhon's disgusting
+anti-feminism) most of the claims are false or, at best, half-truths turned
+into full-lies by ignoring context or other relevant facts.
+
+We hope that this reply will ensure today's radicals will gain a fuller
+understanding of the ideas -- and limitations! -- of Proudhon and Bakunin and,
+more importantly, how they influenced subsequent anarchists and the
+development of libertarian ideas. It will also allow an informed discussion
+between Marxists and Anarchists on their areas of agreement and disagreement.
McNally now argues that _"it may be more helpful to try and defend a common
political vision -- such as socialism from below or libertarian socialism --
as a point of reference"_ rather than fixate over labels like "Marxism" or
-"anarchism." [**Op. Cit.**, p. 347] As we noted in our critique of his 1980
+"anarchism." [**Op. Cit.**, p. 347] As we noted in our critique of his
pamphlet, the term _"socialism from below"_ has a distinctly anarchist feel to
it, a feel distinctly at odds with Leninist ideology and practice. Moreover,
as shown below, Lenin explicitly denounced _"from below"_ as an anarchist idea
-- and his practice once in power showed that _"from above"_ is part and
-parcel of Leninism in action.
+parcel of Leninism in action. Sadly, most Leninists are unaware of this.
-[AFAQ Blog has a posting](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/afaq-critique-
-of-marxist-vindicated) on this issue. In addition, many of the issues
-discussed in this appendix are also explored in [section H](secHcon.html) of
-the FAQ and that should also be consulted. This is particularly the case as
-that section has been completed and revised after this appendix was completed.
+Finally, many Marxists reject Leninism: some for the original ideas of
+Marxism, such as the **Socialist Party of Great Britain** and its sister
+parties and some, like the council communists, for extension of them in the
+direction of revolutionary anarchist conclusions. As such, this critique
+should not be taken for a blanket rejection of all Marxists but rather a
+specific form of it, namely Leninism. Nor should it be taken for a blanket
+rejection of everything Marx or Marxists have argued. There any many forms of
+anarchism and many forms of Marxism, some of which are closer than others.
-## 1\. Introduction
+Many of the issues discussed in this appendix are also explored in [section
+H](secHcon.html) of the FAQ and that should also be consulted.
-In chapter three of his pamphlet _[Socialism from
-Below](http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/contemp/pamsetc/socfrombel/sfb_main.htm)_,
-David McNally decides to expose (what he calls) _"The Myth Of Anarchist
-Libertarianism."_ In reality, his account is so distorted and, indeed,
-dishonest that all it proves is that Marxists will go to extreme lengths to
-attack anarchist ideas. As Brain Morris points out, defending the Leninist
-tradition and ideology _"implies . . . a compulsive need to rubbish
-anarchism."_ [**Ecology & Anarchism**, p. 128] McNally's pamphlet is a classic
-example of this. As we will prove, his "case" is a mish-mash of illogical
-assertions, lies and, when facts do appear, their use is simply a means of
-painting a false picture of reality.
+## 1\. Introduction
-He begins by noting that _"Anarchism is often considered to represent [a]
+McNally begins by noting that _"Anarchism is often considered to represent [a]
current of radical thought that is truly democratic and libertarian. It is
hailed in some quarters as the only true political philosophy [of] freedom."_
-Needless to say, he thinks that the _"reality is quite different."_ He argues
+Needless to say, he thinks that the _"reality is quite different"_ and argues
that _"[f]rom its inception anarchism has been a profoundly anti-democratic
doctrine. Indeed the two most important founders of anarchism, Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon and Michael Bakunin, developed theories that were elitist and
authoritarian to the core."_ We will discover the truth of this assertion
-later. However, we must note that McNally uses the typical Marxist approach to
-attacking anarchism -- namely to attack anarchists rather than anarchism as
-such. Indeed, he lamely notes that _"[w]hile later anarchists may have
-abandoned some of the excesses' of their founding fathers their philosophy
+later.
+
+First we must note that McNally uses the typical Marxist approach to attacking
+anarchism -- namely to attack anarchists rather than anarchism as such.
+British Anarchist Albert Meltzer summarised the flaws in this perspective
+well:
+
+> _"Marxist-Leninists, faced with Anarchism, find that by its nature it
+undermines all the suppositions basic to Marxism. Marxism was held out to be
+the basic working class philosophy (a belief which has utterly ruined the
+working class movement everywhere). It holds that the industrial proletariat
+cannot owe its emancipation to anyone but themselves alone. It is hard to go
+back on that and say that the working class is not yet ready to dispense with
+authority placed over it . . . Marxism normally tries to refrain from
+criticising anarchism as such -- unless driven to doing so, when it exposes
+its own authoritarianism . . . and concentrates its attacks not on Anarchism,
+but on Anarchists."_ [**Anarchism: Arguments for and Against**, p. 62]
+
+So when reading this or any critique of anarchism always remember that few
+people are completely consistent libertarians and determine whether the words
+written reflect a flaw in anarchism **as such** or whether they reflect a
+personal flaw of the thinker in question. Once this common-sense position is
+taken it quickly becomes clear that anything valid in McNally's critique
+highlights the flaws of individuals who did not consistently rise to the
+levels implied by their ideas. This, most obviously, is the case with
+Proudhon's sexism which is in contradiction with his support for liberty,
+equality and federalism. Unsurprisingly, his contemporary Joseph Déjacque
+wrote a critique of Proudhon's sexist views in 1857, urging him to renounce
+_"this gender aristocracy that would bind us to the old regime"_ and _"speak
+out against man's exploitation of woman."_: _"Do not describe yourself as an
+anarchist, or be an anarchist through and through"_ [_"On Being Human"_, pp.
+68-71, **Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas**, Vol. 1,
+Robert Graham (ed.), p. 71] Later anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin
+likewise applied anarchist principles consistently on this issue, a fact
+McNally cannot bring himself to admit.
+
+Second, McNally lamely notes that _"[w]hile later anarchists may have
+abandoned some of the excesses of their founding fathers their philosophy
remains hostile to ideas of mass democracy and workers' power."_ Thus, we have
the acknowledgement that not all anarchists share the same ideas and that
anarchist theory has developed since 1876 (the year of Bakunin's death). This
is to be expected as anarchists are not Proudhonists or Bakuninists -- we do
not name ourselves after one person, rather we take what is useful from
-libertarian writers and ignore the rubbish. In Malatesta's words, _"[w]e
-follow ideas and not men, and rebel against this habit of embodying a
-principle in a man."_ [**Life and Ideas**, p. 199] However, this is beside the
-point as McNally's account of the anarchism of Proudhon and Bakunin is simply
-false -- indeed, so false as to make you wonder if he is simply incompetent as
-a scholar or seeks to present a patchwork of lies as fact and "theory."
+libertarian writers and ignore the rubbish. Malatesta's words are applicable
+here: _"We follow ideas and not men, and rebel against this habit of embodying
+a principle in a man."_ [**Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, p. 199]
+However, this is beside the point as McNally's account of the ideas of
+Proudhon and Bakunin is simply false -- indeed, so false as to make you wonder
+if he is simply incompetent as a scholar or seeks to present a patchwork of
+lies as fact and "theory."
+
+Third, McNally's approach rests on selective quoting, lack of context and an
+unwillingness to research the assertions he is making. This is important as we
+are discussing thinkers who wrote over a period of many decades and whose
+works and letters reflected the highs and lows of a person's life as well as
+the social movement they were part of. This means that in the depths of
+personal crisis or the repression of popular movements even the most
+consistent thinker can write passages which are in contradiction to the thrust
+of the works they are best known for. To quote such words from, say, private
+letters and ignore the books and articles which reflect a thinker's ideas best
+and which influenced others presents a false picture, particularly if the
+context within which the letters were written are unmentioned. So it would be
+a distortion of the ideas of Marx and Engels to quote the numerous anti-
+Semitic insults against specific individuals from their private letters. As
+would be expected, they were men of their age and expressed themselves in ways
+which today are, rightly, considered unacceptable (for those interested in
+such matters, Peter Fryer's essay _"Engels: A Man of his Time"_ should be
+consulted [John Lea and Geoff Pilling (eds.), **The condition of Britain:
+Essays on Frederick Engels**]). However, their few **public** racist comments
+could be considered worthy of note -- although, if so, then they should, like
+those of Proudhon and Bakunin, be placed in the context of their other ideas
+and the culture they lived in rather than being used as an excuse to ignore
+their contributions to socialism. Sadly, McNally -- like many Marxists --
+fails to do this, preferring dismissive finger-pointing instead.
+
+Lastly, McNally ignores the anti-democratic, authoritarian and elitist aspects
+of his own political tradition. Given that leading Bolsheviks like Lenin,
+Trotsky and Zinoviev publicly advocated party dictatorship and one-man
+management of production, it is a distortion to ignore this when discussing
+_"Socialism from Below"_. Simply put, while anarchists have consistently
+advocated communal and industrial self-management since 1840 to today, the
+Marxist tradition has not.
+
+McNally's pamphlet, as will become clear, does not present anything new. It
+simply repeats what is sadly all-to-often the received wisdom about anarchists
+and anarchism in Marxist circles. As such, it is worth the time and effort to
+reply to. Not only will it show the limitations of the Marxist position on
+anarchism, it will also afford us the opportunity to show that not only is
+anarchism a more genuine _"Socialism from Below"_ than Leninism but also that
+many of the ideas Marxists consider as their own were first argued by Proudhon
+and Bakunin.
+
+In short, we will show why _"Anarchism is often considered to represent
+current of radical thought that is truly democratic and libertarian"_ by
+contrasting what McNally asserts about it and what anarchist thinkers actually
+advocated. This will, unfortunately, produce a reply longer than the initial
+claims but this is unavoidable. We need to provide extensive quotes and
+arguments simply in order to show the weakness of McNally's assertions and to
+indicate where his own tradition advocated notions he -- inaccurately --
+attacks anarchism for.
## 2\. Is anarchism the politics of the _"small property owner"_?
@@ -83,82 +201,115 @@ class to make collectively a new society. Rather, anarchism defended the
freedom of the small property owner -- the shopkeeper, artisan and tradesman
-- against the encroachments of large-scale capitalist enterprise."_
-Such a position is, to say the least, a total distortion of the facts of the
-situation. Proudhon, for example, addressed himself to both the
-peasant/artisan and the proletariat. He argued in **What is Property?** that
-he _"preach[ed] emancipation to the proletaires; association to the
-labourers."_ [p. 137] Thus Proudhon addressed himself to both the
-peasant/artisan and the "working class" (i.e. wage slaves). This is to be
-expected from a **libertarian** form of socialism as, at the time of his
-writing, the majority of working people **were** peasants and artisans .
-Indeed, this predominance of artisan/peasant workers in the French economy
-lasted until the turn of the century. Not to take into account the
-artisan/peasant would have meant the dictatorship of a minority of working
-people over the rest of them. Given that in chapter 4 of his pamphlet McNally
-states that Marxism aims for a _"democratic and collective society . . . based
-upon the fullest possible political democracy"_ his attack on Proudhon's
-concern for the artisan and peasant is doubly strange. Either you support the
-_"fullest possible political democracy"_ (and so your theory must take into
-account artisans and peasants) or you restrict political democracy and replace
-it with rule by the few.
-
-Thus Proudhon **did** support the _"the freedom of the working class to make
-collectively a new society."_ His ideas were aimed at both artisan/peasant and
-proletarian. Moreover, this position was a distinctly sensible and radical
-position to take:
+Such a statement is, to say the least, a total distortion of the facts of the
+situation. Nor is it original. McNally is simply repeating Marx's assertions
+against Proudhon who, Marx claimed, _"wants to soar as the man of science
+above the bourgeois and the proletarians"_ but _"is merely the petty
+bourgeois, continually tossed back and forth between capital and labour,
+political economy and communism."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 6, p. 178] It
+should be noted that Marx had not always thought this of the Frenchman:
-> _"While Marx was correct in predicting the eventual predominance of the
-industrial proletariat vis--vis skilled workers, such predominance was neither
-obvious nor a foregone conclusion in France during the nineteenth century. The
-absolute number of small industries even increased during most of the century.
-. .
->
-> Nor does Marx seem to have been correct concerning the revolutionary nature
-of the industrial proletariat. It has become a clich of French labour history
-that during the nineteenth century artisans were much oftener radical than
-industrial workers. Some of the most militant action of workers in late
-nineteenth century France seems to have emerged from the co-operation of
-skilled, urbanised artisanal workers with less highly skilled and less
-urbanised industrial workers."_ [K. Steven Vincent, **Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
-and the Rise of French Republican Socialism**, pp. 282-3]
-
-The fruits of this union included the Paris Commune (an event both McNally and
-Marx praise -- see [ section 12](append31.html#app12) for more discussion on
-this). In addition, as we will see, Proudhon's proposals for a mutualist
-society included workers self-management and collective ownership of large
-scale workplaces as well as artisan and peasant production. This proposal
-existed **explicitly** for the proletariat, for wage slaves, and
-**explicitly** aimed to end wage labour and replace it by association and
-self-management (Proudhon stated that he aimed for _"the complete emancipation
-of the worker . . . the abolition of the wage worker."_ [quoted by Vincent,
-**Op. Cit.**, p. 222]). Thus, rather than being backward looking and aimed at
-the artisan/peasant, Proudhon's ideas looked to the present (and so the
-future) and to both the artisan/peasant **and** proletariat (i.e. to the
-**whole** of the working class in France at the time).
-
-In the words of Gustav Landauer, Proudhon's _"socialism . . . of the years
-1848 to 1851 was the socialism of the French people in the years 1848 to 1851.
-It was the socialism that was possible and necessary at that moment. Proudhon
-was not a Utopian and a prophet; not a Fourier and not a Marx. He was a man of
-action and realisation."_ [**For Socialism**, p. 108] Vincent makes the same
-point, arguing that Proudhon's _"social theories may not be reduced to a
-socialism for only the peasant class, nor was it a socialism only for the
-petite bourgeois; it was a socialism of and for French workers. And in the
-mid-nineteenth century . . . most French workers were still artisans. . .
+> _"Not only does Proudhon write in the interest of the proletarians he is
+himself a proletarian, an **ouvrier** [worker]. His work [**What is
+Property?**] is a scientific manifesto of the French proletariat."_ [**Op.
+Cit.**, vol. 4, p. 41]
+
+The change in perspective is unsurprising given that Marx thought his own
+ideology was that of the proletariat (whether the proletariat knew it or not)
+and, given his disagreements with Proudhon, the Frenchman had to represent
+some other class. However, if we reject the assumption that classes only have
+one theory associated with them, then the weakness of the Marxist assertion
+becomes clear -- particularly given that today there are no mass Marxist
+parties in spite of the fact that now, unlike in Marx's day, the proletariat
+is the majority of the working class in most of the world's countries.
+
+It is important to remember that at the end of the 1840s over 80% of the
+population of France and Germany were peasants or artisans -- what Marxists
+term the "petit-bourgeois". As Marx and Engels admitted in **The Communist
+Manifesto**, in _"countries like France"_ the peasants _"constitute far more
+than half of the population."_ This remained the case well after Proudhon's
+death in 1865, with Marx commenting in the early 1870s that _"the peasant . .
+. forms a more of less considerable majority . . . in the countries of the
+West European continent."_ [**The Marx-Engels Reader**, p. 493 and p. 543] As
+Proudhon himself noted in 1851, in _"a population of 36 millions, there are 24
+millions occupied with agriculture"_ and of the remaining 12 million there
+where only 6 million _"composing in part the wage-working class"_ [**Property
+is Theft!**, p. 558]
+
+This social context is important and it is difficult to understand the
+positions thinkers took unless it taken into account. In the words of
+anarchist Gustav Landauer, Proudhon's socialism _"of the years 1848 to 1851
+was the socialism of the French people in the years 1848 to 1851. It was the
+socialism that was possible and necessary at that moment. Proudhon was not a
+Utopian and a prophet; not a Fourier and not a Marx. He was a man of action
+and realisation."_ [**For Socialism**, p. 108] Historian K. Steven Vincent
+makes the same point, arguing that Proudhon's _"social theories may not be
+reduced to a socialism for only the peasant class, nor was it a socialism only
+for the petite bourgeois; it was a socialism of and for French workers. And in
+the mid-nineteenth century . . . most French workers were still artisans. . .
French labour ideology largely resulted from the real social experiences and
aspirations of skilled workers . . . Proudhon's thought was rooted in the same
fundamental reality, and therefore understandably shared many of the same
-hopes and ideals."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 5-6] It is no coincidence, therefore,
-that when he was elected to the French Parliament in 1848 most of the votes
-cast for him were from _"working class districts of Paris -- a fact which
-stands in contrast to the claims of some Marxists, who have said he was
-representative only of the petite bourgeoisie."_ [Robert L. Hoffman, quoted by
-Robert Graham, _"Introduction"_, P-J Proudhon, **General Idea of the
-Revolution**, p. xv]
-
-Given that his proposals were aimed at the whole working class, it is
+hopes and ideals."_ [**Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French
+Republican Socialism**, pp. 5-6] It is no coincidence, therefore, that when he
+was elected to the French Parliament in 1848 most of the votes cast for him
+were from _"working class districts of Paris -- a fact which stands in
+contrast to the claims of some Marxists, who have said he was representative
+only of the petite bourgeoisie."_ [Robert L. Hoffman, **Revolutionary
+Justice**, p. 136]
+
+Proudhon's position was a distinctly sensible and radical position to take:
+
+> _"While Marx was correct in predicting the eventual predominance of the
+industrial proletariat vis-à-vis skilled workers, such predominance was
+neither obvious nor a foregone conclusion in France during the nineteenth
+century. The absolute number of small industries even increased during most of
+the century. . ._
+
+> _"Nor does Marx seem to have been correct concerning the revolutionary
+nature of the industrial proletariat. It has become a cliché of French labour
+history that during the nineteenth century artisans were much oftener radical
+than industrial workers. Some of the most militant action of workers in late
+nineteenth century France seems to have emerged from the co-operation of
+skilled, urbanised artisanal workers with less highly skilled and less
+urbanised industrial workers."_ [Vincent, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 282-3]
+
+The fruits of this union included the Paris Commune, an event in which the
+followers of Proudhon played an important role and which both McNally and Marx
+praise (see [section 12](append31.html#app12) for more discussion on this).
+
+In short, Marx's earlier summation of Proudhon was correct -- his ideas
+reflected the ideas and interests of the French working class. Proudhon
+addressed himself to both the peasant/artisan and the proletariat. This is to
+be expected from a **libertarian** form of socialism as, at the time of his
+writing, the majority of working people **were** peasants and artisans and, as
+noted above, this predominance of artisan/peasant workers in the French
+economy lasted well after his (and Marx's) death. Not to take into account the
+artisan/peasant would have meant the dictatorship of a minority of working
+people over the rest of them (as we discuss in [section
+H.1.1](secH1.html#sech11) this was also a key reason for Bakunin's rejection
+of Marx's _"dictatorship of the proletariat"_). Given that in chapter 4 of his
+pamphlet McNally states that Marxism aims for a _"democratic and collective
+society . . . based upon the fullest possible political democracy"_ his attack
+on Proudhon's concern for the artisan and peasant is doubly strange. Either
+you support the _"fullest possible political democracy"_ and so your theory
+must take into account artisans and peasants or you restrict political
+democracy and replace it with rule by the few.
+
+Unsurprisingly, then, Proudhon argued in 1841 that he _"preach[ed]
+emancipation to the proletarians; association to the workers."_ [**Op. Cit.**,
+p. 157] However, as McNally notes, he _"oppose[d] trade unions."_ and did not
+see them as the means of achieving this for it was _"not by such methods that
+the workingmen will attain to wealth and -- what is a thousand times more
+precious than wealth -- liberty."_ [Proudhon, **System of Economical
+Contradictions**, p. 150] However, this did not mean that he was rejected the
+idea that the working class (in its three sections of wage-workers, artisan
+and peasants) would liberate itself. While fundamentally a reformist, Proudhon
+recognised that self-liberation was only genuine form of liberation and so had
+_"always thought that the proletariat must emancipate itself without the help
+of the government."_ [**Property is Theft!**, 306] Given this, it is
unsurprising that Proudhon saw social change as coming from _"below"_ by the
collective action of the working class:
@@ -167,97 +318,179 @@ consists in organising . . . the producers, and by this organisation
subjecting capital and subordinating power. Such is the war that you have to
sustain: a war of labour against capital; a war of liberty against authority;
a war of the producer against the non-producer; a war of equality against
-privilege . . . to conduct the war to a successful conclusion, . . . it is of
+privilege . . . to conduct the war to a successful conclusion . . . it is of
no use to change the holders of power or introduce some variation into its
workings: an agricultural and industrial combination must be found by means of
-which power, today the ruler of society, shall become its slave."_ [**System
-of Economical Contradictions**, pp. 397-8]
-
-In the same work he continues his discussion of proletarian self-organisation
-as the means of social change:
-
-> _"Thus power [i.e. the state] . . . finds itself inevitably enchained to
-capital and directed against the proletariat. . . The problem before the
-labouring classes, then, consists, not in capturing, but in subduing both
-power and monopoly, \-- that is, in generating from the bowels of the people,
-from the depths of labour, a greater authority, a more potent fact, which
-shall envelop capital and the State and subjugate them. Every proposition of
-reform which does not satisfy this condition is simply one scourge more . . .
-which threatens the proletariat."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 399]
-
-Little wonder Proudhon saw the validity of his mutualist vision from the self-
-activity of French workers (see [section A.1.5](secA1.html#seca15) for
-details). Where Proudhon differs from later anarchists like Bakunin,
-Kropotkin, Malatesta and Goldman is that this self-activity is reformist in
-nature, that is seeking alternatives to capitalism which can reform it away
-rather than alternatives that can fight and destroy it. Thus Proudhon places
-his ideas firmly in the actions of working people resisting wage slavery (i.e.
-the proletariat, **not** the _"small property owner"_).
-
-Similarly with Bakunin. He argued that _"revolution is only sincere, honest
-and real in the hands of the masses"_ and so socialism can be achieved _"by
-the development and organisation, not of the political but of the social (and,
-by consequence, anti-political) power of the working masses . . . .
-organise[d] and federate[d] spontaneously, freely, from the bottom up, by
-their own momentum according to their real interest, but never according to
-any plan laid down in advance and imposed upon the **ignorant masses** by some
-superior intellects."_ Such a socialist society would be based on _"the
-collective ownership of producers' associations, freely organised and
-federated in the communes, and by the equally spontaneous federation of these
-communes."_ Thus _"the land, the instruments of work and all other capital
-[will] become the collective property of the whole of society and be utilised
-only by the workers, in other words by the agricultural and industrial
-associations."_ And the means to this socialist society? Trade unionism (_"the
-complete solidarity of individuals, sections and federations in the economic
-struggle of the workers of all countries against their exploiters."_)
-[**Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings**, p. 237, pp. 197-8, p. 197, p. 174 and
-p. 177] Indeed, he considered trade unions (organised from the bottom up, of
-course) as _"the natural organisation of the masses"_ and thought that
-_"workers' solidarity in their struggle against the bosses . . . [by]
-**trades-unions, organisation, and the federation of resistance funds**"_ was
-the means by which workers could emancipate itself _"**through practical
-action.**"_ [**The Basic Bakunin**, p. 139 and p. 103]
+which power, today the ruler of society, shall become its slave."_ [**Op.
+Cit.**, p. 225]
+
+During the 1848 revolution he urged _"a provisional committee be set up to
+orchestrate exchange, credit and commerce between workers"_ which would
+_"liaise with similar committees set up in the main cities of France"_ and
+_"under the aegis of these committees, a body representative of the
+proletariat be formed in Paris . . . in opposition to the bourgeoisie's
+representation."_ This ensured that _"a new society be founded in the heart of
+the old society"_. He later stressed the _"organisation of popular societies
+was the pivot of democracy, the cornerstone of republican order"_ and these
+_"clubs . . . assemblies, popular societies"_ would ensure _"the organisation
+of universal suffrage in all its forms, of the very structure of Democracy
+itself."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 321, p. 407 and p. 461] As Daniel Guérin
+summarised, _"in the midst of the 1848 Revolution,"_ Proudhon _"sketched out a
+minimum libertarian program: progressive reduction in the power of the State,
+parallel development of the power of the people from below, through what he
+called clubs"_ which today we _"would call councils."_ [**Anarchism**, pp.
+152-3]
+
+Clearly, even if he (wrongly) rejected trade unionism Proudhon **did**
+support, to quote McNally, the _"the freedom of the working class to make
+collectively a new society."_ Indeed, as one historian notes, there was
+_"close similarity between the associational ideal of Proudhon . . . and the
+program of the Lyon Mutualists"_ and that there was _"a remarkable convergence
+[between these ideas], and it is likely that Proudhon was able to articulate
+his positive program more coherently because of the example of the silk
+workers of Lyon. The socialist ideal that he championed was already being
+realised, to a certain extent, by such workers."_ [Vincent, **Op. Cit.**, p.
+164] Proudhon simply rejected revolution, trade unions or state-backed reforms
+as the means of achieving socialism and instead argued for a reformist
+strategy based primarily on the creation of co-operative workplaces and banks.
+He linked his politics to workers self-activity and argued that _"the proof"_
+of his mutualist ideas was shown in the _"current practice, revolutionary
+practice"_ of _"those labour associations . . . which have spontaneously . . .
+been formed in Paris and Lyon"_ during the 1848 revolution which show that the
+_"organisation of credit and organisation of labour amount to one and the
+same."_ If all workers _"organise themselves along similar lines, it is
+obvious that, as masters of labour, constantly generating fresh capital
+through work, they would soon have wrested alienated capital back again,
+through their organisation and competition."_ This would apply to _"small-
+scale"_ as well as _"large-scale property and large industries"_. [**Op.
+Cit.**, pp. 374-5] Thus Proudhon places his ideas firmly in the actions of
+working people resisting wage slavery (i.e. the proletariat) and **not**
+exclusively in the _"small property owner"_ (i.e., artisans and peasants).
+
+So regardless of McNally's claims, Proudhon was not fixated upon _"small
+property"_. As we discuss in [section 4](append31.html#app4), Proudhon's
+recognition of differences in the working class was reflected in his position
+on property. His proposals for a libertarian society included social
+ownership, workers' self-management of large scale workplaces as well as
+artisan and peasant production and **explicitly** and **repeatedly** argued
+for _"the complete emancipation of the worker . . . the abolition of the wage
+worker."_ [quoted by Vincent, **Op. Cit.**, p. 222] Rather than being backward
+looking and aiming exclusively at the artisan/peasant, Proudhon's ideas looked
+to the present and the future by looking at both the artisan/peasant **and**
+proletariat (i.e. to the **whole** of the working class in France at the
+time). As Daniel Guérin summarised:
+
+> _"Proudhon really moved with the times and realised that it is impossible to
+turn back the clock. He was realistic enough to understand that 'small
+industry is as stupid as petty culture" . . . With regard to large-scale
+modern industry requiring a large workforce, he was resolutely collectivist:
+'In future, large-scale industry and wide culture must be the fruit of
+association.' 'We have no choice in the matter,' he concluded, and waxed
+indignant that anyone had dared to suggest that he was opposed to technical
+progress . . . Property must be abolished . . . The means of production and
+exchange must be controlled neither by capitalist companies nor by the State .
+. . they must be managed by associations of workers"_ [**Anarchism**, p. 45]
+
+The notion that anarchism is the politics of the _"small property owner"_ is
+even harder to maintain when we move from Proudhon's reformist anarchism to
+the revolutionary anarchism of Bakunin and Kropotkin. While there is a similar
+commitment to a decentralised, federal socialism _"from below"_ rooted in
+social and economic self-management, the means are different: revolution is
+embraced, along with labour unions and direct action. Where Proudhon differs
+from later anarchists like Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta and Goldman is that
+this working class self-activity is reformist in nature, that is seeking
+alternatives to capitalism which can reform it away rather than alternatives
+that can fight and destroy it. However, this embrace of social revolution and
+class struggle by anarchists like Bakunin rests on the same principle of
+working class self-emancipation.
+
+Hence we find Bakunin arguing that _"revolution is only sincere, honest and
+real in the hands of the masses"_ and so socialism can be achieved _"by the
+development and organisation, not of the political but of the social (and, by
+consequence, anti-political) power of the working masses"_ who must _"organise
+and federate spontaneously, freely, from the bottom up, by their own momentum
+according to their real interest, but never according to any plan laid down in
+advance and imposed upon the **ignorant masses** by some superior
+intellects."_ Social change would be achieved only by _"the complete
+solidarity of individuals, sections and federations in the economic struggle
+of the workers of all countries against their exploiters."_ [**Michael
+Bakunin: Selected Writings**, p. 237, pp. 197-8 and p. 177] Unlike Proudhon,
+he saw the means for achieving the social revolution in the labour movement as
+trade unions (organised from the bottom up, of course) were _"the natural
+organisation of the masses"_ as _"workers' solidarity in their struggle
+against the bosses"_ was the means by which workers could emancipate itself
+_"**through practical action.**"_ Thus the key to working-class self-
+liberation was _"**trades-unions, organisation, and the federation of
+resistance funds**"_ [**The Basic Bakunin**, p. 139 and p. 103] In short, what
+became known as a syndicalist position (see [section 9](append31.html#app9)
+for a discussion of McNally's false counterpoising of anarchism and
+syndicalism) as the _"organisation of the trade sections and their
+representation by the Chambers of Labour . . . 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] Moreover, as we show in the [next
+section](append31.html#app3), like Proudhon, Bakunin argued that an anarchist
+society would be based on _"the collective ownership of producers'
+associations, freely organised and federated in the communes, and by the
+equally spontaneous federation of these communes."_ [**Michael Bakunin:
+Selected Writings**, p. 197] As Kropotkin summarised:
+
+> _"the chief aim of Anarchism is to awaken those constructive powers of the
+labouring masses . . . since the times of the International Working Men’s
+Association, the Anarchists have always advised taking an active part in those
+workers’ organisations which carry on the **direct** struggle of Labour
+against Capital and its protector, -- the State_
+
+> _"Such a struggle . . . better than any other indirect means, permits the
+worker to obtain some temporary improvements in the present conditions of
+work, while it opens his eyes to the evil that is done by Capitalism and the
+State that supports it, and wakes up his thoughts concerning the possibility
+of organising consumption, production, and exchange without the intervention
+of the capitalist and the State."_ [**Direct Struggle Against Capital**, p.
+189]
And McNally asserts that _"the liberty defended by the anarchists was not the
freedom of the working class to make collectively a new society"_! Only
someone ignorant of anarchist theory or with a desire to deceive could make
-such an assertion.
-
-Needless to say, McNally's claim that anarchism is the politics of the _"small
-property owner"_ would be even harder to justify if he mentioned Kropotkin's
-**communist** anarchism. However, like Proudhon's and Bakunin's support for
-collective ownership by workers associations it goes unmentioned -- for
-obvious reasons.
+such an assertion. Needless to say, McNally's claim that anarchism is the
+politics of the _"small property owner"_ would be even harder to justify if he
+mentioned Kropotkin's **communist** anarchism. However, like Proudhon's and
+Bakunin's support for collective ownership by workers associations it goes
+unmentioned -- for obvious reasons.
## 3\. Does anarchism _"glorify values from the past"_?
-McNally continues. He asserts, regardless of the facts, that anarchism
-_"represented the anguished cry of the small property owner against the
-inevitable advance of capitalism. For that reason, it glorified values from
-the past: individual property, the patriarchal family, racism."_
+McNally asserts, regardless of the facts, that anarchism _"represented the
+anguished cry of the small property owner against the inevitable advance of
+capitalism. For that reason, it glorified values from the past: individual
+property, the patriarchal family, racism."_ The reality is very different. We
+will take each issue in turn.
-Firstly, we should note that unlike Marx, anarchists did not think that
+First, we should note that unlike Marx, anarchists did not think that
capitalism was inevitable or an essential phase society had to go through
-before we could reach a free society. They did not share Marx's viewpoint that
-socialism (and the struggle for socialism) had to be postponed until
-capitalism had developed sufficiently so that the _"centralisation of the
-means of production and the socialisation [sic!] of labour reach a point at
-which they become incompatible with their capitalist integument."_ [Karl Marx,
-**Capital**, vol. 1, p. 929] As McNally states, socialism was once the
-_"banner under which millions of working people resisted the horrors of the
-factory system and demanded a new society of equality, justice, freedom and
-prosperity."_ Unfortunately, the Marxist tradition viewed such horrors as
+before we could reach a free society. Neither Proudhon nor Bakunin shared
+Marx's viewpoint that socialism (and the struggle for socialism) had to be
+postponed until capitalism had developed sufficiently so that the
+_"centralisation of the means of production and the socialisation [sic!] of
+labour reach a point at which they become incompatible with their capitalist
+integument."_ [**Capital**, vol. 1, p. 929] As McNally states, socialism was
+once the _"banner under which millions of working people resisted the horrors
+of the factory system and demanded a new society of equality, justice, freedom
+and prosperity."_ Unfortunately, the Marxist tradition viewed such horrors as
essential, unavoidable and inevitable and any form of working class struggle
-- such as the Luddites -- which resisted the development of capitalism was
denounced. So much for Marxism being in favour of working class _"self-
emancipation"_ \-- if working class resistance to oppression and exploitation
which does not fit into its scheme for "working class self-emancipation" then
-it is the product of ignorance or non-working class influences.
+it is the product of ignorance or non-working class influences. This can be
+seen from McNally's position on anarchism.
Thus, rather than representing _"the anguished cry of the small property owner
against the inevitable advance of capitalism"_ anarchism is rather the cry of
the oppressed against capitalism and the desire to create a free society in
-the here and now and not some time in the future. To quote Landauer again:
+the here and now and not some time in the future once "the proletariat" was
+the majority of the working classes. To quote German Anarchist Gustav
+Landauer:
> _"Karl Marx and his successors thought they could make no worse accusation
against the greatest of all socialists, Proudhon, than to call him a petit-
@@ -265,164 +498,427 @@ bourgeois and petit-peasant socialist, which was neither incorrect nor
insulting, since Proudhon showed splendidly to the people of his nation and
his time, predominately small farmers and craftsmen, how they could achieve
socialism immediately without waiting for the tidy process of big
-capitalism."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 61]
-
-Thus McNally confuses a desire to achieve socialism with backward looking
-opposition to capitalism. As we will see, Proudhon looked at the current state
-of society, not backwards, as McNally suggests, and his theory reflected both
-artisan/peasant interests and those of wage slaves \-- as would be expected
-from a socialist aiming to transform his society to a free one. The disastrous
-results of Bolshevik rule in Russia should indicate the dangers of ignoring
-the vast bulk of a nation (i.e. the peasants) when trying to create a
-revolutionary change in society.
-
-Secondly, it is not really true that Proudhon or Bakunin "glorified"
-"individual property" as such. Proudhon argued that _"property is theft"_ and
+capitalism."_ [**For Socialism**, p. 61]
+
+As noted in the [previous section](append31.html#app2), Proudhon's theory
+reflected both artisan/peasant interests and those of wage workers -- as would
+be expected from a socialist aiming to transform his society to a free one.
+The disastrous results of Bolshevik rule in Russia should indicate the dangers
+of ignoring the vast bulk of a nation (i.e. the peasants) when trying to
+create a revolutionary change in society. McNally confuses a desire to achieve
+socialism **now** with backward looking opposition to capitalism. Proudhon
+looked at the current state of society, not backwards, as McNally suggests.
+Indeed, he lambasted those radicals during the 1848 who sought to repeat the
+glories of the Great French Revolution rather than look to the future:
+
+> _"It is by '93 and all of its discord that we are being ruled . . . The
+democrats of '93, conjuring up a republic with their high school memories [of
+Ancient Rome], after devouring one another, set the revolution back by half a
+century . . . The democrats of 1848, building the republic on their
+parliamentary memories, have also set the revolution back by half a century .
+. . they are only imitators; they thought themselves statesmen because they
+were following the old models!_
+
+> _"So what is this queer preoccupation which, in time of revolution,
+bedazzles the most steadfast minds, and, when their burning aspirations carry
+them forward into the future, has them constantly harking back the past? How
+does it come about that the People, just when it is making the break with
+established institutions, takes another plunge and gets further immersed in
+tradition? Society does not repeat itself: but one would have thought it was
+walking backwards . . . Could it not turn its gaze in the direction in which
+it is going?_
+
+> _"[. . .]_
+
+> _"In order to organise the future, a general rule confirmed by experience,
+the reformers always start out with their gaze fixed upon the past. Hence the
+contradiction forever discovered in their actions: hence also the immeasurable
+danger of revolutions."_ [**Property is Theft!**, p. 308]
+
+Secondly, it is not true that Proudhon or Bakunin _"glorified"_ individual
+property. Proudhon, as is well know, argued that _"property is theft"_ and
that _"property is despotism."_ He was well aware of the negative side effects
-of individual property. Rather he wanted to abolish property and replace it
-with possession. We doubt that McNally wants to socialise **all** _"property"_
-(including individual possessions and such like). We are sure that he, like
-Marx and Engels, wants to retain individual possessions in a socialist
-society. Thus they state that the _"distinguishing feature of Communism is not
-the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property"_
-and that _"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products
-of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the
-labour of others by means of such appropriation."_ [**The Manifesto of the
-Communist Party**, p.47 and p. 49] Later Marx argued that the Paris Commune
-_"wanted to make individual property a truth by transforming the means of
-production, land and capital . . . into mere instruments of free and
-associated labour."_ [**Selected Writings**, pp. 290-1]
-
-Thus support for _"individual property"_ is not confined to Proudhon (and we
-must note that Proudhon desired to turn capital over to associated labour as
-well -- see [section A.5.1](secA5.html#seca51) for Proudhon's influence in the
-economic measures made during the Commune to create co-operatives).
-
-Indeed, initially Marx had nothing but praise for Proudhon's critique of
-Property contained in his classic work **What is Property?**:
-
-> _"Not only does Proudhon write in the interest of the proletarians he is
-himself a proletarian, an ouvrier. His work is a scientific manifesto of the
-French proletariat."_ [quoted by Rudolf Rocker, **Marx and Anarchism**]
-
-As Rocker argues, Marx changed his tune simply to _"conceal from everyone just
-what he owed to Proudhon and any means to that end was admissible."_ This can
-be seen from the comments we quote above which clearly show a Proudhonian
-influence in their recognition that possession replaces property in a
-socialist society and that associated labour is its economic basis. However,
-it is still significant that Proudhon's analysis initially provoked such
-praise by Marx -- an analysis which McNally obviously does not understand.
-
-It is true that Proudhon did oppose the socialisation of artisan and peasant
-workplaces. He considered having control over the means of production,
-housing, etc. by those who use it as a key means of maintaining freedom and
-independence. However, Proudhon also called for _"democratically organised
-workers' associations"_ to run large-scale industry in his 1848 Election
-Manifesto. [**No Gods, No Masters**, vol. 1, p. 62] This aspect of his ideas
+of individual property and sought to end it: _"instead of inferring . . . that
+property should be shared by all, I demand, in the name of general security,
+its entire abolition."_ However, just as he was against capitalism, Proudhon
+was also against state socialism: _"Either competition, -- that is, monopoly
+and what follows; or exploitation by the State, -- that is, dearness of labour
+and continuous impoverishment; or else, in short, a solution based upon
+equality, -- in other words, the organisation of labour, which involves the
+negation of political economy and the end of property."_ [**Property is
+Theft!**, p. 87, p. 133, p. 91 and p. 202]
+
+He was well aware that replacing private property by state property would not
+liberate the working class for what he termed _"Community"_ (usually, if not
+accurately, translated as "communism"), would enserf the worker to the state.
+Instead, Proudhon wanted to abolish property and replace it with possession.
+As he put it in 1840's **What is Property?**, while property had to be
+_"collective and undivided"_ its use could be divided by means of
+_"possession"_. [**Op. Cit.**, p. 137] Thus workers would control the means of
+production they used as well as the goods they created:
+
+> _"property in product . . . does not carry with it property in the means of
+production; that seems to me to need no further demonstration. There is no
+difference between the soldier who possesses his arms, the mason who possesses
+the materials committed to his care, the fisherman who possesses the water,
+the hunter who possesses the fields and forests, and the cultivator who
+possesses the lands: all, if you say so, are proprietors of their products --
+not one is proprietor of the means of production. The right to product is
+exclusive . . . the right to means is common"._ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 112]
+
+As we discuss in the [section 4](append31.html#app4), Proudhon repeatedly
+noted his position and refuted those who claimed he supported individual
+property. He also recognised that private property was not completely without
+merit as it gave its holder a measure of autonomy and protection against the
+state and other social forces. It was precisely this autonomy which he wished
+all to share rather than under capitalism where workers _"sold their arms and
+parted with their liberty"_ to the capitalist or landlord. [**Op. Cit.**, p.
+212] However, recognising this -- and the dangers of state socialism -- hardly
+equates to glorification of private property.
+
+It is true that Proudhon did oppose the forced socialisation of artisan
+workplaces and peasant land. He considered having control over the means of
+production, housing, etc. by those who use it as a key means of maintaining
+freedom and independence. Thus we find him arguing in 1851 that _"it is
+evident that if the peasants think well to associate, they will associate"_.
+[**Op. Cit.**, p. 584] However, the issue was different for modern industry:
+
+> _"In such cases, it is one of two things; either the worker, necessarily a
+piece-worker, will be simply the employee of the proprietor-capitalist-
+entrepreneur; or he will participate in the chances of loss or gain of the
+establishment, he will have a voice in the council, in a word, he will become
+an associate._
+
+> _"In the first case the worker is subordinated, exploited: his permanent
+condition is one of obedience and poverty. In the second case he resumes his
+dignity as a man and citizen, he may aspire to comfort, he forms a part of the
+producing organisation, of which he was before but the slave; as, in the town,
+he forms a part of the sovereign power, of which he was before but the
+subject."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 583]
+
+Thus capitalism had to be replaced with associations _"due to the immorality,
+tyranny and theft suffered"_. [**Op. Cit.**, p. 584] This aspect of his ideas
is continual throughout his political works and played a central role in his
-social theory. Thus to say that Proudhon "glorified" "individual property"
-distorts his position. And as the experience of workers under Lenin indicates,
-collective ownership by the state does not end wage labour, exploitation and
-oppression. Proudhon's arguments in favour of possession and against
-capitalist **and** state ownership were proven right by Bolshevik Russia
---state ownership did lead to _"more wage slavery."_ [**Ibid.**] As the forced
-collectivisation of the peasantry under Stalin shows, Proudhon's respect for
-artisan/peasant possessions was a very sensible and humane position to take.
-Unless McNally supports the forced collectivisation of peasants and artisans,
-Proudhon's solution is one of the few positions a socialist can take.
-
-Moving on from Proudhon, we discover even less support for "individual
-property." Bakunin, for example, was totally in favour of collective property
-and opposed individual property in the means of life. As he put it, _"the
-land, the instruments of work and all other capital [will] become the
-collective property of society and by utilised only by the workers, in other
-words by the agricultural and industrial associations."_ [**Michael Bakunin:
-Selected Writings**, p. 174] With regards to peasants and artisans Bakunin
-desired **voluntary** collectivisation. _"In a free community,"_ he argued,
-_"collectivism can only come about through the pressure of circumstances, not
-by imposition from above but by a free spontaneous movement from below."_
-[**Bakunin on Anarchism**, p. 200]). Thus, rather than being a defender of
-"individual property" Bakunin was in fact a supporter of **collective**
-property (as organised in workers' associations and communes) and supported
-peasant and artisan property only in the sense of being against forced
-collectivisation (which would result in _"propelling [the peasants] into the
-camp of reaction."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 197]).
-
-Hence Daniel Guerin's comments:
+social theory. Thus to say that Proudhon _"glorified"_ individual property
+distorts his position. As he argued in 1848:
+
+> _"under universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments
+of labour is **social** ownership . . . We want the mines, canals, railways
+handed over to democratically organised workers' associations . . . We want
+these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the
+pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies woven into
+the common cloth of the democratic and social Republic."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp.
+377-8]
+
+As the experience of workers under Lenin indicates (see [section
+H.3.13](secH3.html#sech13)), collective ownership by the state does **not**
+end wage labour, exploitation and oppression and so Proudhon's arguments in
+favour of socialisation and possession and against capitalist **and** state
+ownership were proven right. As the forced collectivisation of the peasantry
+under Stalin shows, Proudhon's respect for artisan/peasant possessions was a
+very sensible and humane position to take. Unless McNally supports the forced
+collectivisation of peasants and artisans, Proudhon's solution is the only
+position a socialist can take.
+
+We doubt that McNally wants to socialise **all** _"property"_ (including
+individual possessions and such like). We are sure that he, like Marx and
+Engels, wants to retain individual possessions in a socialist society. Thus
+they stated that the _"distinguishing feature of Communism is not the
+abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property"_ and
+that _"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of
+society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the
+labour of others by means of such appropriation."_ Later Marx argued that the
+Paris Commune _"wanted to make individual property a truth by transforming the
+means of production, land and capital . . . into mere instruments of free and
+associated labour."_ [**Selected Writings**, p. 47, p. 49 and pp. 290-1] This
+echoes Proudhon's position that property _"changed its nature"_ when it _"the
+usufructuary converted his right to personally use the thing into the right to
+use it by his neighbour's labour"_. Thus support for _"individual property"_
+is not confined to Proudhon and, as noted, he desired to turn capital over to
+associated labour as well and this association he considered _"the
+annihilation of property"_. [**Op. Cit.**, p. 155 and p. 148] It should also
+be stressed, as we note in [section A.5.1](secA5.html#seca51), the followers
+of Proudhon played a key role in the Paris Commune and its attempts to create
+co-operatives reflected his ideas. Moreover, initially Marx had nothing but
+praise for Proudhon's critique of property contained in his classic work
+**What is Property?**:
+
+> _"Proudhon makes a critical investigation -- the first resolute, ruthless,
+and at the same time scientific investigation -- of the basis of political
+economy, **private property**. This is the great scientific advance he made,
+an advance which revolutionises political economy and for the first time makes
+a real science of political economy possible. Proudhon's treatise **Qu'est-ce
+que la propriété?** is as important for modern political economy as Sieyês'
+work **Qu'est-ce que le tiers état?** for modern politics."_ [**Collected
+Works**, vol. 4, p. 32]
+
+As Rocker argued, Marx changed his tune to _"conceal from everyone just what
+he owed to Proudhon and any means to that end was admissible."_ [**Marx and
+Anarchism**] This can be seen from the comments we quote above which clearly
+show a Proudhonian influence in their recognition that possession replaces
+property in a socialist society and that associated labour is its economic
+basis. However, it is still significant that Proudhon's analysis initially
+provoked such praise by Marx -- an analysis which McNally obviously does not
+understand.
+
+Moving on from Proudhon, we discover Bakunin also opposing individual property
+and arguing that _"the land, the instruments of work and all other capital
+[will] become the collective property of society and by utilised only by the
+workers, in other words by the agricultural and industrial associations."_
+[**Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings**, p. 174] With regards to peasants and
+artisans Bakunin also desired **voluntary** collectivisation. _"In a free
+community,"_ he argued, _"collectivism can only come about through the
+pressure of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by a free
+spontaneous movement from below."_ Rather than being a defender of "individual
+property" as McNally implies, Bakunin was a clear and consistent supporter of
+**collective** property (as organised in workers' associations and communes)
+and supported peasant and artisan property only in the sense of being against
+forced collectivisation as this would result in _"propelling [the peasants]
+into the camp of reaction."_ [**Bakunin on Anarchism**, p. 200 and p. 197]
+Expropriation of capital was considered a key aspect of social revolution:
+
+> _"let us suppose . . . it is Paris that starts [the revolution] . . . Paris
+will naturally make haste to organise itself as best it can, in revolutionary
+style, after the workers have joined into associations and made a clean sweep
+of all the instruments of labour, every kind of capital and building; armed
+and organised by streets and **quartiers**, they will form the revolutionary
+federation of all the **quartiers**, the federative commune . . . All the
+French and foreign revolutionary communes will then send representatives to
+organise the necessary common services . . . and to organise common defence
+against the enemies of the Revolution, together with propaganda, the weapon of
+revolution, and practical revolutionary solidarity with friends in all
+countries against enemies in all countries."_ [**Michael Bakunin: Selected
+Writings**, pp. 178-9]
+
+Given how often Bakunin stressed the need for union struggles and collective
+labour property, it is easy to conclude that McNally did no research into
+anarchism before writing about it. So we discover him arguing that
+_"resistance funds and trade unions"_ are _"the only efficacious weapons"_ the
+workers have against the bourgeoisie and this needed _"the organisation of the
+international strength of the workers of all countries."_ This movement aimed
+for a society _"based on equality"_ where _"all capital and every instrument
+of labour, including the soil, belong to the people, by right of collective
+property."_ States _"must be abolished, for their only mission is to protect
+individual property, that is, to protect the exploitation by some privileged
+minority, of the collective labour of the masses of the people"_ and a _"just
+human society"_ must be created, one _"free of political domination and
+economic exploitation, founded only on collective labour which is guaranteed
+by collective property."_ He repeatedly proclaimed his support for _"the great
+principle of **collective property**"_ and argued that _"the collective
+property of capital"_ was one of _"the absolutely necessary conditions for the
+emancipation **of labour and of the workers**"_. [**The Basic Bakunin**, p.
+153, p. 196 and p. 85] The social revolution would see _"the passing of all
+the land, capital and means of production into the hands of the international
+federation of free workers' associations."_ Land _"belongs to those who have
+cultivated it with their own hands -- to the rural communes"_ while _"capital
+and all tools of labour belong to the city workers -- to the workers'
+associations."_ Anarchism would be _"nothing else but a free federation of
+workers -- agricultural workers as well as factory workers and associations of
+craftsmen."_ [**The Political Philosophy of Bakunin**, p. 344 and p. 410]
+
+Clearly neither Proudhon nor Bakunin _"glorified"_ individual property. Hence
+Daniel Guérin's summary:
> _"Proudhon and Bakunin were 'collectivists,' which is to say they declared
themselves without equivocation in favour of the common exploitation, not by
the State but by associated workers of the large-scale means of production and
of the public services. Proudhon has been quite wrongly presented as an
-exclusive enthusiast of private property. . . At the Bale congress [of the
+exclusive enthusiast of private property . . . At the Bale congress [of the
First International] in 1869, Bakunin . . . all[ied] himself with the statist
Marxists . . . to ensure the triumph of the principle of collective
property."_ [_"From Proudhon to Bakunin"_, **The Radical Papers**, Dimitrios
-I. Roussopoulos (ed.), p.32]
-
-Similarly, while it is true that Proudhon **did** glorify the patriarchal
-family, the same cannot be said of Bakunin. Unlike Proudhon, Bakunin argued
-that _"[e]qual rights must belong to both men and women,"_ that women must
-_"become independent and free to forge their own way of life"_ and that
-_"[o]nly when private property and the State will have been abolished will the
-authoritarian juridical family disappear."_ He opposed the _"absolute
-domination of the man"_ in marriage, urged _"the full sexual freedom of
-women"_ and argued that the cause of women's liberation was _"indissolubly
-tied to the common cause of all the exploited workers -- men and women."_
-[**Bakunin on Anarchism**, pp. 396-7] Hardly what would be considered as the
-glorification of the patriarchal family -- and a position shared by Kropotkin,
-Malatesta, Berkman, Goldman, Chomsky and Ward. Thus to state that "anarchism"
-glorifies the patriarchal family simply staggers belief. Only someone ignorant
-of both logic and anarchist theory could make such an assertion. We could make
-similar remarks with regards to the glorification of racism (as Robert Graham
-points out _"anti-semitism formed no part of Proudhon's revolutionary
-programme."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. xxxvi] The same can be said of Bakunin).
+I. Roussopoulos (ed.), p. 32]
+
+Thirdly, while it is true that Proudhon **did** glorify the patriarchal
+family, the same cannot be said of Bakunin. Unlike Proudhon, he argued that
+_"[e]qual rights must belong to both men and women,"_ that women must _"become
+independent and free to forge their own way of life"_ and that _"[o]nly when
+private property and the State will have been abolished will the authoritarian
+juridical family disappear."_ He opposed the _"absolute domination of the
+man"_ in marriage, urged _"the full sexual freedom of women"_ and argued that
+the cause of women's liberation was _"indissolubly tied to the common cause of
+all the exploited workers -- men and women."_ An anarchist society's
+organisations would be populated by people elected _"by the universal suffrage
+of both sexes"_ and so it would be based on _"**[e]qual political, social, and
+economic rights, as well as equal obligations, for women.**"_ [**Bakunin on
+Anarchism**, pp. 396-7, p. 78 and p. 93] In short:
+
+> _"Abolition of the patriarchal family law, based exclusively upon the right
+to inherit property and also upon the equalisation of man and women in point
+of political, economic, and social rights."_ [**The Political Philosophy of
+Bakunin**, p. 343]
+
+It should be redundant to note that Bakunin's position was shared by the likes
+of Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman, Chomsky and Ward but, clearly, it is not --
+and best not ponder where such noted anarchists as Emma Goldman, Lucy Parsons,
+Voltairine de Cleyre and Louise Michel _"glorified . . . the patriarchal
+family"_! André Léo, a feminist libertarian and future Communard, pointed out
+the obvious contradiction in Proudhon's position in 1869 which these
+anarchists also saw:
+
+> _"These so-called lovers of liberty, if they are unable to take part in the
+direction of the state, at least they will be able to have a little monarchy
+for their personal use, each in his own home . . . Order in the family without
+hierarchy seems impossible to them -- well then, what about in the state?"_
+[quoted by Carolyn J. Eichner, _"'Vive La Commune!' Feminism, Socialism, and
+Revolutionary Revival in the Aftermath of the 1871 Paris Commune"_, **Journal
+of Women's History**, vol. 15, No. 2, p. 75]
+
+These anarchists, and many others, extended anarchist ideas to the one area of
+life where Proudhon excluded liberty: the family. Unsurprisingly, both during
+and after his lifetime, anarchists subjected it to an immanent critique (i.e.,
+using Proudhon's own concepts against his own position) and so while
+repulsive, Proudhon's anti-feminism should not be used for a blanket rejection
+of all his ideas given the otherwise appealing nature of his vision of a
+federated self-managed society -- nor anarchism **as such**. So to state, as
+McNally does, that "anarchism" glorifies the patriarchal family simply
+staggers belief. Only someone ignorant of both logic and anarchist theory
+could make such an assertion.
+
+Finally, we turn to the claim that anarchism _"glorified . . . racism"_. While
+it is undoubtedly true that both Proudhon and Bakunin made a few racist
+comments, it does not follow that anarchism as a political theory is racist.
+Few would suggest that because Marx and Engels made racist comments that this
+makes Marxism inherently racist (see [section 6](append31.html#app6) for a few
+examples of racist comments by the founders of Marxism). The same with
+anarchism -- particularly given that both Proudhon and Bakunin made anti-
+racist statements in their writings. Thus we find Proudhon arguing in 1851
+that in an anarchist society there will _"no longer be nationality, no longer
+fatherland, in the political sense of the words: they will mean only places of
+birth. Whatever a man's race or colour, he is really a native of the universe;
+he has citizen's rights everywhere."_ [**Property is Theft!**, p. 567] Bakunin
+echoed this in 1867, arguing that _"all collective and individual morality
+rests essentially upon **respect for humanity**"_ and this meant _"the
+recognition of human right and human dignity in every man, of whatever race,
+colour, degree of intellectual development, or even morality."_ [**Bakunin on
+Anarchism**, p. 146] That these comments, and others like them, are the ones
+consistent with Anarchist principles is obvious.
+
+So a few anti-Semitic and anti-German remarks, made in passing, does not
+equate to people who _"glorified . . . racism"_ nor a theory which is
+inherently racist. Rather, it means someone who expressed personal bigotries
+which failed to live up to their stated ideals. Yet rather than admit the
+obvious, McNally exaggerates Proudhon's and Bakunin's flaws while remaining
+silent on similar ones in Marx and Engels as well as the lack of them in the
+likes of Kropotkin, Malatesta, Rocker, Goldman, and so on. Ultimately, the
+weakness of McNally's position can be seen from the very large Jewish
+anarchist movement in both Europe and America which placed Proudhon and
+Bakunin in their pantheon of influences.
## 4\. Why are McNally's comments on Proudhon a distortion of his ideas?
-McNally now attempts to provide some evidence for his remarks. He turns to
+McNally does attempt to provide some evidence for his remarks. He turns to
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, _"widely proclaimed 'the father of anarchism.'"_ As he
-correctly notes, he was a _"printer by vocation"_ and that he _"strongly
-opposed the emergence of capitalism in France."_ However, McNally claims that
+correctly notes, Proudhon was a _"printer by vocation"_ and _"strongly opposed
+the emergence of capitalism in France."_ However, McNally claims that
Proudhon's _"opposition to capitalism was largely backward-looking in
character"_ as he _"did not look forward to a new society founded upon
communal property which would utilise the greatest inventions of the
industrial revolution. Instead, Proudhon considered small, private property
the basis of his utopia. His was a doctrine designed not for the emerging
working class, but for the disappearing petit bourgeoisie of craftsmen, small
-traders and rich peasants."_ Unfortunately McNally has got his facts wrong. It
-is well known that this was not the case (which is why McNally used the words
-_"largely backward-looking"_ \-- he is aware of facts but instead downplays
-them).
-
-If you look at Proudhon's writings, rather than what Marx and Engels
-**claimed** he wrote, it will soon be discovered that Proudhon in fact
-**favoured** collective ownership of large scale industry by workers'
-associations. He argued for _"the mines, canals, railways handed over to
-democratically organised workers' associations . . . We want these
-associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering
-core of that vast federation of companies and societies woven into the common
-cloth of the democratic social Republic."_ [**No Gods, No Masters**, vol. 1,
-p. 62] Three years later he stressed that _"[e]very industry, operation or
-enterprise which by its nature requires the employment of a large number of
-workmen of different specialities, is destined to become a society or company
-of workers."_ [**The General Idea of the Revolution**, p. 216] This argument
-for workers' self-management and collective ownership follows on from his
-earlier comment in 1840 that _"leaders"_ within industry _"must be chosen from
-the labourers by the labourers themselves."_ [**What is Property?**, p. 414]
-
-Rather than base his utopia on _"small, private property"_ Proudhon based it
-on the actual state of the French economy -- one marked by both artisan and
-large-scale production. The later he desired to see transformed into the
-collective property of workers' associations and placed under workers' self-
-management. The former, as it did not involve wage-labour, he supported as
-being non-capitalist. Thus his ideas were aimed at both the artisan and the
-appearing class of wage slaves. Moreover, rather than dismiss the idea of
-large-scale industry in favour of _"small, private property"_ Proudhon argued
-that _"[l]arge industry . . . come to us by big monopoly and big property: it
-is necessary in the future to make them rise from the [labour] association."_
-[quoted by K. Steven Vincent, **Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican
-Socialism**, p. 156] As Vincent correctly summarises:
+traders and rich peasants."_ Unfortunately McNally has got his facts wrong.
+
+To be fair to McNally, he is simply repeating what Marxists have been
+asserting about Proudhon since Marx wrote **The Poverty of Philosophy**. In
+that work, Marx claimed to be replying to Proudhon's **System of Economic
+Contradictions** but, in reality, the bulk of the work is inaccurate diatribe
+and its few valid points are swamped by selective quoting, false attribution
+and the repeation of points Proudhon made but in such a way as to suggest he
+argued the opposite. This last method of distortion can be seen when Marx
+implies that Proudhon wished to return to a pre-industrial economy based on
+small-scale private property:
+
+> _"Those who, like Sismondi, wish to return to the correct proportions of
+production, while preserving the present basis of society, are reactionary,
+since, to be consistent, they must also wish to bring back all the other
+conditions of industry of former times."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 6, p.
+137]
+
+Compare this to Proudhon's position expounded with similar words in **System
+of Economic Contradictions**:
+
+> _"M. de Sismondi, like all men of patriarchal ideas, would like the division
+of labour, with machinery and manufactures, to be abandoned, and each family
+to return to the system of primitive indivision, -- **that is, to each one by
+himself, each one for himself**, in the most literal meaning of the words.
+That would be to retrograde; it is impossible."_ [**Property is Theft!**, p.
+194]
+
+As we will show, this was not an isolated statement: Proudhon consistently
+supported not only large-scale industry but also socialised ownership. Indeed,
+the Frenchman was critical of those socialists (whom he rightly labelled
+"utopian") who replaced analysis of capitalism and its tendencies with visions
+of an ideal system:
+
+> _"It is important, then, that we should resume the study of economic facts
+and practices, discover their meaning, and formulate their philosophy. Until
+this is done, no knowledge of social progress can be acquired, no reform
+attempted. The error of socialism has consisted hitherto in perpetuating
+religious reverie by launching forward into a fantastic future instead of
+seizing the reality which is crushing it; as the wrong of the economists has
+been in regarding every accomplished fact as an injunction against any
+proposal of reform._
+
+> _"For my own part, such is not my conception of economic science, the true
+social science. Instead of offering **a priori** arguments as solutions of the
+formidable problems of the organisation of labour and the distribution of
+wealth, I shall interrogate political economy as the depository of the secret
+thoughts of humanity"_ [**System of Economical Contradictions**, p. 128]
+
+It worthwhile noting that the **System of Economic Contradictions** Proudhon
+was discussing was not some new utopian scheme, as Marx implied, but rather
+capitalism: _"We will reserve this subject [the future organisation of labour]
+for the time when, the theory of economic contradictions being finished, we
+shall have found in their general equation the programme of association, which
+we shall then publish in contrast with the practice and conceptions of our
+predecessors"_. This analysis was essential in order to base ideas of social
+transformation on current tendencies. So rather than abstractly contrast a
+_"utopia"_ to capitalism, Proudhon stressed the need to first analyse and
+understand the current system and so _"to unfold the system of economical
+contradictions is to lay the foundations of universal association."_ [**Op.
+Cit.**, p. 311 and p. 132]
+
+While Marx asserted that Proudhon wished _"to take us back to the journeymen
+or, at most, to the master craftsman of the Middle Ages"_ there is nothing in
+his work to support such claims. Unsurprisingly, then, rather than provide a
+quote from Proudhon confirming this aspiration Marx makes many an assertion
+such as that individual exchange _"is consistent only with the small-scale
+industry of past centuries . . . or else with large-scale industry and all its
+train of misery and anarchy."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 190, p. 138] Yet this forgets
+that under capitalism, workers do not own or control their work but in a
+mutualist society they would do both. As Proudhon argued, _"the pace of
+mechanical progress"_ under capitalism has _"no other effect"_ than to _"make
+the chains of serfdom heavier, render life more and more expensive, and deepen
+the abyss which separates the class that commands and enjoys from the class
+that obeys and suffers."_ This was because people _"work under a master"_ and
+so _"[u]nder the regime of property, the surplus of labour, essentially
+collective, passes entirely, like the revenue, to the proprietor"_.
+[**Property is Theft!**, p. 195, p. 248, p. 253] Would this _"misery"_ happen
+if workers managed their own work? Of course not.
+
+Marx ignored this, proclaiming that there is _"no individual exchange without
+the antagonism of classes."_ Yet a system of worker-managed workplaces
+exchanging the product of their labour with peasant farmers would not be
+marked by classes for these _"relations are not relations between individual
+and individual, but between worker and capitalist, between farmer and
+landlord, etc."_ Marx ignores the nature of Proudhon's ideas, favouring the
+assertion he _"borrows from economists the necessity of eternal relations"_
+and forgets that economic relations _"are **historical and transitory
+products**."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 144, p. 159, p. 178 and p. 166] Strangely,
+Marx forgot to quote Proudhon arguing that the _"present form"_ of how labour
+was organised _"is inadequate and transitory"_ and that _"the radical vice of
+political economy, consists, in general terms, in affirming as a definitive
+state a transitory condition, -- namely, the division of society into
+patricians and proletarians"_. [**Op. Cit.**, p. 170 and p. 174]
+
+So McNally, like Marx, distorts Proudhon's position. While many later
+anarchists -- the communist-anarchists -- rejected Proudhon's market socialism
+in favour of libertarian communism, the notion that his _"opposition to
+capitalism was largely backward-looking in character"_ and that _"small,
+private property the basis of his utopia"_ is just nonsense. To quote Proudhon
+from 1841: _"We must apply on a large scale the principle of collective
+production"_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 140] As K. Steven Vincent correctly summarises:
> _"On this issue, it is necessary to emphasise that, contrary to the general
image given on the secondary literature, Proudhon was not hostile to large
@@ -435,91 +931,561 @@ socialise it so that the worker would not be the mere appendage to a machine.
Such a humanisation of large industries would result, according to Proudhon,
from the introduction of strong workers' associations. These associations
would enable the workers to determine jointly by election how the enterprise
-was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day basis."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p.
-156]
+was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day basis."_ [**Pierre-Joseph
+Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism**, p. 156]
-As can be seen, McNally distorts Proudhon's ideas on this question.
-
-McNally correctly states that Proudhon _"oppose[d] trade unions."_ While it is
-true that Proudhon opposed strikes as counter-productive as well as trade
-unions, this cannot be said of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, and so on.
-Bakunin, for example, considered trade unions as truest means of expressing
-the power of the working class and strikes as a sign of their _"collective
-strength."_ [**The Basic Bakunin**, pp. 149-50] Why should Proudhon (the odd
-man out in anarchist theory with regards to this issue) be taken as defining
-that theory? Such an argument is simply dishonest and presents a false picture
-of anarchist theory.
+So if you look at Proudhon's writings rather than what Marx and Engels
+**claimed** he wrote, it will soon be discovered that Proudhon in fact
+**favoured** collective ownership and for workers' associations to manage the
+means of production. Thus we find Proudhon arguing in 1840 that _"the land is
+indispensable to our existence, -- consequently a common thing"_ and _"all
+accumulated capital being social property"_ so _"no one can be its exclusive
+proprietor"_. Property becomes _"collective and undivided"_ and managers
+_"must be chosen from the workers by the workers themselves."_ [**Property is
+Theft!**, p. 105, p. 118, p. 137 and p. 119] Interestingly, Marx himself noted
+how the Frenchman in this work, **What is Property?**, _"abolishes property in
+order to abolish poverty. Proudhon did even more. He proved in detail **how**
+the movement of capital produces poverty"_. [**Collected Works**, vol. 4, p.
+35]
+
+Property would be owned collectively and so access would be free -- as we
+discuss in [section I.3.3](secI3.html#seci33) there would be no more bosses
+and wage-workers but simply associates. However, unlike under Marxism, there
+would be no central planning and the associates would decide what to produce.
+So _"the use of [workplaces], like that of the land, may be divided, but which
+as property remains **undivided**."_ This _"non-appropriation of the
+instruments of production"_ would be _"a destruction of property."_ Ten years
+later, in 1851, he argued that _"[e]very industry, operation or enterprise
+which by its nature requires the employment of a large number of workers of
+different specialities, is destined to become a society or company of
+workers."_ Thus _"every individual employed in the association . . . has an
+undivided share in the property of the company"_ as well as _"the right to
+fill any position"_ for _"all positions are elective, and the by-laws subject
+to the approval of the members."_ This means that _"the collective force,
+which is a product of the community, ceases to be a source of profit to a
+small number of managers and speculators: it becomes the property of all the
+workers."_ Thus there would be a new form of economic organisation based on
+_"the co-operation of all who take part in the collective work"_ with _"equal
+conditions for all members_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 153, p. 149, p. 583, pp. 585-6]
+
+Public utilities would be under the _"initiative of communes and departments"_
+with _"workers companies . . . carrying the works out."_ This
+decentralisation, this _"direct, sovereign initiative of localities, in
+arranging for public works that belong to them, is a consequence of the
+democratic principle and the free contract."_ Land and housing would see
+rental payments being _"carried over to the account of the purchase"_ of the
+resource used and once the property _"has been entirely paid for, it shall
+revert immediately to the commune."_ In the case of housing, such payments
+would result in _"a proportional undivided share in the house [the tenant]
+lives in, and in all buildings erected for rental, and serving as a habitation
+for citizens."_ The land and housing would become socialised as the property
+_"thus paid for shall pass under the control of the communal administration"_
+and for _"repairs, management, and upkeep of buildings, as well as for new
+constructions, the communes shall deal with bricklayers companies or building
+workers associations."_ In short: _"Capitalist and landlord exploitation
+stopped everywhere, wage labour abolished, equal and just exchange
+guaranteed."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 594-5, p. 576, p. 578, p. 576 and p. 596]
+
+Proudhon termed this vision of a self-managed economy _"an industrial
+democracy"_ or _"the industrial republic"_ and argued that _"Workers'
+Associations are the locus of a new principle and model of production that
+must replace present-day corporations"_. When _"in an industry, all the
+workers, instead of working for an owner who pays them and keeps their
+product, work for one another and thereby contribute to a common product from
+which they share the profit"_ then, when you _"extend the principle of
+mutuality that unites the workers of each group to all the Workers'
+Associations as a unit, and you will have created a form of civilisation that,
+from all points of view -- political, economic, aesthetic -- differs
+completely from previous civilisations"_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 610 and p. 616]
+Compare this, the anarchist position, on industrial democracy with Lenin's
+who, in 1921 went so far as to suggest, somewhat disingenuously given the
+reality of party dictatorship at the time, that _"Democracy is a category
+proper only to the political sphere"_. [**Collected Works**, vol. 32, p. 26]
+
+As can be seen, rather than base his _"utopia"_ on _"small, private property"_
+Proudhon based it on the actual state of the French economy -- one marked by
+both artisan and large-scale production. The latter he desired to see
+transformed from the individual property of the few (capitalists) into the
+collective property of workers' associations and placed under workers' self-
+management. The former, as it did not involve wage-labour, was non-capitalist
+and was compatible with a system of undivided (collective) ownership and
+divided use (possession). While Proudhon's vision may be considered as (in
+part or in whole) undesirable, contradictory and unstable, it is **not** _
+"backward-looking in character"_ nor based on _"small, private property"_.
+That Proudhon himself publicly rejected the assertion he stood for private
+ownership is of note:
+
+> _"You have me saying, and I really do not know where you could have found
+this, that **ownership of the instruments of labour must forever stay vested
+in the individual and remain unorganised**. These words are set in italics, as
+if you had lifted them from somewhere in my books. And then, on the back of
+this alleged quotation, you set about answering me that society, or the State
+that stands for it, has the right to **buy back** all property assets . . .
+But it does not follow at all from my speaking on the basis of socialism in
+order to reject the buy back of such assets as nonsensical, illegitimate and
+poisonous that I want to see individual ownership and non-organisation of the
+instruments of labour endure for all eternity. I have never penned nor uttered
+any such thing: and have argued the opposite a hundred times over. I make no
+distinction . . . between real ownership and phoney ownership . . . I deny all
+kinds of proprietary domain. I deny it, precisely because I believe in an
+order wherein the instruments of labour will cease to be appropriated and
+instead become shared; where the whole earth will be depersonalised . . ."_
+
+> _"There is a more straightforward, more effective and infinitely less
+onerous and less risky way of transferring ownership, of achieving Liberty,
+Equality and Fraternity . . ._
+
+> _"Capital having been divested of its power of usury, economic solidarity is
+gradually created, and with it, an equality of wealth._
+
+> _"Next comes the spontaneous, popular formation of groups, workshops or
+workers’ associations;_
+
+> _"Finally, the last to be conjured and formed is the over-arching group,
+comprising the nation in its entirety, what you term the State because you
+invest it in a representative body outside of society, but which, to me, is no
+longer the State."_ [**Property is Theft!**, pp. 498-500]
+
+Clearly McNally distorts Proudhon's ideas on the question of property. That he
+may have been aware of the actual facts in shown by his qualification that
+Proudhon's critique of capitalism was _"largely backward-looking in
+character."_ The utility of which qualification is clear -- it allows him to
+ignore the substantial evidence against his assertion by muttering that he
+never said that Proudhon was **always** _"backward-looking"_...
+
+McNally goes too far when he asserts that Proudhon _"so feared the organised
+power of the developing working class that he went so far as to oppose trade
+unions and support police strike-breaking."_ There is, of course, a deep irony
+in McNally attacking Proudhon on this matter given that the Bolshevik regime
+he supports and considers as a _"workers' state"_ repeatedly used not only its
+political police (the infamous Cheka) but also the Red Army to break strikes
+(see [section H.6.3](secH6.html#sech63)). This was done to secure Bolshevik
+power **over** the working class (see [section 8](append31.html#app8)).
+
+It must also be stressed that while Proudhon did oppose trade unions (as we
+noted in [section 2](append31.html#app2) he argued the working class would be
+better served using other means to liberate itself) it was not the case he
+supported police strike-breaking. As the editor of a collection of Marx's
+works had to admit that _"[t]o give Proudhon his due, he was not so much
+justifying the actions of the French authorities as exposing the
+‘contradictions' he saw as an inevitable evil of the present social order"_
+[quoted by Iain McKay, _"Introduction"_, **Property is Theft!**, p. 65] As
+Proudhon himself put it:
+
+> _"workers' strikes are ILLEGAL. And it is not only the penal code which says
+this, but the economic system, the necessity of the established order. As long
+as labour is not sovereign, it must be a slave; society is possible only on
+this condition. That each worker individually should have the free disposition
+of his person and his arms may be tolerated; but that the workers should
+undertake, by combinations, to do violence to monopoly society cannot permit.
+Authority, in shooting down the miners, found itself in the position of Brutus
+placed between his paternal love and his consular duties: he had to sacrifice
+either his children or the republic. The alternative was horrible, I admit;
+but such is the spirit and letter of the social compact, such is the tenor of
+the charter . . . the police function, instituted for the defence of the
+proletariat, is directed entirely against the proletariat."_ [**Property is
+Theft!**, pp. 221-2]
+
+The key words here are _"[a]s long as labour is not sovereign"_ and,
+unsurprisingly, when Marx quoted this passage in **Poverty of Philosophy** he
+omitted it, so changing Proudhon's meaning completely. So while Proudhon
+opposed trade unions in favour of other forms of working class self-
+organisation (co-operatives) it does not follow that he supported the breaking
+of strikes when he reported when it happened. Rather he was noting that such
+things were inevitable under capitalism and that this system had to be
+replaced by one based on workers' self-management of production.
+
+It is significant that the French syndicalists whom McNally is so keen to
+praise and differentiate from _"classical anarchists"_ considered Proudhon
+(like Bakunin) one of their influences. Similarly, the French trade unionists
+who joined with their British counterparts to create the International Working
+Men's Association were followers of the French anarchist. Both groups of trade
+unionists saw the state repress their strikes so this would be a strange
+paradox indeed if McNally's account of Proudhon's position on police strike-
+breaking were correct. As it is not, there is no paradox.
+
+McNally correctly states that Proudhon _"oppose[d] trade unions"_ but rather
+than it being because he _"feared the organised power of the developing
+working class"_ it was for the **opposite** reason: _"As things are at
+present, which do you think will win [in a strike]? . . . [the bosses as] the
+match is clearly unequal"_. At best strikes would _"lead to a general price
+increase"_. [**Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon**, p. 182 and p.
+181] Worse, as well as distorting Proudhon's position McNally fails to mention
+that Proudhon opposition to trade unions and strikes as counter-productive was
+**not** shared by subsequent anarchists like Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta,
+Goldman, and so on (see [section 9](append31.html#app9)). Why should Proudhon
+(the odd man out in anarchist theory with regards to this issue) be taken as
+defining that theory? Such an argument is simply dishonest and presents a
+false picture of the facts.
Next McNally states that Proudhon _"violently opposed democracy"_ and presents
a series of non-referenced quotes to prove his case. Such a technique is
useful for McNally as it allows him quote Proudhon without regard to when and
-where Proudhon made these comments and the context in which they were made. It
-is well known, for example, that Proudhon went through a reactionary phrase
-roughly between 1852 and 1862 and so any quotes from this period would be at
-odds with his anarchist works. As Daniel Guerin notes:
-
-> _"Many of these masters were not anarchists throughout their lives and their
-complete works include passages which have nothing to do with anarchism.
-
->
-
-> "To take an example: in the second part of his career Proudhon's thinking
-took a conservative turn."_ [**Anarchism**, p. 6]
-
-Similarly, McNally fails to quote the many statements Proudhon made in favour
-of democracy. Why should the anti-democratic quotes represent anarchism and
-not the pro-democratic ones? Which ones are more in line with anarchist theory
-and practice? Surely the pro-democratic ones. Hence we find Proudhon arguing
-that _"[i]n democratising us, revolution has launched us on the path of
-industrial democracy"_ and that his People's Bank _"embodies the financial and
-economic aspects of modern democracy, that is, the sovereignty of the People,
-and of the republican motto, **Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.**"_ We have
-already mentioned Proudhon's support for workers' self-management of
-production and his People's Bank was also democratic in nature -- _"A
-committee of thirty representatives shall be set up to see to the management
-of the Bank . . . They will be chosen by the General Meeting . . . [which]
-shall consist of not more than one thousand nominees of the general body of
-associates and subscribers . . . elected according to industrial categories
-and in proportion to the number of subscribers and representatives there are
-in each category."_ [**Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon**, p. 63,
-p. 75 and p. 79] Thus, instead of bourgeois democracy Proudhon proposes
-industrial and communal democracy:
+where Proudhon made these comments and so their context. It also makes it
+difficult, if not impossible, for the reader to discover both. This is a
+deeply problematic technique, particularly given the seriousness of the
+charges being made. However, the reasons why he pursued this approach become
+understandable when the statements **are** tracked down as it becomes clear
+that McNally is quoting Proudhon completely out of context and so twisting his
+words into the opposite of what he meant.
+
+He suggests that Proudhon's _"notes for an ideal society involved the
+suppression of elections, of a free press, and of public meetings of more than
+20 people."_ The word _"notes"_ gives the game way, as he is not referring to
+any work produced in Proudhon's lifetime but rather his notebooks which were
+published a hundred years after his death, in the 1960s, and unknown until
+then. Private notebooks are hardly the best source for determining a person's
+ideas as they are the means by which a thinker explores ideas, some of which
+he may later conclude are deeply flawed. Moreover, as we note in [section
+6](append31.html#app6), neither Proudhon nor Bakunin were not anarchists
+throughout their lives nor consistently libertarian when they were. Nor was
+anarchism born complete and ready made in 1840 when Proudhon proclaimed
+himself an anarchist in **What is Property?**. He developed his libertarian
+ideas over time and, unsurprisingly, we would discover passages in his
+published works at odds with his subsequent, better developed, ideas. This
+applies even more to his private notebooks in which we would expect ideas to
+be sketched which he later rejected -- perhaps sketching ideas he disagreed
+with precisely to clarify his thoughts.
+
+While difficult to be completely sure, it seems likely that McNally is
+selectively referring Proudhon's Notebooks from 1845 when he was clarifying
+his ideas on the idea of universal association. As one historian notes,
+Proudhon did envision some kind of national council at this time and the
+passages on how it would be selected _"are not consistent. In some sections he
+suggested that the leaders of the association were to be chosen by the
+members, presumably by election . . . In yet other passages, Proudhon rather
+immodestly pictured himself in the director's role. One must be extremely
+cautious not to draw too many implications from these infrequent references to
+the council and its method of selection. Proudhon did not . . . have any
+designs for a small dictatorial elite"_ as this would _"fly in the face of his
+sincere concern for individual liberty"_. So it is to his published works we
+must turn to see how the conclusions of these private notes and speculations.
+Interestingly, in a book published in 1843 Proudhon _"referred to the
+important role that government was to perform"_ but in the introduction to a
+later edition he indicated that _"he had changed his mind on this issue on the
+role of government"_ and _"he insisted that reform should not -- could not --
+come 'from above'; rather it could only 'from below, from the spontaneity of
+the masses, and not from the initiative of the government' . . . this change
+had already occurred by 1846"_ when he was _"vehemently attacking other
+socialists such as Blanc for trumpeting reform initiated 'from above'"_.
+[Vincent, **Op. Cit.**, p. 146 and pp. 143-4]
+
+The same applies to when McNally suggested that Proudhon _"looked forward to a
+'general inquisition' and the condemnation of 'several million people' to
+forced labour"_. With no means to see whether this is selective quoting or
+not, McNally disarms his readers. However, we must note a certain irony here
+as he does not, of course, mention that Marx and Engels advocated _"industrial
+armies, especially for agriculture"_ to ensure the _"[e]qual liability of all
+to labour"_ in the **Communist Manifesto**. [**Selected Writings**, p. 53] Nor
+does McNally mention the Bolshevik's introduction of the _"militarisation of
+labour"_ in 1919 and 1920 with Trotsky its leading advocate. The _"very
+principle of compulsory labour service is for the Communist quite
+unquestionable . . . The only solution of economic difficulties from the point
+of view of both principle and of practice is to treat the population of the
+whole country as the reservoir of the necessary labour power . . . and to
+introduce strict order into the work of its registration, mobilisation and
+utilisation."_ The _"introduction of compulsory labour service is unthinkable
+without the application . . . of the methods of militarisation of labour"_.
+This is the _"State compulsion without which the replacement of capitalist
+economy by the Socialist will for ever remain an empty sound."_ The _"Labour
+State considers itself empowered to send every worker to the place his work is
+necessary"_ and had _"the right to lay its hand upon the worker who refuses to
+execute his labour duty"_. This _"presents the inevitable method of
+organisation and disciplining of labour-power during the period of transition
+from capitalism to Socialism."_ [Trotsky, **Terrorism and Communism**, p. 135,
+p. 137, p. 141, p. 142 and p. 143] As can be seen Trotsky did not, as McNally
+would wish to suggest, think this was a result of the Civil War but rather a
+matter of principle.
+
+McNally also fails to note that in December 1917 the Bolshevik regime created
+the Cheka, a political police force, to repress opposition to it from both the
+left and right as well as from reactionary forces and workers . At its worse,
+it even utilised torture and the shooting of unarmed prisoners. However, its
+main task was repression of opposition organisations -- including other
+socialists (the anarchists were its first victims in early 1918) -- and
+breaking strikes and other forms of labour protest in association with the Red
+Army.
+
+If Proudhon's one-off, never repeated, scribbles in a private notebook mean
+anarchism is _"elitist and authoritarian to the core"_ and _"hostile to ideas
+of mass democracy and workers' power"_ what does it mean for Bolshevism which
+actually **created** a regime based on party dictatorship, political police
+and the militarisation of labour which its leading thinkers defended and
+justified at length in books and articles written to influence the
+international workers' movement? McNally, of course, does not mention these
+awkward facts so does not raise, never mind answer, the question.
+
+However, reading the context of quotes McNally provides which **can** be
+tracked down, it is difficult to take his summary seriously. We turn to this
+now and will show that his readers would be justified in questioning his
+claims on Proudhon. Simply put, once the context of the quotes he provides is
+understood then it becomes clear McNally is quoting selectively in order to
+attribute ideas to Proudhon he did not, in fact, hold. The dishonesty is
+shocking.
+
+This can be seen when McNally presents another unattributed quote: _"The
+masses, he wrote are 'only savages . . . whom it is our duty to civilise, and
+without making them our sovereign.'"_ Let us provide both the source and the
+context McNally is keen to avoid. First, the quote is from a letter written by
+Proudhon on the 11th of December 1852 and it is quoted by J. Hampden Jackson
+who also helpfully presents the context which McNally strips, namely a few
+days after the plebiscite which saw an overwhelming majority of French men
+vote to end the Second Republic, create the Second Empire and convert the
+President into an Emperor. This was exactly one year on from the President's
+military coup which saw him impose a new constitution and extend his tenure by
+ten years, an act again endorsed by a vast majority in a plebiscite. As
+Hampden notes: _"The people of France had spoken. It remained for Proudhon to
+point the moral"_. [**Marx, Proudhon and European Socialism**, p. 103]
+
+This is the context for this quote -- a cry of despair at a people which so
+willingly voted to destroy a republic and their own freedom. These two
+plebiscites in favour of Louis-Napoleon's coup and autocratic rule resulted in
+_"Proudhon's faith in the people"_ falling _"to its lowest level"_ and _"no
+epithet was too severe for the classes in whom he had seen the great hope of
+humanity."_ [George Woodcock, **Pierre-Joseph Proudhon**, p. 184] This becomes
+obvious when you read the full context of the words McNally quotes:
+
+> _"You still worship the people . . . you should absolutely demolish this
+false religion. It is necessary to serve freedom and morals for themselves . .
+. without scorning the people, which is only uncivilised [**sauvage**] and
+that we have to civilise, do not make it your sovereign. I saw, on December
+7th, 1851, when paving stones of the boulevard were still red with blood,
+these honest people rush to small theatres, content, merry, without regret nor
+remorse. That once I had surprised it, for five years, in red-handed
+indifference, immorality, imperialist plot, ingratitude for its initiators!
+Ah! admittedly, it did not mislead me; but cowardice, even when predicted, is
+always hideous to see. I will strike these people, I warn you, until I made
+them embarrassed of the alleged dogma of its sovereignty; because it is not
+enough for us to re-examine the incompetents of '48, we must re-examine their
+idol . . ."_ [**Correspondance de P-J Proudhon**, vol. V, p. 111]
+
+Is McNally really suggesting that Proudhon's position was incorrect and that
+he should have proclaimed popular support of the military coup and its
+repression of those defending the Republic as an example of civilised
+behaviour and the people's sovereignty? As Proudhon lamented, _"the truth"_
+was that _"**the people have the government which it prefers, and the
+bourgeoisie the government that it deserves**"_ and _"Napoleon III is the
+legitimate, authentic expression of the middle-class and proletarian masses.
+If it is not precisely the product of the national **will**, it is undoubtedly
+that of the national **permission**."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 110] McNally for all
+his talk of democracy does not tackle -- does not even raise! -- the question
+of what happens if the majority make authoritarian and repressive decisions,
+as it did in December 1851 and 1852. If, as the Republicans of Proudhon's time
+argued, the voice of the people is the voice of God did that make Louis-
+Napoleon's Presidency, coup and then Empire all legitimate? Proudhon argued no
+and, moreover, placed the underlying principle of democracy -- freedom --
+above its expression within the (bourgeois) state. His writings explored how
+to secure mass participation in social life while minimising the possibility
+of tyranny. Thus the _"federative system puts a stop to the agitation of the
+masses, to all the ambitions and incitements of demagogy"_ [**Property is
+Theft!**, p. 708]
+
+By stripping away the context, McNally turns his lament for the destruction of
+political freedom into a demand for it. The dishonesty is striking. It also
+raises some problems for McNally's stated political position of being in
+favour of _"democracy"_ \-- if anarchists are to be denounced because they
+_"reject any decision-making process in which the majority of people
+democratically determine the policies they will support"_ then McNally is in a
+bind. The French people democratically determined to create an Empire and
+destroy what was left of their Republic. Presumably it would be _"elitism"_
+for him, like Proudhon, to denounce the decision and despair at those who made
+it? As we discuss in [section 7](append31.html#app7), the anarchist position
+on democracy is driven precisely by the obvious fact that majorities can be
+wrong and oppressive. This does not imply _"elitism"_, quite the reverse.
+
+We should also note that Marx dismissed the peasants as _"a class of
+barbarians standing half outside of society"_ [**Capital**, vol. 3, p. 949]
+_"In countries like France"_ the peasants _"constitute far more than half of
+the population"_ but, he argued, they _"cannot represent themselves, they must
+be represented. Their representative must at the same time appear as their
+master, as an authority over them, as an unlimited governmental power"_. Thus
+_"the Bonaparte who dispersed [the National Assembly in 1851] is the chosen of
+peasantry."_ [**The Marx-Engels Reader**, p. 493, p. 608 and pp. 607-8] Marx
+does not ponder the implications of these comments nor what they mean for
+democracy and the so-called _"dictatorship of the proletariat"_.
+
+The second quote McNally provides as evidence for his case is _"All this
+democracy disgusts me"_. Again, no reference is provided for obvious reasons
+for when it is tracked down it becomes clear that McNally is again quoting the
+Frenchman completely out-of-context in order to attribute to him ideas he did
+not hold, indeed was arguing against. This sentence comes from a private
+letter written in 1861 bemoaning how others on the left were attacking him as
+_"a false **democrat**, a false friend of progress, a false republican"_ due
+to his critical position on Polish independence. Unlike most of the rest of
+the left (including Bakunin, it should be noted), Proudhon opposed the
+creation of a Polish state as it would be run by the _"nobility
+[**nobiliarie**], [and so] catholic, aristocratic, [and] divided into
+castes"_. In other words, **not** a democracy. He then proclaims: _"All this
+democracy disgusts me"_. [**Correspondance de Pierre-Joseph Proudhon**, vol.
+XI, p. 196-7] Once this context is provided, it becomes clear that using his
+justly famous talent for irony against those on the left who violate their own
+stated democratic principles by supporting the creation of a feudal regime --
+if **this** is democracy, Proudhon was saying, then it disgusts him (_"All
+this [so-called] democracy disgusts me"_). By quoting out-of-context McNally
+turns a letter by Proudhon in which he wished the left would be
+**consistently** in favour of democracy into an anti-democratic rant. His
+dishonesty is clear.
+
+This, it must be noted, is also relevant to McNally's politics. While
+proclaiming that Leninism is the only consistently democratic socialist theory
+and that to _"talk of a workers' state is necessarily to talk of workers'
+power and workers' democracy"_, he makes an exception to the party
+dictatorship ruled by Lenin and Trotsky from 1918 to 1923. Then it becomes the
+case that socialism no longer _"depends upon the existence of democratic
+organisation that can control society from below"_ nor _"presupposes that
+workers are running the state."_ If, in 1861, Proudhon expressed his
+frustration at those on the left who made exceptions to democracy for
+illogical reasons (the creation of a feudal Poland) what would have been his
+views of socialists who made exceptions for the Bolshevik regime?
+
+Even without the context for the quotes McNally presents, anyone with a basic
+grasp of anarchist ideas would know that he fails to quote the many statements
+Proudhon made in favour of democracy. Why should the apparently anti-
+democratic quotes represent anarchism and not the pro-democratic ones? Which
+ones are more in line with anarchist theory and practice? Surely the pro-
+democratic ones. Hence we find Proudhon arguing that _"[i]n democratising us,
+revolution has launched us on the path of industrial democracy"_ and that his
+People's Bank _"embodies the financial and economic aspects of modern
+democracy, that is, the sovereignty of the People, and of the republican
+motto, **Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.**"_ We have already mentioned
+Proudhon's support for workers' self-management of production and his People's
+Bank was also democratic in nature: _"A committee of thirty representatives
+shall be set up to see to the management of the Bank . . . They will be chosen
+by the General Meeting . . . [which] shall consist of not more than one
+thousand nominees of the general body of associates and subscribers . . .
+elected according to industrial categories and in proportion to the number of
+subscribers and representatives there are in each category."_ [**Selected
+Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon**, p. 63, p. 75 and p. 79] Thus, instead of
+bourgeois democracy Proudhon proposes industrial and communal democracy:
+
+> _"every industry needs . . . leaders, instructors, superintendents, etc. . .
+. they must be chosen from the workers by the workers themselves, and must
+fulfil the conditions of eligibility. It is the same with all public
+functions, whether of administration or instruction."_ [**Property is
+Theft!**, p. 118]
+
+> _"In order that association may be real, he who participates in it must do
+so . . . as an active factor; he must have a deliberative voice in the council
+. . . everything regarding him, in short, should be regulated in accordance
+with equality. But these conditions are precisely those of the organisation of
+labour."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 2156]
+
+> _"In the republic, everyone reigns and governs . . . Representatives are
+plenipotentiaries with the imperative mandate and are recallable at will . . .
+Here is the republic! Here is the People's sovereignty!_ [**Op. Cit.**, p.
+279]
+
+> _"At present we are a quasi-democratic Republic: all the citizens are
+permitted, every third or fourth year, to elect, first, the Legislative Power,
+second, the Executive Power. The duration of this participation in the
+Government for the popular collectivity is brief; forty-eight hours at the
+most for each election. For this reason the correlative of the Government
+remains nearly the same as before, almost the whole Country. The President and
+the Representatives, once elected, are the masters; all the rest obey. They
+are **subjects**, to be **governed** . . ."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 573]
> _"In place of laws, we will put contracts [i.e. free agreement]. -- No more
-laws voted by a majority, nor even unanimously; each citizen, each town, each
-industrial union, makes its own laws."_ [**The General Idea of the
-Revolution**, pp. 245-6]
-
->
+laws voted by a majority, nor even unanimously; each citizen, each commune or
+corporation [i.e., self-managed industry], makes its own laws."_ [**Op.
+Cit.**, p. 591]
+
+> _"Unless democracy is a fraud, and the sovereignty of the People a joke, it
+must be admitted that each citizen in the sphere of his industry, each
+municipal, district or provincial council within its own territory, is the
+only natural and legitimate representative of the Sovereign, and that
+therefore each locality should act directly and by itself in administering the
+interests which it includes, and should exercise full sovereignty in relation
+to them."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 595]
+
+> _"Workers' Associations are the locus of a new principle and model of
+production that must replace present-day corporations . . . The principle that
+prevailed there, in place of that of employers and employees . . . is
+participation, that is, the MUTUALITY of services supplementing the force of
+division and the force of collectivity._
+
+> _"There is mutuality, in fact, when in an industry, all the workers, instead
+of working for an owner who pays them and keeps their product, work for one
+another . . . extend the principle of mutuality that unites the workers of
+each group to all the Workers' Associations as a unit, and you will have
+created a form of civilisation that, from all points of view -- political,
+economic, aesthetic -- differs completely from previous civilisations . . ."_
+[**Op. Cit.**, p. 616]
+
+> _"groups that comprise the confederation. . . would be . . . self-governing,
+self-judging and self-administering in complete sovereignty. . . universal
+suffrage form its basis"_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 716]
+
+> _"under the democratic constitution, insofar we can judge from its most
+salient ideas and most authentic aspirations, the political and the economic
+are one and the same, a sole and single system based upon a single principle,
+mutuality . . . no longer do we have the abstraction of people's sovereignty
+as in the '93 [French] Constitution and the others that followed it, and in
+Rousseau's **Social Contract**. Instead it becomes an effective sovereignty of
+the labouring masses . . . the labouring masses are actually, positively and
+effectively sovereign: how could they not be when the economic organism --
+labour, capital, property and assets -- belongs to them entirely"_ [**Op.
+Cit.**, pp. 760-1]
> _"If political right is inherent in man and citizen, consequently if
suffrage ought to be direct, the same right is inherent as well, so much the
more so, for each corporation [i.e. self-managed industry], for each commune
or city, and the suffrage in each of these groups, ought to be equally
-direct."_ [quoted by K. Steven Vincent, **Op. Cit.**, p. 219]
-
->
-
-> _"In order that the association may be real, he who participates in it must
-do so . . . as an active factor; he must have a deliberative voice in the
-council . . . everything regarding him, in short, should be regulated in
-accordance with equality. But these conditions are precisely those of the
-organisation of labour."_ [quoted by K. Steven Vincent, **Op. Cit.**, pp.
-155-6]
-
-Do these quotes suggest a man _"violently opposed [to] democracy"_? Of course
-not. Nor does McNally quote Proudhon when he stated that _"[b]esides universal
-suffrage and as a consequence of universal suffrage, we want implementation of
-the binding mandate. Politicians bulk at it! Which means that in their eyes,
-the people, in electing representatives, do not appoint mandatories but rather
-abjure their sovereignty! That is assuredly not socialism: it is not even
-democracy."_ He also supported freedom of association, assembly, religion, of
-the press and of thought and speech. [**No Gods, No Masters**, vol. 1, p. 63]
-Nor does McNally note Proudhon's aim of (and use of the term) _"industrial
-democracy"_ which would be _"a reorganisation of industry, under the
-jurisdiction of all those who compose it."_ [quoted by Vincent, **Op. Cit.**,
-p. 225] As can be seen, Proudhon's position on democracy is not quite what
-McNally suggests.
+direct."_ [quoted by Vincent, **Op. Cit.**, p. 219]
+
+So, clearly, McNally is hardly presenting a fair summary of either Proudhon's
+private notebooks, letters or his published works. This can be seen from his
+justly famous manifesto issued during the 1848 revolution which presents a
+better notion of his _"ideal society"_. It advocated _"democratically
+organised workers' associations"_ along with _"universal suffrage and as a
+consequence of universal suffrage, we want implementation of the imperative
+mandate"_ otherwise _"the people, in electing representatives, does not
+appoint mandatories but rather abjure their sovereignty!"_ This _"is assuredly
+not socialism: it is not even democracy"_. He also demanded: _"Freedom of
+association"_, _"Freedom of assembly"_ and _"Freedom of the press"_.
+[**Property is Theft!**, p. 377 and p. 379]
+
+Do all these quotes suggest a man who _"violently opposed democracy"_? Of
+course not. Proudhon opposed certain types of democracy (centralised,
+hierarchical, top-down, statist democracy) and was in favour of another kind
+(decentralised, federal, bottom-up, libertarian democracy). So when looking at
+quotes by Proudhon ripped from their context it is important to ask whether he
+is attacking the centralised, hierarchical democracy of the state or the
+decentralised, participatory democracy of federated self-managed workplaces
+and communes? By taking of "democracy" in the abstract and not indicating that
+there are different forms of it (reflecting different class interests),
+McNally is confusing the issue. He fails to inform his readers that while
+Proudhon repeatedly attacked the former he advocated the latter. To use terms
+McNally should be familiar with, Proudhon attacked bourgeois democracy in
+favour of working-class democracy rooted in mandates, recall, decentralisation
+and federalism -- what would be better termed "self-management" but which
+Proudhon came to call _"labour democracy"_ which would be _"the IDEA of the
+new Democracy."_ In the state, _"universal suffrage is the strangulation of
+the public conscience, the suicide of popular sovereignty, the apostasy of the
+Revolution"_ and to _"make the vote for all intelligent, moral, democratic, it
+is necessary. . . to make the citizens vote by categories of functions, in
+accordance with the principle of the collective force"_. This federative
+democracy would be applied in the community (communes) and industry (_"the
+agricultural-industrial federation"_), indeed all areas including the military
+where it was necessary to _"abolish military conscription, organise a
+citizens' army"_ based on _"the right of the citizens to appoint the hierarchy
+of their military chiefs, the simple soldiers and national guards appointing
+the lower ranks of officers, the officers appointing their superiors."_ [**Op.
+Cit.**, pp. 724-5, pp. 676-7, p. 711, p. 407 and p. 443]
+
+As can be seen, Proudhon's position on democracy is not quite what McNally
+suggests. Under a centralised social system it simply meant the people _"is
+confined to choosing its bosses and its charlatans every three or four
+years."_ The issue for Proudhon was to create a system which allowed the
+people to govern itself and not hand power over to a few leaders --
+particularly when the majority often pass that power to demagogues like Louis-
+Napoleon. It was the case _"that the only way to organise democratic
+government is to abolish government"_ for the State _"is the external
+constitution of the social power. . . the people does not govern itself . . .
+We affirm . . . that the people, that society, that the mass, can and ought to
+govern itself by itself . . . We deny government and the State, because we
+affirm that which the founders of States have never believed in, the
+personality and autonomy of the masses."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 437, p. 485 and
+pp. 482-483]
Thus McNally presents a distorted picture of Proudhon's ideas and thus leads
the reader to conclusions about anarchism violently at odds with its real
@@ -529,164 +1495,812 @@ below, the Leninist tradition in which he places himself has a distinct
contempt for democracy and, in practice, destroyed it in favour of party
dictatorship.
-Lastly, McNally states that Proudhon _"opposed emancipation for the American
-blacks and backed the cause of the southern slave owners during the American
-Civil War."_ In fact, the American Civil War had very little to do with
-slavery and far more to do with conflicts within the US ruling class. Proudhon
-opposed the North simply because he feared the centralisation that such a
-victory would create. He did not _"tolerate"_ slavery. As he wrote in **The
-Principle of Federation** _"the enslavement of part of a nation denies the
-federal principle itself."_ [p. 42f] Moreover, what are we to draw from
-Proudhon's position with regards the American Civil War about anarchism?
-Bakunin supported the North (a fact unmentioned by McNally). Why is Proudhon's
-position an example of anarchism in practice and not Bakunin's? Could it be
-that rather than attack anarchism, McNally attacks anarchists?
-
-Also, it is somewhat ironic that McNally mentions Proudhon's "support" for the
-South as the Leninist tradition he places his own politics is renown for
-supporting various dictatorships during wars. For example, during the Vietnam
-war the various Leninist groups called for victory to North Vietnam, a
-Stalinist dictatorship. During the Gulf War, they called for victory to Iraq,
-another dictatorship. In other words, they "tolerated" and "supported" anti-
-working class regimes, dictatorships and repression of democracy. They stress
-that they do not politically support these regimes, rather they wish these
-states to win in order to defeat the greater evil of imperialism. In practice,
-of course, such a division is hard to defend -- for a state to win a war it
-must repress its own working class and so, in calling for a victory for a
-dictatorship, they must support the repression and actions that state requires
-to win the war. After all, an explosion of resistance, class struggle and
+There is an addition irony. McNally praises the Paris Commune and states that
+_"to secure their rule, the Parisian workers took a series of popular
+democratic measures. They suppressed the standing army and replaced it with a
+popular militia; they established the right of the people to recall and
+replace their elected representatives"_ and _"universal male suffrage"_. He
+does not mention that, as can be seen, all these were advocated by Proudhon
+nor that his followers played a key role in the 1871 revolt. Clearly it is
+simply **not** the case that Marx's _"work signalled an entirely new direction
+in socialist thought and socialist politics"_ if he _"insisted"_ that _"the
+abolition of the standing army"_, _"universal suffrage"_ and _"the right to
+recall representatives"_ were _"all essential elements of any workers'
+state."_ Proudhon advocated all these over a decade before his followers made
+Marx belatedly see their benefit in 1871. Where Proudhon differed from Marx
+was his awareness that a federated society organised from the bottom-up was no
+state and to confuse the two opened the door to centralisation and the
+creation of a new class system -- as happened in Russia under the Bolsheviks.
+
+After distorting Proudhon's ideas on democracy and his desired society,
+McNally moves onto more secure ground, namely his sexism. He **is** correct to
+note that Proudhon _"denounced women's liberation"_ and so right to quote
+Lichtheim that Proudhon had _"a firmly patriarchal view of family life"_ and
+_"regarded women as inferior beings."_ However, while correct to attack the
+Frenchman for this, it is incorrect to extend this to a rejection of anarchism
+**as such** \-- particularly given the obvious contradiction of this position
+with the rest of his ideas. As noted in [section 3](append31.html#app3), other
+anarchists rejected these reactionary ideas and consistently applied
+libertarian principles to within the family.
+
+Lastly, McNally states that Proudhon _"was a rabid racist reserving his
+greatest hatred for Jews, whose 'extermination' he advocated. He opposed
+emancipation for the American blacks and backed the cause of the southern
+slave owners during the American Civil War."_ To support his claims, he quotes
+George Lichtheim (whom he considers as having _"written quite accurately"_)
+stating that Proudhon expressed _"tolerance for slavery (he publicly sided
+with the South during the American civil war)"_ and _"he believed in inherent
+inequalities among the races"_. It will come as no surprise that this is
+either completely false or not entirely true.
+
+Let us take the question of Proudhon's anti-Semitism. It is true that Proudhon
+made the occasional anti-Semitic remark in his writings but as Robert Graham
+correctly summarises _"anti-semitism formed no part of Proudhon's
+revolutionary programme."_ [_"Introduction"_, **General Idea of the
+Revolution**, p. xxxvi] In terms of the claim that he advocated the
+_"extermination"_ of the Jews what McNally does not mention is that this comes
+from a single entry in his private Notebooks and was unknown until a hundred
+years after his death. The intellectual dishonesty of this should be clear
+and, unsurprisingly, he does not prove that this was anything more than a
+passing rant nor that Proudhon held this view before 1847 or after, either
+publicly or privately. In terms of the former, it is the case that Proudhon's
+anti-Semitism is limited to a few passing Jewish stereotypes (which, sadly,
+reflected French culture at the time) in a few of his minor articles and
+books. A reader consulting his most important works would not come across a
+single anti-Semitic remark and many proclamations in favour of racial
+equality.
+
+This does not mean that this private remark should not be condemned -- it
+should -- but it does not follow that we reject everything wrote before or
+after it. That this was a one-off rant suggests that when it was written
+something caused Proudhon's (culturally reflective, but still inexcusable)
+anti-Semitic feelings to intensify so resulting in this rant. Significantly,
+Proudhon's beloved mother died that very month (December 1847) which suggests
+that it reflected an outlet for the deep despair he must have been feeling.
+Given that he never expressed this view before 1847 nor afterwards it should
+be considered as a quickly forgotten aberration produced by the pressures of a
+family crisis rather than something indicative of his politics.
+
+So quoting a single rant from his private notebook presents a false impression
+of Proudhon's ideas on race. To imply that a never repeated comment made in a
+private notebook and completely unknown until over a century later was part of
+his public work or a central aspect of Proudhon's ideas presents a completely
+false impression of both them and their influence -- particularly given his
+discussion of race in **The Federative Principle**, to which we now turn.
+
+McNally and Lichtheim proclaim that Proudhon _"publicly"_ expressed
+_"tolerance for slavery"_, _"opposed emancipation for the American blacks and
+backed the cause of the southern slave owners"_ because he was a racist. This
+is not the case, as can be seen from the extended discussion on slavery in the
+only major work written during the American Civil War, **The Federative
+Principle**. First, though, it must be stressed that the American Civil War
+had very little to do with slavery and far more to do with conflicts within
+the US ruling class. As Howard Zinn noted, the war _"was not over slavery as a
+moral institution . . . It was not a clash of peoples . . . but of elites. The
+northern elite wanted economic expansion -- free land, free labour, a free
+[national] market, a high protective tariff for manufacturers, a bank of the
+United States. The slave interests opposed all that"_ [**A People's History of
+the United States**, pp. 188-9] Slavery was never the driver for the war,
+regardless of how this has retroactively become the main cause (because this
+fits into the self-image and rhetoric of America far better than the grim
+reality). Indeed, abolition of slavery was raised as a war aim only in 1862 as
+a way of boosting the North's chances of winning.
+
+Proudhon recognised this obvious fact, arguing consistently applying the
+federal principle would mean _"progressively raising the Black peoples'
+condition to the level of the Whites."_ However, the North _"cares no more
+than the South about a true emancipation, which renders the difficulty
+insoluble even by war and threatens to destroy the confederation."_ Rather
+than express _"tolerance"_ for slavery he wrote _"the enslaving of one part of
+the nation is the very negation of the federative principle."_ [**Property is
+Theft!**, pp. 698-9f] Both sides were _"fighting only over the type of
+servitude"_ and so both must _"be declared equally guilty blasphemers and
+betrayers of the federative principle and banned from all nations."_ The union
+could only be saved if the North _"grants the blacks their civil rights"_ and
+pursues radical economic reform by _"providing possessions for the wage-
+workers and organising, alongside political guarantees, a system of economic
+guarantees."_ This last was key, for the slaves had _"acquired the right of
+use and habitation on American soil."_ Justice demanded that both the freed
+slaves and wage workers must be given means of production (land, tools,
+workplaces) and other economic guarantees as _"the conversion of black slaves
+to the proletariat"_ would mean that _"black servitude will only change its
+form"_ rather than ended. Both _"slavery and the proletariat are incompatible
+with republican values."_ [quoted by Iain McKay, _"Neither Washington nor
+Richmond: Proudhon on Racism & the Civil War"_, **Anarcho-Syndicalist
+Review**, no. 60, pp. 25-6]
+
+Proudhon stressed _"with regard to **black workers**, that physiologists and
+ethnographers recognise them as part of the same species as whites; that
+religion declares them, along with the whites, the children of God and the
+church, redeemed by the blood of the same Christ and therefore spiritual
+brothers; that psychology sees no difference between the constitution of the
+Negro conscience and that of the white, no more than between the comprehension
+of one and the other."_ This meant that blacks should be _"as free as the
+whites by nature and human dignity."_ Therefore _"the principle of equality
+before the law must have as corollaries: 1) the principle of equality of
+races, 2) the principle of equal conditions and 3) the principle of
+increasingly similar, although never completely equal, fortunes."_ This meant
+that _"[i]n a federal republic, the proletariat and slavery both seem
+unacceptable; the tendency must be to abolish them both"_. So, Proudhon
+argued, _"grant equal political rights to both the emancipated blacks and
+those kept in servitude until now"_ and proclaim them _"fellow citizens and
+equals"_. _"The federative principle,"_ he summarised, _"here appears closely
+related to that of the social equality of races and the equilibrium of
+fortunes. The political problem, the economic problem and the problem of races
+are one and the same problem, and the same theory and jurisprudence can
+resolve that problem."_ [quoted by McKay, **Op. Cit.**, p. 25]
+
+As can be seen, McNally and Lichtheim completely distort Proudhon's actual
+position. A more accurate account of this is given by academic Ralph Nelson:
+
+> _"But it would be naive to think that it is just the peculiar institution of
+slavery that Proudhon detests. He finds in the North also the principle of
+inequality and class distinction. If he is critical of both sides in the war,
+it is because the federative principle is incompatible with inequality,
+whether the agrarian variety of master and slave or the modern version of
+capital and labour . . ._
+
+> _"Proudhon didn't really believe that the Union side would emancipate the
+Negro, but would fix on deportation as the solution to the problem. The union
+could be saved only by the liberation of the Negroes, granting them full
+citizenship, and by a determination to stop the growth of the proletariat. For
+what is gained for the former slaves, if emancipation means that they will
+become members of the proletariat? He notes that the situation in Russia after
+the emancipation of the serfs (1861) is analogous. Liberated serfs without
+land would be helpless. Economic guarantees must be developed alongside
+political ones. The corollaries of equality before the law are racial
+equality, equality of condition, and an approach toward equality of
+fortunes."_ [_"The Federal Idea in French Political Thought"_, **Publius**,
+vol. 5, No. 3, p. 41]
+
+There is an obvious flaw in his position, namely that _"Proudhon suggests that
+nothing will have been gained if the blacks were freed only to become wage
+earners, as if the condition of the wage-earner were not closer to the
+realisation of personal autonomy than the condition of a well-treated slave."_
+[Nelson, **Op. Cit.**, p. 43] Yet his fears should not be ignored as the
+Southern states _"enacted 'black codes' which made the freed slaves like
+serfs"_ after the end of the Civil War. [Zinn, **Op. Cit.**, p. 199] As one
+Black newspaper put it: _"The slaves were made serfs and chained to the soil .
+. . Such was the boasted freedom acquired by the coloured man at the hands of
+the Yankees."_ [quoted by Zinn, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 196-7] However, these
+reservations about Proudhon's arguments -- which did contain relevant concerns
+-- do not make McNally's comments any more accurate. That he repeats someone
+else's mistakes do not matter as he should have taken the time to verify the
+claims by consulting Proudhon's own works -- particularly given the serious
+nature of the assertions being made.
+
+As can be seen, the notion that Proudhon was _"a rabid racist"_ cannot be
+supported. While he undoubted made the occasion racist remark (usually anti-
+Jewish), this was not reflected in his political ideas. Similarly, if, as
+Lichtheim suggests _"dislike of Germans, Italians, Poles"_ is considered
+important, then why are similar dislikes of other nationalities by Marx and
+Engels not worthy of note? Neither was free from anti-Semitic and other racist
+comments but anarchists consider these as relatively unimportant as they are
+understandable given the culture they lived in. In other words, Proudhon, Marx
+and Engels were people of their times and so it is unsurprising that certain
+of their opinions shock and disgust us. The question is, are these views at
+the core of their politics or do they reflect personal bigotries in
+contradiction with them? In all three cases, the answer is obvious and so such
+attacks on Proudhon fail to convince – particularly if they are generalised to
+all anarchists, as if Proudhon's opposition to strikes or his sexism were
+remotely applicable to the likes of Bakunin, Kropotkin or Goldman!
+
+Also, it is somewhat ironic that McNally mentions Proudhon's alleged "support"
+for the South as the Leninist tradition he places his own politics is renown
+for supporting various dictatorships during wars. For example, during the
+Vietnam war the various Leninist groups called for victory to North Vietnam, a
+Stalinist dictatorship while during both Gulf Wars they called for victory to
+Iraq, another dictatorship. In other words, they "tolerated" and "supported"
+anti-working class regimes, dictatorships and repression of democracy. They
+stress that they do not politically support these regimes, rather they wish
+these states to win in order to defeat the greater evil of imperialism. In
+practice, of course, such a division is hard to defend -- for a state to win a
+war it must repress its own working class and so, in calling for a victory for
+a dictatorship, they must support the repression and actions that state
+requires to win the war (as an explosion of resistance, class struggle and
revolt in the "lesser imperialist power" will undermine its war machine and so
-lead to its defeat. Hence the notion that such calls do not mean support for
-the regime is false. Hence McNally's comments against Proudhon smack of
-hypocrisy -- his political tradition have done similar things and sided with
-repressive dictatorships during wars in the name of political aims and theory.
-In contrast, anarchists have consistently raised the idea of _**"No war but
-the class war"_** in such conflicts (see [section A.3.4](secA3.html#seca34)).
+lead to its defeat). The notion that such calls do not mean support for the
+regime is false and so McNally's comments against Proudhon as well as being
+inaccurate also smack of hypocrisy -- his political tradition has sided with
+repressive dictatorships during wars in the name of wider political aims and
+theory. In contrast, anarchists have consistently raised the idea of _**"No
+war but the class war"**_ in such conflicts (see [section
+A.3.4](secA3.html#seca34)). Proudhon's position of refusal to side with either
+the North or the South during the American Civil War is related to the
+revolutionary anarchist position.
+
+To conclude, with the exception of his sexism McNally's account of Proudhon's
+ideas is either completely false (on small-scale property, democracy, racial
+equality) or, at best, half-truths turned into full-lies (his anti-Semitism
+and position of strikes). The scale of the distortion is simply staggering,
+suggesting he never consulted a single book by Proudhon. In terms of
+Proudhon's sexism and anti-Semitism, dismissing a theory based on the personal
+failings of those who advocate it only convinces the superficial. Proudhon
+rejected many of the assumptions of his times, yet he did not rise above all
+of them. As George Lichtheim suggests (in a passage McNally could not bring
+himself to quote), _"[i]n all these respects Proudhon simply reflected the
+milieu from which he had sprung. His mental crudities were commonplace and not
+peculiar to him. Half peasant, half townsman, he was the embodiment of the
+average French workingman of his day"_. [**The Origins of Socialism**, p. 87]
+Subsequent anarchists (including Bakunin) overcame the limitations of Proudhon
+**the man** by using Proudhon **the theorist**. McNally, by personalising the
+matter, seeks to deny the significant contributions Proudhon made to socialism
+(as can be seen by the Paris Commune). If he were more confident in his own
+political tradition he would not have to do this as Leninism should be able to
+convince by presenting an accurate account of the ideas of others and showing
+their weaknesses. That McNally did not do this for Proudhon shows that, for
+all his flaws, his argument that socialism needs to be decentralised, federal
+and self-managed still rings true. The failure of the Bolshevik regime
+confirms this.
## 5\. Why are McNally's comments on Bakunin a distortion of his ideas?
McNally then moves on to Bakunin whom he states _"shared most of Proudhon's
views."_ The truth is somewhat different. Unlike Proudhon, Bakunin supported
-trade unions and strikes, equality for women, revolution and far more
-extensive collectivisation of property. In fact, rather than share most of his
-views, Bakunin disagreed with Proudhon on many subjects. He did share
-Proudhon's support for industrial self-management, self-organisation in self-
-managed workers' associations from below, his hatred of capitalism and his
-vision of a decentralised, libertarian socialist society. It is true that, as
+trade unions and strikes, equality for women and revolution as well as being
+far more explicit in support for the collectivisation of property.
+
+This can be seen from Bakunin's last book in which he argued that the
+International Working Men's Association _"has shown the proletariat the
+objective it must achieve and at the same time has indicated to it the ways
+and means of organising a popular force"_, namely _"a voluntary alliance of
+agricultural and factory worker associations, communes, provinces and
+nations"_ organised _"from below upwards"_. Socialism would be created _"only
+through concerted action by the proletariat of all countries, whose
+organisation first on an economic basis is precisely the object of the
+International"_, by means of _"factory, artisan, and agrarian sections"_. A
+_"federal organisation, from below upwards, of workers' associations, groups,
+communes, districts, and, ultimately, regions and nations"_ was needed _"for
+real as opposed to fictitious freedom"_. This _"popular federation"_ would be
+_"based on emancipated labour and collective property"_ as the _"mode of
+future production"_ would be _"producers' cooperatives"_ and _"all forms of
+land and capital must become collective property"_. He also _"demand[ed],
+along with liberty, the equality of rights and obligations for men and
+women."_ [**Statism and Anarchy**, p. 32, p. 33, p. 49, p. 51, p. 13, p. 22,
+p. 201 and p. 219]
+
+So Bakunin disagreed with Proudhon on many subjects. He did share Proudhon's
+support for industrial self-management, self-organisation in workers'
+associations, his hatred of capitalism and his vision of a decentralised,
+libertarian, federal, "from below" socialist society. It is true that, as
McNally notes, _"Bakunin shared [Proudhon's] anti-semitism"_ but he fails to
mention Marx and Engels' many racist remarks against Slavs and other peoples.
Also it is not true that Bakunin _"was a Great Russian chauvinist convinced
-that the Russians were ordained to lead humanity into anarchist utopia."_
-Rather, Bakunin (being Russian) hoped Russia would have a libertarian
-revolution, but he also hoped the same for France, Spain, Italy and all
-countries in Europe (indeed, the world). Rather than being a _"Great Russian
-chauvinist"_ Bakunin opposed the Russian Empire (he wished _"the destruction
-of the Empire of All the Russias"_ [**The Basic Bakunin**, p. 162]) and
+that the Russians were ordained to lead humanity into [the] anarchist
+utopia."_ Rather, Bakunin (being Russian) hoped Russia would have a
+libertarian revolution, but he also hoped the same for France, Spain, Italy
+and all countries in Europe (indeed, the world). He opposed the Russian Empire
+and he wished _"the destruction of the Empire of All the Russias"_ and
supported national liberation struggles of nationalities oppressed by Russia
-(and any other imperialist nation).
-
-McNally moves on to Bakunin's on revolutionary organisation methods, stating
-that they _"were overwhelmingly elitist and authoritarian."_ We have discussed
-this question in some detail in section J.3.7 ([Doesn't Bakunin's _"Invisible
-Dictatorship"_ prove that anarchists are secret
-authoritarians?](secJ3.html#secj37)) and so will not do so here. However, we
-should point out that Bakunin's viewpoints on the organisational methods of
-mass working class organisations and those of political groupings were
-somewhat different.
+(and any other imperialist nation). [**The Basic Bakunin**, p. 162] Unlike
+Proudhon, he supported Polish National liberation although he recognised that
+_"its leading parties, which are still drawn primarily from the gentry. have
+been unable to renounce their state-centred program"_ and hoped that the
+national movement would embrace economic change and seek the _"liberation and
+renewal of their homeland in social revolution"_. [**Statism and Anarchy**, p.
+40]
+
+McNally moves on to _"Bakunin's organisational methods"_, stating that they
+_"were overwhelmingly elitist and authoritarian."_ This assertion completely
+misunderstands Bakunin's ideas on how revolutionaries should organise and
+influence working class organisations as well as the revolutionary process.
+Before turning to these, we must discuss Bakunin's views on social
+organisation as these indicate what his _"utopia"_ (to use McNally's word)
+would be like and place his ideas on how anarchists should organise into
+context. If this is not done then Bakunin cannot be understood nor how later
+anarchists revised his ideas.
+
+We must start by pointing out that Bakunin's viewpoints on the organisational
+methods of mass working class organisations and those of political groupings
+were somewhat different. As we show in [section 9](append31.html#app9),
+Bakunin had what would now be termed a syndicalist position on the labour
+movement and so he rejected organising political parties and electioneering
+(_"political action"_) in favour of _"the development and organisation… of the
+social (and, by consequence, anti-political) power of the working masses as
+much in the towns as in the countryside."_ [**Michael Bakunin: Selected
+Writings**, pp. 197-8] This was reflected in his ideas on social revolution as
+expressed in 1868:
+
+> _"the federative Alliance of all working men's associations… will constitute
+the Commune . . . by the creation of a Revolutionary Communal Council composed
+of one or two delegates… vested with plenary but accountable and removable
+mandates . . . all provinces, communes and associations… [would send] their
+representatives to an agreed meeting place . . . vested with similar mandates
+to constitute the federation of insurgent associations, communes and
+provinces… to organise a revolutionary force capable of defeating reaction… it
+is the very fact of the expansion and organisation of the revolution for the
+purpose of self-defence among the insurgent areas that will bring about the
+triumph of the revolution . . . Since revolution everywhere must be created by
+the people, and supreme control must always belong to the people organised in
+a free federation of agricultural and industrial associations . . . organised
+from the bottom upwards by means of revolutionary delegation"_ [**Op. Cit.**,
+pp. 170-2]
+
+How is this federation of workers councils based on elected, mandated and
+recallable delegates organised from the bottom-up _"elitist and
+authoritarian"_? Compare this to McNally's own words on the soviets of the
+Russian Revolution:
+
+> _"The Russian revolution was based upon a wholly new kind of social
+organisation, the workers' council or soviet. These councils, based on elected
+delegates from the workplace and the neighbourhoods, became the new decision-
+making bodies of Russia. They were organs of direct democracy whose delegates,
+like those of the Paris Commune, could be recalled by the electors. The
+soviets represented a new form of mass democracy. It was for this reason that
+Lenin and Trotsky made the demand for 'All power to the soviets!' the central
+slogan of the Russian revolution."_
+
+As noted in [section 4](append31.html#app4), Proudhon had already raised the
+idea of recallable delegates in the 1848 revolution and it was his followers
+who applied them in 1871. Given McNally's praise of the Paris Commune and the
+Russian soviets, it seems strange that Bakunin's comments with regards to
+revolutionary social organisation with its obvious parallels to both should
+not be mentioned. Perhaps because to do so would totally undermine his case?
+Thus rather than being _"overwhelmingly elitist and authoritarian"_ Bakunin's
+ideas on a future society have marked similarities to the actual structures
+created by working people in struggle and are marked by libertarian and self-
+managed visions and concepts -- as anyone familiar with Bakunin's work would
+know.
+
+The key difference between Bakunin and Lenin is that for the former turning
+the soviets into a state (even a so-called "workers' state") as desired by the
+latter would mean that power moved from the bottom to the top, empowering the
+few at the expense of the many. Given that Lenin's aim was the creation of a
+Bolshevik government it comes as no surprise that this _"central slogan"_ of
+the revolution was quickly violated (see [section H.1.7](secH1.html#sech17)).
+As Bakunin once put it, there is the _"Republic-State"_ and there is _"the
+system of the Republic-Commune, the Republic-Federation, i.e. the system of
+**Anarchism**. This is the politics of the Social Revolution, which aims at
+the abolition of the **State** and establishment of the economic, entirely
+free organisation of the people -- organisation from bottom to top by means of
+federation."_ [**The Political Philosophy of Bakunin**, p. 314] The difference
+is fundamental and not simply a question of words (see [section
+H.2.1](secH2.html#sech21)).
+
+The question now arises of how Bakunin thought revolutionaries should
+influence both working class struggle and revolution. While not completely
+libertarian, Bakunin's ideas on this issue are different than McNally's
+summary would suggest.
The aim of the political grouping was to exercise a _"natural influence"_ on
-the members of working class unions and associations, seeking to convince them
-of the validity of anarchist ideas. The political group did not aim to seize
+the members of unions and associations, seeking to convince them of the
+validity of anarchist ideas. The political group did not aim to seize
political power (unlike Marxists) and so it _"rule[d] out any idea of
-dictatorship and custodial control."_ Rather the _"revolution would 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 below upwards by means of revolutionary delegation."_ All the
-political group could do was to _"assist the birth of the revolution by sowing
-ideas corresponding to the instincts of the masses . . . [and act] as
-intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the popular instinct."_ The
-political group thus _"help[s] the people towards self-determination on the
+dictatorship and custodial control."_ All it could do was to _"assist the
+birth of the revolution by sowing ideas corresponding to the instincts of the
+masses"_ and act _"as intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the
+popular instinct."_ It _"help[s] the people towards self-determination on the
lines of the most complete equality and the fullest freedom in every
direction, without the least interference from any sort of domination."_
-[**Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings**, p. 172 and p. 191]
-
-As regards the forms of popular organisations Bakunin favoured, he was clear
-it would be based on _"factory, artisan, and agrarian sections"_ and their
-federations [**Statism and Anarchy**, p. 51]. In other words, trade unions
-organised from the bottom up and based upon self-management in _"general
-membership meetings . . . [i.e.] popular assembles . . . [where] the items on
-the agenda were amply discussed and the most progressive opinion prevailed."_
-The _"federative alliance of all the workers' associations . . . will
-constitute the commune . . . [with] deputies invested with imperative, always
-responsible, and always revocable mandates."_ [**Bakunin on Anarchism**, p.
-247 and p. 153]
-
-Given McNally's praise of the Paris Commune and the Russian soviets, it seems
-strange that Bakunin's comments with regards to revolutionary social
-organisation with its obvious parallels to both should not be mentioned by
-McNally. Perhaps because to do so would totally undermine his case? Thus
-rather than being _"overwhelmingly elitist and authoritarian"_ Bakunin's ideas
-on a future society bar marked similarities to the actual structures created
-by working people in struggle and are marked by libertarian and self-managed
-visions and concepts -- as anyone familiar with Bakunin's work would know.
-
-McNally then quotes _"one historian"_ on Bakunin (not even providing a name
-makes evaluating the accuracy of the historian's work impossible and so leaves
-the reader in the dark as to whether the historian does provide a valid
-account of Bakunin's ideas). The unnamed author states that:
+[**Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings**, p. 172 and p. 191] The _"sole aim of
+a secret society must be, not the creation of an artificial power outside the
+people, but the rousing, uniting and organising of the spontaneous power of
+the people"_. It _"does not foist upon the people any new regulations, orders,
+styles of life, but merely unleashes its will and gives wide scope to its
+self-determination and social organisation, which must be created by itself
+from below and not above. The organisation must accept in all sincerity the
+idea that it is a servant and a helper, but never a commander, of the people,
+never under any pretext its manager, not even under the pretext of the
+people's welfare."_ The secret society _"acts on the people only by the
+natural personal influence of its members who are not invested with any
+power"_ and so this _"does not threaten the liberty of the people because it
+is free from all official character. It is not placed above the people like
+state power because its whole aim, defined by its programme, consists of the
+fullest realisation of the liberty of the people."_ [quoted by Michael
+Confino, **Daughter of a Revolutionary**, p. 250, pp. 258-9 and p. 261]
+
+As we discuss in more detail in [section J.3.7](secJ3.html#secj37), the key to
+understanding the role of Bakunin's secret societies is to recognise that
+rather than seek to be elected into positions of power, they would work within
+popular organisations at the base and argue their ideas and win others over to
+them (i.e., their _"natural personal influence"_). This is why Bakunin
+considered such organisations as being no danger to popular liberty -- by not
+having power they could not force their ideas onto others, unlike a new state
+regime. All this is ignored by McNally.
+
+McNally then quotes _"one historian"_ on Bakunin. It should be noted that not
+even providing a name makes evaluating the accuracy of the historian's work
+impossible and so leaves the reader in the dark as to whether the historian
+does provide a valid account of Bakunin's ideas. However, after investigation
+the historian in question is George Lichtheim whom McNally feels provides
+_"the most reliable guides to early socialist thought"_ presumably because his
+account chimes with all the standard Marxist prejudices, assumptions and
+errors about anarchism (significantly McNally ignores Lichtheim's statement
+that Bakunin's supported _"anti-authoritarian collectivism"_). A socialist,
+Lichtheim opposed Marxist-Leninism while presenting a sceptical but
+superficial account of anarchism. This can be seen from the words McNally
+quotes:
> _"The International Brotherhood he founded in Naples in 1865-66 was as
conspiratorial and dictatorial as he could make it, for Bakunin's
libertarianism stopped short of the notion of permitting anyone to contradict
him. The Brotherhood was conceived on the Masonic model, with elaborate
rituals, a hierarchy, and a self-appointed directory consisting of Bakunin and
-a few associates."_
-
-However, as we argue in [section J.3.7](secJ3.html#secj37), this description
-of Bakunin's secret societies is so distorted as to be useless. To point to
-just **two** examples, the historian T.R. Ravindranathan indicates that after
-the Alliance was founded _"Bakunin wanted the Alliance to become a branch of
-the International [Worker's Association] and at the same time preserve it as a
-secret society. The Italian and some French members wanted the Alliance to be
-totally independent of the IWA and objected to Bakunin's secrecy. Bakunin's
-view prevailed on the first question as he succeeded in convincing the
-majority of the harmful effects of a rivalry between the Alliance and the
-International. On the question of secrecy, he gave way to his opponents. . ."_
-[**Bakunin and the Italians**, p. 83] Moreover, the Spanish section of the
-Alliance _"survived Bakunin . . . yet with few exceptions it continued to
-function in much the same way as it had done during Bakunin's lifetime."_
-[George R. Esenwein, **Anarchist Ideology and the Working Class Movement in
-Spain**, p. 43] Hardly what you would expect if McNally's vision was accurate.
+a few associates."_ [**A Short History of Socialism**, p. 126]
+
+First, it should be noted that Bakunin considered secret societies as
+necessary because, at the time, most countries were monarchies and did not
+have basic civil liberties. Bakunin had been imprisoned by the Tsar for his
+activities during the 1848 revolution and so had personal experience of the
+fate of revolutionaries who were caught by these regimes. As Murray Bookchin
+argues, _"Bakunin's emphasis on conspiracy and secrecy can be understood only
+against the social background of Italy, Spain, and Russia the three countries
+in Europe where conspiracy and secrecy were matters of sheer survival."_
+[**The Spanish Anarchists**, p. 24] McNally ignores the historical context --
+and the awkward fact that Marxists have also favoured secret groupings in the
+face of similar regimes.
+
+Second, it should be noted that in 1865-6 Bakunin was just becoming an
+anarchist and this period _"represents the transition from the revolutionary
+nationalism of his middle-years to the revolutionary anarchism of his last
+period."_ The _"rituals"_ of the International Brotherhood were not reflected
+in later organisations because, as Bakunin admitted to a recruit, _"they
+aren't necessary. We invented that for the Italians"_. In other words, they
+reflected the revolutionary traditions of the democratic conspiracies of that
+country rather than his own ideas, something confirmed by James Guillaume, his
+associate in the Alliance of Social Democracy, who recounted this, Bakunin's
+group in the First International, _"had little resemblance to 'the classic
+type of secret society where one had to obey orders coming from above.'
+Bakunin's organisation was nothing more than a 'free association of men who
+were uniting for collective action, without formalities, without ceremonies or
+mysterious rites.'"_ As for the Brotherhood, _"the constitution thus laid down
+was to be regarded as provisional; for when the Brotherhood attained a
+membership of seventy, a constituent assembly was to be convened which would
+determine the definite rules and programme of the organisation."_ [E.H. Carr,
+**Michael Bakunin**, p. 320, p. 316, p. 357 and p. 315]
+
+Third, this summary is simply inaccurate. To show this, we shall quote from
+Bakunin's letter to the Russian Nihilist Sergy Nechayev in which he explains
+the differences in their ideas. He discusses the _"principles and mutual
+conditions"_ for a _"new society"_ of revolutionaries in Russia (noting that
+this was an _"outline of a plan"_ which _"must be developed, supplemented, and
+sometimes altered according to circumstances"_):
+
+> _"Equality among all members and the unconditional and absolute solidarity
+-- one for all and all for one -- with the obligation for each and everyone to
+help each other, support and save each other. . . Complete frankness among
+members and proscription of any Jesuitical methods in their relationships . .
+. When a member has to say anything against another member, this must be done
+at a general meeting and in his presence. **General fraternal control** of
+each other . . . Everyone's personal intelligence vanished like a river in the
+sea in the collective intelligence and all members obey unconditionally the
+decisions of the latter._
+
+> _"All members are equal; they know all their comrades and discuss and decide
+with them all the most important and essential questions bearing on the
+programme of the society and the progress of the cause. The decision of the
+general meeting is absolute law. . . The society chooses an Executive
+Committee from among their number consisting of three or five members who
+should organise the branches of the society and manage its activities in all
+the regions of the [Russian] Empire on the basis of the programme and general
+plan of action adopted by the decision of the society as a whole. . . This
+Committee is elected for an indefinite term. If the society . . . the People's
+Fraternity is satisfied with the actions of the Committee, it will be left as
+such; and while it remains a Committee each member . . . and each regional
+group have to obey it unconditionally, except in such cases where the orders
+of the Committee contradict either the general programme of the principle
+rules, or the general revolutionary plan of action, which are known to
+everybody as all . . . have participated equally in the discussion of them. .
+. In such a case members of the group must halt the execution of the
+Committee's orders and call the Committee to judgement before the general
+meeting . . . If the general meeting is discontented with the Committee, it
+can always substitute another one for it. . . Any member or any group is
+subject to judgement by the general meeting . . . No new Brother can be
+accepted without the consent of all or at the very least three-quarters of all
+the members. . ._
+
+> _"The Committee divides the members . . . among the Regions and constitutes
+Regional groups of leaderships from them . . . Regional leadership is charged
+with organising the second tier of the society -- the **Regional Fraternity**,
+on the basis of the same programme, the same rules, and the same revolutionary
+plan . . . Each Regional Committee will set up **District** Committees from
+members of the **Regional Fraternity** . . . District Committees can, if
+necessary and only with the consent of the Regional Committee, set up a third
+tier of the organisation -- **District Fraternity** with a programme and
+regulations as near as possible to the general programme and regulations of
+the People's Fraternity. The programme and regulations of the District
+Fraternity will not come into force until they are discussed and passed by the
+general meeting of the Regional Fraternity and have been confirmed by the
+Regional Committee. . ._
+
+> _"Jesuitical control . . . are totally excluded from all three tiers of the
+secret organisation . . . The strength of the whole society, as well as the
+morality, loyalty, energy and dedication of each member, is based exclusively
+and totally on the shared truth, sincerity and trust, and on the open
+fraternal control of all over each one."_ [quoted by Confino, **Op. Cit.**,
+pp. 264-6]
+
+As can be seen, while there is much in Bakunin's ideas that few anarchists
+would agree with today, it cannot be said that it was _"dictatorial"_ as
+McNally and Lichtheim wish to suggest. Ironically, as we note in [section
+H.2.14](secH2.html#sech214), there are distinct similarities to Lenin's (and
+Marx's during the 1848 revolution) ideas on how revolutionaries should
+organise. Thus we find Lenin arguing in **What is to be Done?** for _"a
+powerful and strictly secret organisation, which concentrates in its hands all
+the threads of secret activities, an organisation which of necessity must be a
+centralised organisation"_ because the revolutionary movement would _"benefit
+by the fact that a 'dozen' experienced revolutionaries, no less professionally
+trained than the police, will centralise all the secret side of the work --
+prepare leaflets, work out approximate plans and appoint bodies of leaders for
+each urban district, for each factory district and for each educational
+institution, etc."_ Under Tsarism, the _"only serious organisational principle
+the active workers of our movement can accept is strict secrecy, strict
+selection of members, and the training of professional revolutionaries."_
+[**The Essential Lenin**, p. 158, p. 149 and p. 162]
+
+The parallels with Bakunin's system are clear and are predominately the result
+of the identical political conditions both revolutionaries experienced. While
+anarchists are happy to indicate and oppose the non-libertarian aspects of
+Bakunin's ideas, it is hard for the likes of the McNally to attack Bakunin
+while embracing Lenin's ideas on the party, justifying their more
+"undemocratic" aspects as a result of the objective conditions of Tsarism.
+Worse, in 1920 these principles were agreed by the Communist International,
+including the necessity of both legal and illegal structures within the party
+for _"the Communist parties must learn to combine legal and illegal activity
+in a planned way. However, the legal work must be placed under the actual
+control of the illegal party at all times."_ [**Proceedings and Documents of
+the Second Congress 1920**, vol. 1, p. 198-9] Anarchists have, since Bakunin's
+death, rejected his ideas that anarchists should organise in a centralised
+fashion (see [section J.3](secJ3.html)).
+
+Therefore, McNally has a problem. On the one hand, he denounces Bakunin's
+ideas of a centralised, secret top-down organisation of revolutionaries. On
+the other, the party structure that Lenin recommends is also a tightly
+disciplined, centralised, top-down structure with a membership limited to
+those who are willing to be professional revolutionaries. So if he attacks
+Bakunin, he must also attack Lenin, not to do so is hypocrisy. And, unlike
+Bakunin, Lenin wished his party to seize state power -- which then used it to
+build a system in its own image (see [section H.5.9](secH5.html#sech59)).
+
+At this point it will be objected that Lenin's party was more democratic and
+he allowed people to disagree with him. Yet Lichtheim's summation leaves a lot
+to be desired. To point to just three examples: the historian T.R.
+Ravindranathan indicates that _"Bakunin wanted the Alliance to become a branch
+of the International [Working Men's Association] and at the same time preserve
+it as a secret society. The Italian and some French members wanted the
+Alliance to be totally independent of the IWA and objected to Bakunin's
+secrecy. Bakunin's view prevailed on the first question as he succeeded in
+convincing the majority of the harmful effects of a rivalry between the
+Alliance and the International. On the question of secrecy, he gave way to his
+opponents"_. [**Bakunin and the Italians**, p. 83]; while other Bakunin
+influenced sent delegates to the Hague Congress of the First International in
+1872, the Italian sections decided not to; The Spanish section of the Alliance
+_"survived Bakunin . . . yet with few exceptions it continued to function in
+much the same way as it had done during Bakunin's lifetime."_ [George R.
+Esenwein, **Anarchist Ideology and the Working Class Movement in Spain**, p.
+43] Hardly what you would expect if Lichtheim's comments were accurate.
+
+The evidence suggests that the Alliance _"was not a compulsory or
+authoritarian body."_ In Spain, it _"acted independently and was prompted by
+purely local situations. The copious correspondence between Bakunin and his
+friends . . . was at all times motivated by the idea of offering advice,
+persuading, and clarifying. It was never written in a spirit of command,
+because that was not his style, nor would it have been accepted as such by his
+associates."_ Moreover, there _"is no trace or shadow or hierarchical
+organisation in a letter from Bakunin to [Spanish anarchist] Mora . . . On the
+contrary, Bakunin advises 'direct' relations between Spanish and Italian
+Comrades."_ The Spanish comrades also wrote a pamphlet which _"ridiculed the
+fable of orders from abroad."_ [Juan Gomez Casa, **Anarchist Organisation**,
+p. 25 and p. 40] This is confirmed by George R. Esenwein, who argues that
+_"[w]hile it is true that Bakunin's direct intervention during the early days
+of the International's development in Spain had assured the pre-dominance of
+his influence in the various federations and sections"_ of the organisation,
+_"it cannot be said that he manipulated it or otherwise used the Spanish
+Alliance as a tool for his own subversive designs."_ Thus, _"though the
+Alliance did exist in Spain, the society did not bear any resemblance to the
+nefarious organisation that the Marxists depicted."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 42]
+Indeed, as Max Nettlau points out, those Spaniards who did break with the
+Alliance were persuaded of its _"hierarchical organisation . . . not by their
+own direct observation, but by what they had been told [by Marxists] about the
+conduct of the organisation"_ in other countries. [quoted by Casa, **Op.
+Cit.**, pp. 39-40]
In summary, McNally's comments are a distortion of Bakunin's ideas and
-activities. McNally represents a distorted picture of one aspect of Bakunin's
-ideas while ignoring those aspects which support working class self-
-organisation and self-management.
-
-## 6\. Are the _"quirks of personality"_ of Proudhon and Bakunin listed by
-McNally actually rooted _"in the very nature of anarchist doctrine"_?
-
-After chronicling the failings and distorting the facts of two individuals,
-McNally tries to generalise. _"These characteristics of Bakunin and
-Proudhon,"_ he argues, _"were not mere quirks of personality. Their elitism,
-authoritarianism and support for backward-looking and narrow-minded causes are
-rooted in the very nature of anarchist doctrine."_ Thus McNally claims that
-these failings of Proudhon and Bakunin are not personal failings but rather
-political. They represent the reactionary core of anarchist politics. However,
-his position leaves something to be desired. For example, the question
-remains, however, why, say, Proudhon's support of the South during the
-American Civil War is an example of _"anarchist doctrine"_ while Bakunin's
-support of the North is not. Or why Proudhon's opposition to trade unions and
-strikes is an example of "anarchist doctrine" while Bakunin's (and
-Kropotkin's, Malatesta's, Berkman's, Goldman's, etc) support for strikes and
-union organisation is not. Or why Proudhon's sexism is another example but
-Bakunin's, Kropotkin's, Goldman's, Malatesta's, et al support for women's
-equality is not. Indeed, rather than take examples which are common to
-anarchist theorists McNally takes only those positions held by one, at most
-two, major anarchist thinkers (positions tangential to the core of their ideas
-and, indeed, directly opposed to them). From this minority of examples he
-generalises a theory -- and so violates the basic principles of the scientific
-method!
+activities. He misrepresents one aspect of Bakunin's ideas while ignoring
+those aspects which support working class self-organisation and self-
+management. Ironically, he ignores the awkward fact that Bakunin's and Lenin's
+ideas on how revolutionaries should organise were similar (as to be expected
+given similar circumstances) but with the key difference that Lenin, unlike
+Bakunin, sought state power for the professional revolutionaries (see [section
+H.3.11](secH3.html#sech311)).
+
+## 6\. Are these _"quirks of personality"_ or _"rooted in the very nature of
+anarchist doctrine"_?
+
+After chronicling the failings of, and distorting the facts about, two
+individuals, McNally tries to generalise. _"These characteristics of Bakunin
+and Proudhon,"_ he argues, _"were not mere quirks of personality. Their
+elitism, authoritarianism and support for backward-looking and narrow-minded
+causes are rooted in the very nature of anarchist doctrine."_ Thus McNally
+claims that these failings of Proudhon and Bakunin are not personal failings
+but rather political. They, he suggests, represent the reactionary core of
+anarchist politics but makes no attempt to show that this is the case. Worse,
+many of his claims about _"anarchist doctrine"_ are simply untrue and, once
+corrected, leave little left other than _"quirks of personality"_.
+
+Take, for example, Proudhon's position on the American Civil War. Let us
+assume that McNally's assertion is correct (as shown in [section
+4](append31.html#app4) it is not) and he supported the South. Bakunin
+_"supported the Union in the struggle between the states"_. [Paul Avrich,
+**Anarchist Portraits**, p. 20] What does this mean for _"anarchist
+doctrine"_? Which of the two represented the "real" anarchist position? So the
+question remains why Proudhon's refusal to support either side during the
+American Civil War (his actual position) is an example of _"anarchist
+doctrine"_ while Bakunin's support of the North is not. Proudhon, to raise
+another obvious example, did not share Bakunin's interest in secret societies
+(nor did Kropotkin, Goldman, etc.). What does this tell us about _"the very
+nature of anarchist doctrine"_? Could Bakunin's position not be better
+explained by him being imprisoned in a Tsarist dungeon? Could it be that
+rather than attack anarchism, McNally simply attacks the failings of
+individual anarchists?
+
+Unlike Proudhon, Bakunin and other revolutionary anarchists supported both
+unions and strikes and, as Kropotkin summarised, anarchists _"do not seek to
+constitute, and invite the working men not to constitute, political parties in
+the parliaments. Accordingly, since the foundation of the International
+Working Men's Association in 1864-1866, they have endeavoured to promote their
+ideas directly amongst the labour organisations and to induce those unions to
+a direct struggle against capital, without placing their faith in
+parliamentary legislation"_. How can Proudhon's position represent _"the very
+nature of anarchist doctrine"_ when he was the only one to hold it? Similarly,
+Kropotkin simply (and rightly) dismissed Proudhon's position on women's
+equality as one _"which most modern writers will, of course, not agree."_
+[**Direct Struggle Against Capital**, p. 165 and p. 218] If McNally is right
+then we can only conclude that only Proudhon amongst all anarchist thinkers
+understood what anarchism stood for. That is, needless to say, unlikely and so
+we can only conclude that Proudhon's sexism and opposition to strikes were
+_"quirks of personality"_ which later anarchists rejected in favour of a more
+consistent libertarian position (in the case of Proudhon's anti-feminism) or
+as inadequate (in the case of Proudhon's reformism). Neither, in short, is
+inherent to anarchist theory and it would be silly to suggest they were.
+
+It should also be noted that Marx and Engels took positions which modern
+readers would consider strange at best. In the case of slavery, Marx suggested
+in his polemic against Proudhon that if you _"[c]ause slavery to disappear and
+you will have wiped America off the map of nations"_. [**Collected Works**,
+vol. 6, p. 167] Engels, unsurprisingly, after the American Civil War added a
+note suggesting that this obvious tolerance of slavery was only valid in 1847.
+A few years later, in the early 1850s, Marx argued that slavery in Jamaica had
+been marked by _"freshly imported BARBARIANS"_ in contrast to the United
+States where _"the present generation of Negroes"_ was _"a native product,
+more or less Yankeefied"_ and _"hence capable of being emancipated."_ {**Op.
+Cit.**, vol. 39, p. 346] The many comments by Marx and Engels on the
+progressive role of imperialism in replacing traditional societies by
+capitalist social relationships are also relevant in this context as are the
+many racists comments on Slavs and other peoples (including Jews). In other
+words, Proudhon and Bakunin were not the only major socialist thinkers to
+express racist views and if they are to be dismissed as a result then why not
+Marx and Engels as well?
+
+We will draw upon Roman Rosdolsky's important work _"Engels and the
+‘Nonhistoric' Peoples: The National Question in the Revolution of 1848."_
+(**Critique: Journal of Socialist Theory**, No. 18/19) to sketch the bigotries
+of Marx and Engels (unless otherwise indicated all quotes in this section come
+from Rosdolsky's work). As will be seen, on almost every issue McNally raises
+against Proudhon and Bakunin we find similar comments by Marx and Engels.
+
+Unsurprisingly, given the times, Marx and Engels made numerous anti-Semitic
+remarks both in private and public. During the 1848 revolution, the paper Marx
+edited (**Neue Rheinische Zeitung**) published the reports of Müller-Tellering
+who expressed _"an all too maniacal hatred"_ of Jews. Engels wrote _"very
+unpleasant passages on the (Polish) Jews"_ [193, 116], describing them as
+_"the very incarnation of haggling, avarice and sordidness"_ and _"the meanest
+of all races"_ with _"its lust for profit."_ The Austrian Jews had
+_"**exploited the revolution** and are now being punished for it"_ while
+_"anyone who knows how powerful"_ they were. He generalised by suggesting that
+_"Jews are known to be cheated cheats everywhere"_ and, according to Marx,
+they had put themselves _"at the **head of the counter-revolution**"_ and so
+the revolution had _"to throw them back into their ghetto"_. [quoted 192,
+203,196] Marx's paper _"did not dissociate itself from the anti-Semitic
+'popular opinion'"_ and its articles resulted in some of its backers who were
+Jewish demanding the return of their money as it preached _"religious
+hatred."_ [201, 191]
+
+Yet the despicable attitude expressed against Jews in **Neue Rheinische
+Zeitung** is the least of the issues of concern here given the opinions
+expressed over Slavs by the founders of Marxism. Thus we find Engels asserting
+that the Slavs have been _"forced to attain the first stage of civilisation
+only by means of a foreign yoke, are not viable and will never be able to
+achieve any kind of independence"_ and that the conquered should be grateful
+to the Germans for _"having given themselves the trouble of civilising the
+stubborn Czechs and Slovenes, and introducing among them trade, industry, a
+tolerable degree of agriculture, and culture!"_ [**Marx-Engels Collected
+Works**, vol. 8, p 238] Worse, Engels proclaimed that _"one day we shall
+**take a bloody revenge on the Slavs** for this cowardly and base betrayal of
+the revolution"_ and _"hatred of the Russians was, and still is, the first
+revolutionary passion of the Germans"_. The revolution could only be secured
+_"against these Slavs peoples by the most decisive acts of terrorism"_ and
+_"**a war of annihilation and ruthless terrorism**, not in the interests of
+Germany but in the interests of the revolution!"_ There would be _"a **bloody
+revenge in the Slav barbarians**"_ and a war which will _"**annihilate all
+these small pig-headed nations even to their very names**"_ and _"will not
+only cause reactionary classes and dynasties **to disappear from the face of
+the earth, but also entire reactionary peoples.** And that too is an
+advance."_ [quoted, 85, 86]
+
+In short, Engels advocated ethnic cleansing in the name of the revolution
+against those whom he considered _"nonhistoric"_ peoples. This was recognised
+by leading Marxist Karl Kautsky who, rightly, denounced him for advocating
+that _"they had to be exterminated"_ [quoted 90] Regardless of what drove
+these rants, as Rosdolsky rightly states _"it no way nullifies the fact that
+they made entire peoples the object of this hatred and proclaimed a 'war of
+annihilation' against them."_ [87]
+
+Ignoring the genocidal ethnic cleansing proclaimed against the Slavs (bar
+Poles) and other _"nonhistoric"_ people, Engels wrote of the war which _"broke
+out over Texas"_ between Mexico and the USA and how it was good that _"that
+magnificent California was snatched from the lazy Mexicans, who did not know
+what to do with it"_ by _"the energetic Yankees."_ [quoted, 159] He failed to
+mention that the revolt of 1836 over Texas which was the root of the 1846 war
+was conducted by _"**planters, owners of Negro slaves**, and their main reason
+for revolting was that **slavery had been abolished in Mexico in 1829**."_
+[160] In fact in 1845 a majority of voters in the Republic of Texas approved a
+proposed constitution that specifically endorsed slavery and the slave trade
+and was later accepted by the U.S. Congress. Unlike Engels, Northern
+abolitionists attacked this war as an attempt by slave-owners to strengthen
+the grip of slavery and ensure their influence in the federal government and
+publicly declared their wish for the defeat of the American forces. Henry
+David Thoreau was jailed for his refusal to pay taxes to support the war,
+penning his famous essay **Civil Disobedience**. [Howard Zinn, **A People's
+History of the United States**, pp. 155-7] Rosdolsky rightly comments on how
+_"inappropriate, in fact perverse, was Engels' illustration."_ [160]
+
+So we find distinct parallels between McNally's attacks on Proudhon and the
+many racist and anti-Semitic remarks by Marx and Engels (as listed by Peter
+Fryer in his _"Engels: A Man of his Time"_ [John Lea and Geoff Pilling (eds.),
+**The condition of Britain: Essays on Frederick Engels**]) as well as their
+siding with slave states against abolitionist ones. Nor did Marx, it must be
+noted, denounce Proudhon's racism or sexism (he also failed to comment on the
+Paris Commune being elected by **male** universal suffrage, thinking nothing
+of the exclusion of half the population while proclaiming its democratic
+nature). Strangely, most Marxists (rightly) condemning Proudhon for his
+bigotries are silent about this -- as silent as they are on the awkward facts
+that Proudhon did not actually support the Southern States in the American
+Civil War and that a one-off, never repeated, comment made in a private
+notebook simply cannot be taken as expressing his political ideas (see
+[section 4](append31.html#app4) for details).
+
+The fact is, once we correct McNally's errors, we discover that the vast
+majority of Proudhon's and Bakunin's positions are **not** _"backward-looking
+and narrow-minded"_, quite the reverse. Where a position **is** so (Proudhon's
+position to trade unions and feminism being the most obvious examples) then we
+quickly discover that subsequent anarchists publicly rejected it. Most of the
+position's McNally paints as _"anarchist doctrine"_ were not actually held by
+either Proudhon or Bakunin (such as, opposition to industry and collectively-
+owned and managed property). Rather than take examples which are common to
+most anarchist theorists -- and so actually reflective of _"anarchist
+doctrine"_ \-- McNally takes only a few positions held by one, at most two,
+major anarchist thinkers. Worse, these positions are tangential to the core of
+their ideas and, indeed, directly opposed to them (such as infrequently
+expressed bigotries against specific peoples being in obvious conflict to
+their other, more common, support for racial equality). From this minority of
+examples McNally generalises a theory -- and so violates the basic principles
+of the scientific method!
+
+So McNally's position leaves something to be desired. Why is Proudhon's
+opposition to trade unions and strikes is an example _"anarchist doctrine"_
+while Bakunin's (and Kropotkin's, Malatesta's, Berkman's, Goldman's, etc.)
+support for both is not? Why is Proudhon's sexism _"anarchist doctrine"_ but
+Bakunin's (and Kropotkin's, Goldman's, Malatesta's, etc.) support for women's
+liberty and equality is not? Why proclaim Bakunin _"shared most of Proudhon's
+views"_ when anyone who did the most basic research would quickly conclude
+that in these two issues (and others!) Bakunin rightly rejected the positions
+McNally raises with regards to Frenchman's ideas? Worse, many of the positions
+McNally attacks Proudhon for are simply inaccurate -- he simply did not hold
+the ideas McNally so confidently asserts he did.
+
+Moreover, as Daniel Guérin notes _"[m]any of these masters were not anarchists
+throughout their lives and their complete works include passages which have
+nothing to do with anarchism."_ Bakunin, for example, was only an anarchist
+from around 1864 to his death in 1876 while _"in the second part of his career
+Proudhon's thinking took a conservative turn"_. [**Anarchism**, p. 6] As such,
+the positions McNally, rightly, attacks (once his errors are corrected!) are
+clearly _"quirks of personality"_ rather than somehow _"rooted in the very
+nature of anarchist doctrine."_ This can be seen from the awkward fact that no
+later anarchists advocated them. Not to mention the awkward fact that Marx and
+Engels shared similar views as those McNally attacks Proudhon and Bakunin for
+having (even if, in reality, they did not hold the positions McNally claims
+they did).
These examples in themselves prove the weakness of McNally's claims and the
low levels of scholarship which lay behind them. Indeed, it is amazing that
@@ -695,46 +2309,189 @@ facts, history and the intelligence of their desired audience.
## 7\. Are anarchists against democracy?
-McNally goes onto assert the following:
+McNally asserts the following:
> _"Originating in the revolt of small property owners against the
centralising and collectivising trends in capitalist development (the tendency
to concentrate production in fewer and fewer large workplaces), anarchism has
always been rooted in a hostility to democratic and collectivist practices.
-The early anarchists feared the organised power of the modern working class."_
-
-We have already refuted the claim that the _"early anarchists feared the
-organised power of the modern working class."_ We will now indicate why
-McNally is wrong to claim that anarchists express _"hostility to democratic
-and collectivist practices."_
-
-As indicated above Proudhon supported collective ownership and management of
-large-scale workplaces (i.e. those which employ wage-slaves under capitalism).
-Thus he clearly was in favour of economic direct democracy and collective
-decision making by groups of workers. Similarly, Bakunin also supported
-workers' productive associations like co-operatives and envisioned a free
-society as being based on workers' collective ownership and the self-
-management of production by the workers themselves. In addition, he supported
-trade unions and saw the future society as being based on federations of
-workers' associations. To claim that anarchists are hostile to democratic and
-collectivist practices is simply not true. As would be clear to anyone reading
-their works.
-
-McNally then asserts that _"[t]o this day, most anarchists defend the
-'liberty' of the private individual against the democratically made decisions
-of collective groups."_ Here McNally takes a grain of truth to create a lie.
-Yes, anarchists **do** defend the liberty of individuals to rebel against the
-decisions of collective groups (we should point out that Marxists usually use
-such expressions as a euphemism for the state, but here we will take it at
-face value). Why? For two reasons. Firstly, the majority is not always right.
-Secondly, simply because progress is guaranteed by individual liberty -- by
-**dissent.** That is what McNally is attacking here -- the right of
-individuals and groups to dissent, to express themselves and live their own
-lives.
-
-As we argue in [section A.2.11](secA2.html#seca211), most anarchists are in
-favour of direct democracy in free associations. However, we agree with Carole
-Pateman when she argues:
+The early anarchists feared the organised power of the modern working class.
+To this day, most anarchists defend the 'liberty' of the private individual
+against the democratically made decisions of collective groups."_
+
+As indicated in [section 3](append31.html#app3), the notion that anarchists
+are against large-scale industry or collective property is simply an
+invention. Both Proudhon and Bakunin, for example, argued for collective
+management and ownership of the means of production by the workers themselves.
+Indeed, workers' self-management of production and collective ownership were
+raised in the very first anarchist book, Proudhon's **What is Property?** and
+both have remained an key aspect of anarchism ever since. Proudhon put it
+well: _"Large industry and high culture come to us by big monopoly and big
+property: it is necessary in the future to make them rise from the
+association."_ [quoted by [K. Steven Vincent, **Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the
+Rise of French Republican Socialism**, p. 156] So workers' associations
+running workplaces is at the heart of anarchism, an easy fact to discover if
+you bother to read Proudhon and Bakunin -- as is the fact that Bakunin
+supported revolutionary trade unionism as the means of producing a social
+revolution (see [section 9](append31.html#app9)). So much for _"fear[ing] the
+organised power of the modern working class"_!
+
+So the premise of his assertion is factually incorrect. What of the
+conclusion, the idea that anarchists support the liberty to ignore _"the
+democratically made decisions of collective groups"_? Here McNally takes a
+grain of truth to create a lie.
+
+First, however, we need to ask an obvious question: what does "democracy"
+mean? Or, more correctly, what kind of democracy are we talking about? If
+quoting Lenin is not **too** out of place, in a section of his pamphlet **The
+Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky** in section entitled _"How
+Kautsky Turned Marx Into A Common Liberal"_, Lenin stated it was _"natural for
+a liberal to speak of 'democracy' in general; but a Marxist will never forget
+to ask: 'for what class?'"_ [**The Lenin Anthology**, p. 465] So the question
+is not whether anarchists support "democracy" or not but what **kind** of
+democracy and for whom. For if McNally is right (and he is) and there are two
+kinds of socialism (one "from above" and one "from below") then there are
+multiple kinds of democracy: centralised and decentralised; unitarian and
+federal, top-down and bottom-up; bourgeois and workers. That is why Proudhon
+talked of the workers democracy (_"Démocratie ouvrière"_) in his last work,
+contrasting it to the democracy (the left-Jacobin bourgeois-republican
+democracy which included the state socialists), but the elements of which he
+had been expounding upon since the 1840s.
+
+A close reading of Proudhon shows that his main opposition to "democracy" was
+that it was, paradoxically, not democratic enough as it referred to the
+Jacobin notion that the whole nation as one body should elect a government. In
+such a regime _"**the People reigns and does not govern**, which is to deny
+the Revolution."_ [**Property is Theft!**, p. 267] He sought a social
+organisation in which people had meaningful control over their own lives -- as
+individuals **and** as groups, collectives. This was not possible under a
+centralised democracy and so _"universal suffrage provides us, . . . in an
+embryonic state, with the complete system of future society. If it is reduced
+to the people nominating a few hundred deputies who have no initiative . . .
+social sovereignty becomes a mere fiction and the Revolution is strangled at
+birth."_ [**Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon**, p. 123] Nor was it
+possible as long as workers did not control their work and workplaces. This
+meant, as discussed in [section 4](append31.html#app4), he argued for a
+decentralised, federal bottom-up system of communal and workplace associations
+based on elected, mandated and recallable delegates:
+
+> _"we are all voters; we can choose the most worthy . . . we can follow them
+step-by-step in their legislative acts and their votes; we will make them
+transmit our arguments and our documents; we will suggest our will to them,
+and when we are discontented, we will recall and dismiss them._
+
+> _"The choice of talents, the imperative mandate . . . and permanent
+revocability are the most immediate and incontestable consequences of the
+electoral principle. It is the inevitable program of all democracy._
+[**Property is Theft!**, p. 273]
+
+As we noted in [section 5](append31.html#app5), Bakunin had identical ideas on
+the need for a decentralised, federal, bottom-up social organisation based on
+elected, mandated and recallable delegates. Rather than express _"hostility to
+democratic and collectivist practices"_, anarchists have always sought to
+discover which social forms allow **genuine** democratic and collectivist
+practices to flourish -- a "democracy" which reduces the masses to simply
+picking their masters every few years while workers were employed by bosses
+would not promote libertarian values. Hence the support for workers' self-
+management of production by democratic associations, communal self-government
+and social-economic federalism even the casual reader would find in the works
+of Proudhon and Bakunin but which McNally fails to mention.
+
+Anarchists are well aware that support for democratic collectives in the
+workplace and community is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
+individual freedom (to quote McNally, the _"challenge is to restore to
+socialism its democratic essence, its passionate concern with human
+freedom"_). This is because collectives can make bad decisions, the majority
+can -- and does -- act oppressively towards the minority. For example, the
+United States has seen numerous votes on the issue of homosexual rights which
+saw the majority of voters or their representatives reject equality. That the
+majority are against equality for gays does not make it right -- anymore than
+previous majorities against equality for women and blacks were right. If a
+majority vote for a right-wing party which promises to make strikes illegal
+would McNally accept that decision and urge trade unionists to obey the
+democratic decisions of the collectivity? Would a referendum result make it
+any more just and worthy of respect? What if the majority vote to ban the
+teaching of evolution in all schools? And, finally, what if the majority vote
+in favour of authoritarian regimes? This is no idle question, it happened in,
+for example, France in 1851 and 1852 (much to Proudhon's disgust).
+
+Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that the right often invoke the _"silent
+majority"_ against the progressive minorities seeking change. The term was
+popularised (though not first used) by U.S. President Richard Nixon in 1969
+when he asked for the support of _"the great silent majority of my fellow
+Americans"_, those who felt threatened by attacks on "traditional values"
+during the 1960s -- the civil rights, women's and peace movements as well as
+student rebellions, the counter-culture, wildcat strikes, and so on. Nixon, it
+should be noted, won a landslide victory in the 1972 Presidential election and
+took 49 of 50 states. The Thatcher government, likewise, invoked its
+democratic credentials (in spite of never receiving an actual majority of
+support) when launching state repression against strikes (particularly the
+1984-85 miners' strike) and imposing the most draconian anti-union laws in the
+Western World. Their trade union "reforms" included forcing a paper ballot of
+members before taking strike action, so replacing the mass union meeting with
+the atomised democracy of the bourgeois state. Many Tory politicians wish to
+go further and impose yet more legislation which would outlaw strikes unless a
+majority of trade union members take part in the ballot as well as the
+majority voting for strike action (rather than just the majority of those
+voting in the ballot) -- in the interests of "democracy", of course, as it
+would stop "unrepresentative" minorities disrupting the (non-union) majority.
+
+Needless to say, this is a condition they never suggest for the electing of
+politicians for good reason: "democratic" government usually means government
+by those elected by a minority of a population. For example, in the 2012
+London Mayor election the successful candidate received just over 50% of a 38%
+turn-out, meaning that the successful candidate represented a mere 20% of the
+city's population. It should also be stressed that this minority of voters did
+not actually make decisions -- that rested in the hands of one person, the
+mayor. In other words, power over a city of ten million rested in the hands a
+person elected by 20% of those eligible to vote. The same can be said of U.S.
+elections, particularly Presidential ones. So democracy can easily mean
+government by the largest minority although, in practice, it means government
+of the few elected by the largest minority of the minority who bother to vote.
+None of which is very democratic and confirms Proudhon's critique that
+_"nothing resembles a monarchy more than a **république unitaire**"_. [quoted
+by Vincent, **Op. Cit.**, p. 211]
+
+So invoking "democracy" is problematic, given its wide number of uses. At its
+most basic, the majority can be wrong (as can be seen from the numerous
+crooks, incompetents, authoritarians and demagogues who have managed to win
+the popular vote). The aim, of course, is to change the views of the majority
+but that cannot be done by simply obeying its unjust opinions but rather
+challenging them by direct action -- or _"ignoring"_ them to use McNally's
+term. As we note in [section H.2.11](secH2.html#sech211), all progressive
+movements -- whether trade unionism, civil rights activism, feminism and gay
+rights -- started out as minorities (and sometimes remained so!) but managed,
+by direct action and protest (i.e., ignoring the wishes of the majority) to
+change perspectives and make society more freedom and just (see Kropotkin's
+essay _"Revolutionary Minorities"_ in **Words of a Rebel** for further
+discussion). Malatesta put it well:
+
+> _"We do not recognise the right of the majority to impose the law on the
+minority, even if the will of the majority in somewhat complicated issues
+could really be ascertained. The fact of having the majority on one's side
+does not in any way prove that one must be right. Indeed, humanity has always
+advanced through the initiative and efforts of individuals and minorities . .
+. [W]e are even more opposed to domination of the majority by a minority. It
+would be absurd to maintain that one is right because one is in a minority . .
+. [I]t is not a question of being right or wrong; it is a question of freedom,
+freedom for all, freedom for each individual so long as he does not violate
+the equal freedom of others . . . it is necessary that majority and minority
+should succeed in living together peacefully and profitably by mutual
+agreement and compromise, by the intelligent recognition of the practical
+necessities of communal life and of the usefulness of concessions which
+circumstances make necessary."_ [**Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, p.
+72]
+
+So, yes, anarchists **do** defend the liberty of individuals to rebel against
+the decisions of collective groups (we should point out that Marxists usually
+use such expressions as a euphemism for the state, but here we will take it at
+face value). This is for two very good reasons. Firstly, the majority is not
+always right. Secondly, simply because progress is guaranteed by individual
+liberty -- by **dissent.** That is what McNally is attacking here -- the right
+of individuals and groups to dissent, to express themselves and live their own
+lives. As we argue in [section A.2.11](secA2.html#seca211), most anarchists
+are in favour of direct democracy in free associations. However, we agree with
+Carole Pateman when she argues:
> _"The essence of liberal social contract theory is that individuals ought to
promise to, or enter an agreement to, obey representatives, to whom they have
@@ -750,47 +2507,142 @@ making the promise is no longer free to exercise her capacities and decide
upon her own actions, and is no longer equal, but subordinate."_ [**The
Problem of Political Obligation**, p. 19]
+She indicates an obvious truth which McNally ignores:
+
+> _"Even if it is impossible to be unjust to myself, I do not vote for myself
+alone, but along with everyone else. Questions about injustice are always
+appropriate in political life, for there is no guarantee that participatory
+voting will actually result in decisions in accord with the principles of
+political morality."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 160]
+
Thus, for anarchists, a democracy which does not involve individual rights to
dissent, to disagree and to practice civil disobedience would violate freedom
and equality, the very values McNally claims to be at the heart of Marxism. He
is essentially arguing that the minority becomes the slave of the majority --
-with no right of dissent when the majority is wrong. In effect, he wishes the
-minority to be subordinate, not equal, to the majority. Anarchists, in
-contrast, because they support self-management also recognise the importance
-of dissent and individuality -- in essence, because they are in favour of
-self-management ("democracy" does not do the concept justice) they also favour
-the individual freedom that is its rationale. We support the liberty of
-private individuals because we believe in self-management ("democracy") so
-passionately.
+with no right of dissent when the majority is wrong or being unjust and
+restricting the freedom democracy is meant to be based upon, reflect and
+defend. In effect, he wishes the minority to be subordinate, not equal, to the
+majority. Anarchists, in contrast, because we support self-management also
+recognise the importance of dissent and individuality -- in essence, because
+we are in favour of self-management ("democracy" does not do the concept
+justice) we also favour the individual freedom that is its rationale. We
+support the liberty of private individuals because we believe in self-
+management ("democracy") so passionately.
+
+Then there is the question of **which** _"collective groups"_ make the
+democratic decision. This is a key issue for anyone concerned about freedom
+for its answer determines what kind of democracy we are talking about -- a
+meaningful one which empowers all or a formal one which restricts what
+democracy is meant to be about?
+
+For example, during debates on Scottish Independence some commentators suggest
+that limiting the vote on whether Scotland should withdraw from the UK to just
+those who lived there was "undemocratic" as the consequences impacted on those
+who lived in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, expanding the vote
+would have meant that the democratic decision of those in Scotland -- a small
+minority of the total population of the UK -- would have been irrelevant to
+the final decision. This can be generalised to all nation states which contain
+distinct cultural or ethic groupings within it. Can it be considered
+"democratic" to favour _"collective groups"_ which ensure the marginalisation
+of minorities who wish to govern themselves?
+
+This applies with equal force to the labour movement. In terms of strike
+action, which _"collective groups"_ get to decide? Is it a sub-unit of a union
+branch (for example, IT staff within a University facing a restructuring), the
+branch (in which the IT staff may be a minority), the region or the national
+union. The strike decision would impact on all these levels but McNally's
+position gives no guidance for what is the correct level. Is it "democratic"
+if the sub-unit of the branch has to face redundancies because the majority of
+the branch does not support strike action? Is it "democratic" if the local
+branch cannot strike because the majority of the national union considers it
+harmful to the union as a whole?
+
+This is no academic discussion as the answer has a significant impact on the
+evolution of the labour movement. In the Marxist-influenced German unions, the
+prejudice for centralisation meant that the whole union (in practice, a few
+leaders at the top) was considered the key collective group and so _"every
+local strike had first to be approved by the Central, which was often hundreds
+of miles away and was not usually in a position to pass a correct judgement on
+the local conditions"_ which lead to _"inertia of the apparatus of the
+organisation [and] renders a quick attack quite impossible"_. The unions were
+_"condemned . . . to stagnation"_ and the structure _"kills the spirit and the
+vital initiative of its members."_ This _"turned over the affairs of everybody
+in a lump to a small minority"_ and resulted in _"barren official routine"_
+which _"crushed individual conviction, kills all personal initiative by
+lifeless discipline and bureaucratic ossification and permits no independent
+action."_ [**Anarcho-Syndicalism**, p. 61 and p. 60]
+
+The anarchist position is clear -- the appropriate group makes the decision.
+Thus federalism allows _"free combination from below upward, putting the right
+of self-determination of every member above everything else and recognising
+only the organic agreement of all on the basis of like interests and common
+convictions."_ [Rocker, **Op. Cit.**, p. 60] Unsurprisingly, then, we discover
+that the most militant British union was that of the miners which had, due to
+syndicalist influence, a decentralised, federal structure based on autonomous
+branches. And, as Rocker notes, while the German unions made no attempt to
+resist the Nazi seizure of power, the anarcho-syndicalist CNT rose in
+insurrection and stopped Franco across two-thirds of Spain in 1936.
Simply put, Marxism (as McNally presents it here) flies in the face of how
societies change and develop. New ideas start with individuals and minorities
and spread by argument and by force of example. McNally is urging the end of
-free expression of individuality. For example, who would seriously defend a
-society that "democratically" decided that, say, homosexuals should not be
-allowed the freedom to associate freely? Or that inter-racial marriage was
-against "Natural Law"? Or that socialists were dangerous subversives and
+the free expression of individuality. For example, who would seriously defend
+a society that "democratically" decided that, say, homosexuals should not be
+allowed the freedom to associate? Or that inter-racial marriage was against
+"Natural Law"? Or that trade unions and strikes should be outlawed as the acts
+of "selfish" minorities? Or that socialists were dangerous subversives and
should be banned? He would, we hope (like all sane people), recognise the
rights of individuals to rebel against the majority when the majority violate
the spirit of association, the spirit of freedom and equality which should
-give democracy its rationale.
+give democracy its rationale. However, if he did then he would have to also
+admit the correctness of the anarchist position.
-Indeed, McNally fails to understand the rationale for democratic decision
-making -- it is not based on the idea that the majority is always right but
-that individual freedom requires democracy to express and defend itself. By
-placing the collective above the individual, McNally undermines democracy and
-replaces it with little more than tyranny by the majority (or, more likely,
-those who claim to represent the majority).
+So McNally fails to understand the rationale for democratic decision making --
+it is not based on the idea that the majority is always right but that
+individual freedom requires democracy to express and defend itself. By placing
+the collective above the individual, McNally undermines democracy and replaces
+it with little more than tyranny by the majority -- or, more likely, those who
+claim to represent the majority. It also, ironically, places him on the wrong
+side within his own political tradition.
If we take McNally's comments seriously then we must conclude that those
-members of the German (and other) Social Democratic Party who opposed their
-party's role in supporting the First World War were acting in inappropriately.
-Rather than express their opposition to the war and act to stop it, according
-to McNally's "logic" they should have remained in their party (after all,
-**leaving** the party meant ignoring the democratic decision of a collective
-group!), accepted the democratic decision of collective groups and supported
-the Imperialist slaughter in the name of democracy. Of course, McNally would
-reject such a position -- in **this** case the rights of minorities take
+members of the German Social Democratic Party who opposed their party's role
+in supporting the First World War were acting inappropriately. Rather than
+express their opposition to the war and act to stop it, according to McNally's
+"logic", they should have remained in their party (after all, **leaving** the
+party meant ignoring the democratic decision of a collective group), accepted
+the democratic decision of the collective and supported the Imperialist
+slaughter in the name of party democracy. Indeed, the minority of anti-war
+Social-Democratic representatives in the German Parliament did precisely that,
+refusing to vote against war credits in 1914 in the name of party discipline
+(presumably because, as good Marxists, they thought only _"anarchists defend
+the 'liberty' of the private individual against the democratically made
+decisions of collective groups"_, to use McNally's words). It took until 1915
+for Karl Liebknecht to do the right thing. If quoting Trotsky is not too out
+of place: _"Do not fear to remain in a minority -- even a minority of one,
+like Liebknecht's one against a hundred and ten"_. [**History of the Russian
+Revolution**, vol. 1, p. 293] Common sense as well as political principle
+indicates that Liebknecht's (belated) defence of socialist internationalism
+against the democratically made decision of the Social-Democratic
+representatives (and wider party) was right -- and his principled dissent
+helped turn the tide against the jingoism of the majority.
+
+Another obvious example is provided by Lenin who, just before the party's
+seizure of power in 1917, was so frustrated with the conservativism of his own
+party's central committee that he, _"by way of protest resigns from the
+Central Committee"_ after his _"furious criticism"_ had no effect. Rather than
+abide by the rules of his own party and the majority of its governing body
+_"by announcing his resignation . . . Lenin obviously wanted to make it
+possible to free himself in case of need from internal discipline of the
+Central Committee"_. This meant the _"withdrawing completely beyond the limits
+of party legality"_ and the threat of resigning gave him _"greater freedom to
+develop his offensive along internal lines."_ [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 3, p. 131]
+Perhaps McNally is of the opinion that a private individual should not ignore
+the democratically made decisions of collective bodies -- unless the
+individual in question is Lenin!
+
+We are sure that McNally would reject the notion that Liebknecht and Lenin
+were wrong -- in **these** cases the rights of minorities (even of one) take
precedence over the _"democratic decisions of collectives."_ This is because
the majority is not always right and it is only through the dissent of
individuals and minorities that the opinion of the majority can be moved
@@ -798,39 +2650,41 @@ towards the right one. Thus his comments are fallacious.
Progress is determined by those who dissent and rebel against the status quo
and the decisions of the majority. That is why anarchists support the right of
-dissent in self-managed groups -- in fact, as we argue in [section
-A.2.11](secA2.html#seca211), dissent, refusal, revolt by individuals and
-minorities is a key aspect of self-management. Given that Leninists do not
-support self-management (rather they, at best, support the Lockean notion of
-electing a government as being "democracy") it is hardly surprising they, like
-Locke, views dissent as a danger and something to denounce. Anarchists, on the
-other hand, recognising that self-management's (i.e. direct democracy)
-rationale and base is in individual freedom, recognise and support the rights
-of individuals to rebel against what they consider as unjust impositions. As
+dissent in self-managed groups -- in fact, dissent, refusal, revolt by
+individuals and minorities is a key aspect of self-management. Given that
+Leninists do not support self-management (rather they, at best, support the
+Lockean notion of electing a government as being "democracy") it is hardly
+surprising they, like Locke, view dissent as a danger and something to
+denounce. Anarchists, on the other hand, recognising that self-management's
+(i.e. direct democracy's) rationale and base is in individual freedom,
+recognise and support the rights of individuals to rebel against what they
+consider as unjust impositions (hence our recognition of the possibility of
+"the tyranny of the majority" -- see [section I.5.6](secI5.html#seci56)). As
history shows, the anarchist position is the correct one -- without rebellion,
numerous minorities would never have improved their position. Indeed,
McNally's comments is just a reflection of the standard capitalist diatribe
-against strikers and protestors -- they don't need to protest, for they live
+against strikers and protestors -- they do not need to protest, for they live
in a "democracy."
So, yes, anarchists do support individual freedom to resist even
democratically made decisions simply because democracy **has to be** based on
individual liberty. Without the right of dissent, democracy becomes a joke and
-little more than a numerical justification for tyranny. Thus McNally's latter
-claim that the _"challenge is to restore to socialism its democratic essence,
-its passionate concern with human freedom"_ seems farcical -- after all, he
-has just admitted that Marxism aims to eliminate individual freedom in favour
-of _"collective groups"_ (i.e. the government). Unless of course he means
-freedom for the abstraction "humanity" rather than concrete freedom of the
-individual to govern themselves as individuals and as part of freely joined
-self-managed associations? For those who really seek to restore to socialism
-its passionate concern for freedom the way it clear -- anarchism. Hence Murray
-Bookchin's comments:
-
-> _"Marxism['s] . . . perspectives are orientated not towards concrete,
-existential freedom, but towards an abstract freedom -- freedom for 'Society',
-for the 'Proletariat', for **categories** rather than for people."_ [**Post
-Scarcity Anarchism**, pp. 225-6]
+little more than a numerical justification for tyranny (usually of the few who
+make up the so-called "democratically elected" government). Thus McNally's
+latter claim that the _"challenge is to restore to socialism its democratic
+essence, its passionate concern with human freedom"_ seems farcical -- after
+all, he has just admitted that Marxism aims to eliminate individual freedom in
+favour of _"collective groups"_ (i.e. the government). Unless of course he
+means freedom for the abstraction "humanity" rather than concrete freedom of
+the individual to govern themselves as individuals and as part of freely
+joined self-managed associations? For those who really seek to restore to
+socialism its passionate concern for freedom the way it clear -- anarchism.
+Hence Murray Bookchin's comments:
+
+> _"Here is the nub of the problem [with] . . . Marxism . . . its perspectives
+are orientated not towards concrete, existential freedom, but towards an
+abstract freedom -- freedom for 'Society', for the 'Proletariat', for
+**categories** rather than for people."_ [**Post Scarcity Anarchism**, p. 148]
Anarchism, on the other hand, favours freedom for people and that implies two
things -- individual freedom and self-management (direct democracy) in free
@@ -838,12 +2692,10 @@ associations. Any form of "democracy" not based on individual freedom would be
so contradictory as to be useless as a means to human freedom (and vice versa,
any form of "individual freedom" -- such a liberalism -- which denies self-
management would be little more than a justification for minority rule and a
-denial of human freedom).
-
-Ultimately, McNally's attack on anarchism fails simply because the majority is
-not always right and dissent a key to progress. That he forgets these basic
-facts of life indicates the depths to which Marxists will sink to distort the
-truth about anarchism.
+denial of human freedom). Ultimately, McNally's attack on anarchism fails
+simply because the majority is not always right and dissent a key to progress.
+That he forgets these basic facts of life indicates the depths to which
+Marxists will sink to distort the truth about anarchism.
Not that those in the Bolshevik tradition have any problem with individuals
ignoring the democratic decisions of collective groups. The Bolsheviks were
@@ -852,44 +2704,19 @@ collective groups -- **as long as the individuals in question were the leaders
of the Bolshevik Party**. As the examples we provide later (in [section
8](append31.html#app8)) indicate, leading lights in the Leninist tradition
happily placed the rights of the party before the rights of working people to
-decide their own fate.
-
-Thus McNally comments are strange in the extreme. Both anarchists and
-Leninists share a belief that individuals can and should have the right to
-ignore decisions made by groups. However, Leninists seem to think only the
-government and leadership of the Party should have that right while anarchists
-think **all** should. Unlike the egalitarian support for freedom and dissent
-for all anarchists favour, Leninists have an elitist support for the right of
-those in power to ignore the wishes of those they govern. Thus the history of
-Marxists parties in power expose McNally as a hypocrite. As we argue in [
-section 14](append31.html#app14), Marxist ideology provides the rationale for
-such action.
-
-Moreover, in spite of McNally's claim that the Leninist tradition is
-democratic we find Lenin arguing that the _"irrefutable experience of history
-has shown that . . . the dictatorship of individual persons was often the
-vehicle, the channel of the dictatorship of the revolutionary classes."_
-[quoted by Maurice Brinton, **The Bolsheviks and Workers Control**, p. 40]
-Such a comment is not an isolated one, as we indicate in [section
-8](append31.html#app8) and indicates well the anti-democratic nature of the
-tradition McNally places himself in. Thus McNally's attempt to portray
-anarchism as "anti-democratic" is somewhat ironic.
-
-And we must note, as well as refuting McNally's claim that Leninism is a
-democratic tradition, Lenin's comments display a distinct confusion over the
-nature of a **social** revolution (rather than a political one). Yes,
-**previous** revolutions may have utilised the dictatorship of individuals but
-these revolutions have been revolutions from one class system to another. The
-"revolutionary" classes in question were **minority** classes and so elite
-rule would not in any way undermine their class nature. Not so with a
-**socialist** revolution which must be based on mass participation (in every
-aspect of society, economic, political, social) if it is too achieve its goals
--- namely a classless society. Little wonder, with such theoretical confusion,
-that the Russian revolution ended in Stalinism -- the means uses determined
-the ends (see sections [13](append31.html#app13) and [14](append31.html#app13)
-for more discussion of this point).
-
-McNally then states that anarchists _"oppose even the most democratic forms of
+decide their own fate. Thus McNally comments are strange in the extreme. Both
+anarchists and Leninists share a belief that individuals can and should have
+the right to ignore decisions made by groups. However, Leninists seem to think
+only the government and leadership of the Party should have that right while
+anarchists think **all** should. Unlike the egalitarian support for freedom
+and dissent for all anarchists favour, Leninists have an elitist support for
+the right of those in power to ignore the wishes of those they govern. Thus
+the history of Marxists parties in power expose McNally as a hypocrite and as
+we argue in [section 14](append31.html#app14), Leninist ideology provides the
+rationale for such action. Thus his attempt to portray anarchism as "anti-
+democratic" is somewhat ironic.
+
+McNally states that anarchists _"oppose even the most democratic forms of
collective organisation of social life. As the Canadian anarchist writer
George Woodcock explains: 'Even were democracy possible, the anarchist would
still not support it . . . Anarchists do not advocate political freedom. What
@@ -897,9 +2724,151 @@ they advocate is freedom from politics . . .' That is to say, anarchists
reject any decision-making process in which the majority of people
democratically determine the policies they will support."_
-First, we must point out a slight irony in McNally's claim. The irony is that
+It is perhaps understandable that McNally fails to provide a reference for
+Woodcock's quote given that the two parts come from different chapters of the
+pamphlet **Anarchy or Chaos**. The first part (_"Even were democracy possible,
+the anarchist would still not support it"_) appears in chapter 3 on page 20
+while the second (_"Anarchists do not advocate political freedom. What they
+advocate is freedom from politics"_) comes from chapter 15, page 108. In other
+words, McNally skips most of the pamphlet and ignores such trivial discussions
+as anarchist support for organisation and so collective decision making, the
+links between anarchism and syndicalism (including a chapter explaining
+syndicalist ideas), revolutionary anarchist support for collective property in
+the means of production and products (libertarian communism) as well as what
+was meant by _"political freedom"_ and _"democracy"_.
+
+It is useful, then, to present what Woodcock **actually** argued in order to
+understand what anarchism stands for. First, it should be stressed that
+Woodcock is very specific about what he meant by democracy: _"for democracy
+puts forward the will of the majority as the supreme law, and declares that
+society must be governed, and the individual, whether he agrees or not, be
+coerced by that will."_ Thus he is not discussing democratic decision making
+within free associations but rather the majority passing laws which all must
+obey. As indicated above, this is not an unproblematic situation. Woodcock
+indicates this by noting the _"laws against bigamy, abortion, homosexual
+practices, transvestism, and other [so-called] sexual deviations, as well as
+the semi-official persecution of the unmarried mother and the bastard child,
+protect the institution of the family"_. Thus _"laws protecting the state [or
+the wishes of the majority] find their way into every sphere of life, and
+involve the prohibition of activities that, at first consideration, would
+appear to have no bearing on the social structure."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 20 and
+p. 107]
+
+So it is essential to remember that democracy and freedom need not go hand-in-
+hand -- majorities can, and do, restrict the freedom of individuals in
+repressive and unjust ways. So while democracy is a necessary condition for
+freedom it is not sufficient for, ultimately, the defining feature of
+democracy is **not** that the majority is always right but rather that a
+ruling minority cannot be trusted to not abuse its position and power. This is
+why Woodcock states _"Anarchists seek neither the good of a minority, nor the
+good of the majority, but the good of all."_ He also notes that in so-called
+democracies it is usually the handful of people who make up the
+"democratically elected" government who make the decisions and so it is _"not
+even of the majority [who rule] but of the privileged few who forms its ruling
+class"_. [**Op. Cit.**, p. 20] This awareness informs his comments on
+political freedom which McNally shamefully ignores:
+
+> _"Political freedom the right to vote, trial by jury, freedom of speech and
+press -- does not constitute real freedom. Indeed it masks the unfree nature
+of the society from which it springs. The right to vote means the right to
+choose whether one will have a brewer or a lawyer for a master. It does not
+mean the right to do without a master. Trial by jury means the right to be
+judged by a handful of petty tradesmen, in accordance with the laws of a
+society based on property and class . . . Political freedom in a class society
+is virtually meaningless . . . it is strictly limited in the interests of the
+controlling class, and its availability is in relation to the class and
+economic position of the man concerned . . . Democratic freedoms, then, are
+relative to wealth. But this is not the full measure of the relationship. In
+reality the rich enjoy a far greater freedom than that . . . In a class
+society the ruling class are always free owing to their control of the means
+of production, of the money that in an acquisitive society is the way to all
+enjoyment. The ruled are not free because lack of control of production, and
+the benefits of money, liberal education, etc., proceeding there from . . .
+Moreover, political freedom in a class society (and all political societies
+are by definition class societies), is relative to the security of that
+society. The ruling class give just so much political freedom as it is
+worthwhile and possible to give to keep the people out of mischief . . .
+Political freedom, at its best, can only be limited, as it maintains the power
+of property, which, by conferring the right of exploitation, limits the
+freedom of the exploited, who are the majority of the population . . ._
+
+> _"Political freedom is thus, in fact, an ingenious delusion, by which the
+governing classes give the people the comforting belief that they themselves
+have made the chains that bind them and that for this reason the chains are
+necessary and good. It gives men certain liberties that the ruling classes
+find it wise to concede as a cheap way of buying security, but its very
+retention of a political system, which means government, which means coercion,
+must in the end destroy political freedom itself._
+
+> _"Anarchists do not advocate political freedom. What they advocate is
+freedom from politics, freedom from the institution of government, freedom
+from coercion, freedom from the law's interference in the lives of individual
+men and women, freedom from economic domination and inequality . . . Only a
+society based on control from above has need of coercion. A society based on
+co-operation can do without oppression and restriction because it is based on
+the voluntary agreement between its members."_ [**Op. Cit.** pp. 105-8]
+
+Ultimately, if you define political freedom as the freedom to elect a
+government then, obviously, anarchists do not aim for it because we aim to end
+all governments! As is clear from the pamphlet McNally shamefully rips quotes
+from. The dishonesty is clear.
+
+Given McNally's assertions about anarchism opposing collective property and
+being undemocratic, it is useful to also quote Woodcock's words on what
+anarchism is based on and what it logically implies. He stresses that _"few
+anarchists contend that absolute individual freedom is possible, or, indeed,
+desirable . . . man is a social being, depending for his well-being on working
+and living together in society . . . The freedom anarchists seek, then, is a
+reciprocal freedom, a freedom of men and women recognising each other's
+rights, a freedom based on justice."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 105] Therefore:
+
+> _"Anarchism . . . is based on the concepts of freedom and justice, justice
+being that reciprocity of freedom without which no real individual freedom is
+possible. The social principles that follow from these concepts are mutual
+aid, or co-operation, and communism, or common ownership of the means of
+production . . . In the anarchist view these principles are expressed
+concretely in the administration of economic and functional affairs by
+voluntary associations of the workers for the purpose of running the factories
+and the farms and providing the necessary social services such as posts,
+drainage, roads, etc. Each industry would be administered by its own workers
+who are the most competent people for that purpose . . . who, having expert
+knowledge of their professions, are obviously better fitted to do this than
+politicians chosen according to the methods of parliamentary democracy."_
+[**Op. Cit.**, p. 91]
+
+The means used to create such a society would be _"prosecuting the economic
+struggle . . . an organisation on an economic basis which will embrace all the
+workers, according to their industries and workplaces . . . The syndicate
+[union], organised and governed by the workers themselves . . . [also]
+contain[s] the germ of the functional organisation upon which the new society
+can be built after the revolution."_. Anarchists wish _"that the people
+themselves take their destiny into their own hands and carry through the
+social revolution."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 89]
+
+All of which, to state the obvious, is at odds with McNally's claims about
+anarchism.
+
+To summarise: Anarchists are not opposed to people in free associations
+democratically determining the policies they will support (see sections
+[I.3.1](secI3.html#seci31) and [I.5.1](secI5.html#seci51) for more details on
+this). The minority can then decide to abide by the decision, protest against
+it or, if all else fails, to leave the association if they cannot tolerate the
+decisions being made. What we **do** oppose is the assumption that the
+majority is always right and that (non-repressive or non-oppressive)
+minorities should submit to the decisions of the majority no matter how wrong
+they are. We feel that history is on our side on this one -- it is only by the
+freedom to dissent, by the direct action of minorities to defend and extent
+their freedoms that society progresses. We also feel that theory is on our
+side -- majority rule without individual and minority rights is a violation of
+the principle of freedom and equality which democracy is said to be built on.
+Democracy should be an expression of individual liberty but in McNally's hands
+it is turned into bourgeois liberalism. Little wonder Marxism has continually
+failed to produce a free society. It has no conception of the relationship of
+individual freedom to democracy and vice versa.
+
+Finally, we must point out a slight irony in McNally's claim, namely that
Marxists usually claim that they seek a society similar to that anarchists
-seek. In the words of Marx:
+seek but have different means to achieve it. In the words of Marx:
> _"What all socialists understand by anarchy is this: once the aim of the
proletarian movement, the abolition of classes, has been attained, the power
@@ -907,143 +2876,647 @@ of the State . . . disappears, and the functions of government are transformed
into simple administrative functions."_ [Marx, Engels and Lenin, **Anarchism
and Anarcho-Syndicalism**, p. 76]
-So, Marxists and anarchists seek the same society, one of individual freedom.
-Hence McNally's comments about anarchism also apply (once the state "withers
-away", which it never will) to Marxism. But, of course, McNally fails to
-mention this aspect of Marxism and its conflict with anarchism.
-
-However, our comments above equally apply here. Anarchists are not opposed to
-people in free associations democratically determining the policies they will
-support (see [section A.2.11](secA2.html#seca211) for more details on this).
-What we **do** oppose is the assumption that the majority is always right and
-that minorities should submit to the decisions of the majority no matter how
-wrong they are. We feel that history is on our side on this one -- it is only
-by the freedom to dissent, by the direct action of minorities to defend and
-extent their freedoms that society progresses. Moreover, we feel that theory
-is on our side -- majority rule without individual and minority rights is a
-violation of the principle of freedom and equality which democracy is said to
-be built on.
-
-Democracy should be an expression of individual liberty but in McNally's hands
-it is turned into bourgeois liberalism. Little wonder Marxism has continually
-failed to produce a free society. It has no conception of the relationship of
-individual freedom to democracy and vice versa.
+Or, as the **Communist Manifesto** put it, _"the free development of each is
+the condition for the free development of all"_ [**The Marx-Engels Reader**,
+p. 491] So, Marxists and anarchists seek the same society, one of individual
+freedom which means that McNally's comments about anarchism also apply (once
+the state "withers away", which it never will) to Marxism. But, of course,
+McNally fails to mention this aspect of Marxism and its conflict with
+anarchism -- but, then, he fails to discuss what anarchism actually stands for
+nor does he present an accurate account of its views of democracy and
+democratic decision making.
## 8\. Are Leninists in favour of democracy?
-McNally's attack on Proudhon (and anarchism in general) for being "anti-
-democratic" is somewhat ironic. After all, the Leninist tradition he places
-himself in did destroy democracy in the workers' soviets and replaced it with
-party dictatorship. Thus his attack on anarchism can be turned back on his
-politics, with much more justification and evidence.
-
-For example, in response to the _"great Bolshevik losses in the soviet
+McNally's attack on anarchism for being anti-democratic, authoritarian and
+elitist is somewhat ironic given that the Leninist tradition he places himself
+in **did** destroy democracy during the Russian Revolution -- whether in the
+soviet, the workplace, the union or the military -- and replaced it with party
+dictatorship. This means that his attack on anarchism can be turned back on
+his own politics, with much more justification and evidence.
+
+We need to understand the importance of comparing the rhetoric of Bolshevism
+to its reality as we can have repeated pronouncements about "democracy" made
+while, at the same time, the necessity of party dictatorship is both being
+practised **and** advocated. Thus Lenin repeatedly contrasted the higher form
+of democracy expressed by the soviets to bourgeois democracy. In his in 1918
+polemic against leading Social-Democrat Karl Kautsky who was accusing the
+Bolsheviks of being undemocratic, Lenin argued that the _"only view that
+corresponds to Marxism"_ was expounded by Plekhanov (the father of Russian
+Marxism) at the Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Party in
+1903, namely _"in the revolution the proletariat would, if necessary,
+disenfranchise the capitalists and **disperse any parliament** that was found
+to be counter-revolutionary."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 28, p. 280] Which
+raises the obvious question, found to be counter-revolutionary by whom? The
+proletariat? No, according to Plekhanov it was **the party**:
+
+> _"Every democratic principle must be considered not by itself, abstractly,
+but in relation to . . . the success of the revolution [as this] is the
+highest law. And if the success of the revolution demands a temporary
+limitation on the working of this or that democratic principle, then it would
+be criminal to refrain from such a limitation . . . the principle of universal
+suffrage must be considered from the point of view of what I have designated
+the fundamental principle of democracy. It is hypothetically possible that we
+might . . . speak out against universal suffrage . . . If in a burst of
+revolutionary enthusiasm the people chose a very fine parliament then we would
+be bound to make it a **long parliament**; and if the elections turned out
+unsuccessfully, then we would have to try to disperse it._ [quoted by Samuel
+H. Baron, **Plekhanov: The Father of Russian Marxism**, p. 242]
+
+As we will discover, the dispersing of elected bodies by the party was not
+limited to bourgeois Parliaments: soviets were also subject to this policy.
+Perhaps this is unsurprising, given that before seizing power Lenin had
+repeatedly equated the power of the Bolsheviks with that of the proletariat.
+Thus _"Bolshevik power"_ was _"one and the same thing"_ as _"proletarian
+revolutionary power"_ and so the Second All-Russian Congress _"gave a majority
+to the Bolshevik Party and put it in power."_ [**The Lenin Anthology**, p. 413
+and p. 419] While problematic (it substitutes the party for the class), it
+could be argued that as the party was supported by the majority of workers
+(but not peasants) then the Bolshevik government was democratic. Which is
+true, in the limited bourgeois sense. The question is what would happen if the
+workers turned against the party -- would it give up its power as required by
+a movement committed to democracy? Unfortunately for McNally, the answer was:
+no.
+
+Before discussing this, we must present some context and discuss the Bolshevik
+regime from the democratic perspective of one-person, one-vote. **Before**
+seizing power, Lenin protested that the Bolsheviks _"must pass a resolution
+demanding **equal** suffrage (both in the Soviets and at trade union
+congresses), branding the slightest departure from equality as a **fraud** . .
+. We cannot tolerate a **fraud** of democracy if we call ourselves
+'democrats'. We are not democrats but unprincipled people if we tolerate
+this!!"_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 25, p. 304] After winning around 25% of
+the votes in the elections to the Constituent Assembly he was happy with a
+Soviet Constitution which saw the All-Russian Congress of Soviets being
+composed of representatives of urban soviets (one delegate for 25,000 voters)
+and of representatives of the rural congresses of soviets (one delegate for
+125,000 inhabitants). In other words, a worker's vote was 5 times more
+important than a peasant's vote. That this ensured a Bolshevik majority in the
+Third and Fourth All-Russian Congresses may explain this embrace of
+**unequal** suffrage in 1918 after the votes in the Constituent Assembly had
+been counted.
+
+Given that the Bolsheviks disbanded the Constituent Assembly in spite of it
+being elected by universal suffrage (i.e., by democracy) McNally would,
+undoubtedly, argue -- as Lenin did -- that soviet democracy was much superior.
+Ignoring the awkward issue of unequal suffrage between workers and peasants,
+the fact is that the Bolsheviks also disbanded soviets which elected non-
+Bolshevik majorities. Martov, the leader of the left-Mensheviks, recounted in
+June 1918 how in those _"places where we were in the majority, the soviets
+will be liquidated"._ When _"workers demanded new elections"_ the demands were
+_"stubbornly resisted"_ and the issue _"escalated to workers' strikes and the
+suppression of workers' demonstrations by armed forces"_. If the protests
+succeeded, then elections resulted in _"a majority to the Mensheviks and SRs"_
+and in those cases Bolshevik Military Revolutionary Councils ensured _"the
+soviets were disbanded by armed force or the opposition delegates were
+**expelled** as 'counter-revolutionaries' from the soviets"_ (although
+_"Bolshevik investigators themselves could not succeed in implicating even one
+Menshevik in the conspiracy trials"_). The disbanding of soviets was _"applied
+to the **uzed** congresses of peasant soviets."_ [_"Iulii Martov's Letter to
+A.N. Stein"_, pp. 78-82, **The Structure of Soviet History**, Ronald Grigor
+Suny (ed.), p. 78] Martov gave amongst many the example of Tula and a leading
+Bolshevik there informed his Party's Central Committee in early 1918 about the
+means being used there:
+
+> _"After the transfer of power to the soviet, a rapid about-face began in the
+mood of the workers. The Bolshevik deputies began to be recalled one after
+another, and soon the general situation took on a rather unhappy appearance.
+Despite the fact that there was a schism among the SRs, and the Left SRs were
+with us, our situation became shakier with each passing day. We were forced to
+block new elections to the soviet and even not to recognise them where they
+had taken place not in our favour."_ [quoted by Scott Smith, _"The Socialists-
+Revolutionaries and the Dilemma of Civil War"_, pp. 83-104, **The Bolsheviks
+In Russian Society**, Vladimir N. Brovkin (ed.), p. 87]
+
+_"The sum of this evidence from around the country,"_ summarises one
+historian, _"makes clear that the majority of Russian workers were hostile to
+the Bolsheviks by the spring of 1918 . . . the Bolsheviks simply dissolved
+opposition-controlled soviets, disregarded workers' opinions, and cracked down
+brutally on such manifestations of discontent as strikes."_ [Smith, **Op.
+Cit.**, p. 94] This meant disbanding soviets which were elected with the wrong
+majority and so in response to the _"great Bolshevik losses in the soviet
elections"_ during the spring and summer of 1918 _"Bolshevik armed force
-usually overthrew the results of these provincial elections . . . [In] the
-city of Izhevsk [for example] . . . in the May election [to the soviet] the
-Mensheviks and SRs won a majority . . . In June, these two parties also won a
+usually overthrew the results of these provincial elections."_ For example, in
+the city of Izhevsk in _"the May election [to the soviet] the Mensheviks and
+SRs won a majority"_ and the following month _"these two parties also won a
majority of the executive committee of the soviet. At this point, the local
-Bolshevik leadership refused to give up power . . . [and by use of the
-military] abrogated the results of the May and June elections and arrested the
-SR and Menshevik members of the soviet and its executive committee."_ In
-addition, _"the government continually postponed the new general elections to
-the Petrograd Soviet, the term of which had ended in March 1918. Apparently,
-the government feared that the opposition parties would show gains."_ [Samuel
-Farber, **Before Stalinism**, pp. 23-4 and p. 22]
-
-In the workplace, the Bolsheviks replaced workers' economic democracy with _
-"one-man management"_ selected from above, by the state (_"The elective
-principle must now be replaced by the principle of selection"_ \-- Lenin).
-Trotsky did not consider this a result of the Civil War -- _"I consider if the
-civil war had not plundered our economic organs of all that was strongest,
-most independent, most endowed with initiative, we should undoubtedly have
-entered the path of one-man management in the sphere of economic
-administration much sooner and much less painfully."_ [quoted by M. Brinton,
-**The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control**, p. 63 and pp. 66-7] He pushed the
-ideas of _"militarisation of labour"_ as well as abolishing democratic forms
-of organisation in the military (this later policy occurred **before** the
-start of the Civil War -- as Trotsky put it, the _"elective basis is
-politically pointless and technically inexpedient and has already been set
-aside by decree"_ [quoted by Brinton, **Op. Cit.**, pp.37-8]).
-
-In May 1921, the All-Russian Congress of the Metalworkers' Union met. The
-_"Central Committee of the [Communist] Party handed down to the Party faction
-in the union a list of recommended candidates for **union** (sic!) leadership.
-The metalworkers' delegates voted down the list, as did the Party faction in
-the union . . . The Central Committee of the Party disregarded every one of
-the votes and appointed a Metalworkers' Committee of its own. So much for
-'elected and revocable delegates.' Elected by the union rank and file and
-revocable by the Party leadership!"_ [M. Brinton, **Op. Cit.**, p. 83]
-
-These are a few examples of Trotsky's argument that you cannot place _"the
-workers' right to elect representatives above the party. As if the Party were
-not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship clashed with
-the passing moods of the workers' democracy!"_ He continued by stating the
-_"Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . . regardless of temporary
-vacillations even in the working class . . . The dictatorship does not base
-itself at every moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy."_
-[quoted by Brinton, **Op. Cit.**, p. 78]
-
-Thus, **when in power,** Trotsky did not _"insist against all odds that
-socialism was rooted in the struggle for human freedom"_ as McNally claims he
-did in the 1920s and 1930s (as we discuss in [section
-15](append31.html#app15), Trotsky did not do it then either). Rather, he
-thought that the _"very principle of compulsory labour is for the Communist
-quite unquestionable . . . the only solution to economic difficulties from the
-point of view of both principle and of practice is to treat the population of
-the whole country as the reservoir of the necessary labour power . . . and to
-introduce strict order into the work of its registration, mobilisation and
-utilisation."_ Can human freedom be compatible with the _"introduction of
-compulsory labour service [which] is unthinkable without the application . . .
-of the methods of militarisation of labour"_? Or when the _"working class
-cannot be left wandering round all over Russia. They must be thrown here and
-there, appointed, commanded, just like soldiers."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 66 and p.
-61]
+Bolshevik leadership refused to give up power"_ and by the use of the military
+_"abrogated the results of the May and June elections and arrested the SR and
+Menshevik members of the soviet and its executive committee."_ [Samuel Farber,
+**Before Stalinism**, pp. 23-4]
+
+As we summarise in [section H.6.1](secH6.html#sech61), the Bolsheviks applied
+many tactics to secure their power: soviet elections were delayed, the soviets
+themselves were packed with their representatives to secure their majority (so
+making direct election from the workplace irrelevant) and, when all else
+failed, the soviets themselves were simply, as noted, disbanded. This applied
+at the national level as well, and _"electoral fraud gave the Bolsheviks a
+huge majority of congress delegates"_ for the fifth All-Russian Soviet
+Congress in July 1918. The _"number of legitimately elected Left SR delegates
+was roughly equal to that of the Bolsheviks."_ The Left-SRs expected a
+majority but did not include _"roughly 399 Bolsheviks delegates whose right to
+be seated was challenged by the Left SR minority in the congress's credentials
+commission."_ Without these dubious delegates, the Left SRs and SR Maximalists
+would have outnumbered the Bolsheviks by around 30 delegates. This ensured
+_"the Bolshevik's successful fabrication of a large majority in the Fifth All-
+Russian Congress of Soviets."_ [Alexander Rabinowitch, **The Bolsheviks in
+Power**, p. 396, p. 288, p. 442 and p. 308]
+
+This was reflected in Lenin's 1917 argument that the _"Bolsheviks have no
+right to await the Congress of Soviets. They ought to seize the power **right
+now**"_ [quoted by Trotsky, **The History of the Russian Revolution**, vol. 3,
+pp. 132-2] The important thing was party power and the soviets were seen as
+only a means to that end and so perhaps their fate once the Bolsheviks had
+reached their goal is unsurprising. Hence we see Lenin, in his polemic against
+Kautsky, pointing with no apparent concerns to the fact that _"97 per cent of
+the total number of delegates [to the Sixth All-Russian Soviet Congress] were
+Bolsheviks"_ as an example of his party's popular support! [**Collected
+Works**, vol. 28, p. 303] It should be noted that the delegates to the
+congress were elected not by workers and peasants but rather by the
+appropriate soviet body below it. In other words, Bolshevik gerrymandered and
+packed soviets elected Bolsheviks to the national congress.
+
+Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the reality of their regime, Bolshevik rhetoric
+started to change. By the end of 1918 the necessity of party dictatorship
+started to appear in party material and, as Victor Serge noted in the 1930s,
+_"the degeneration of Bolshevism"_ was apparent by that time _"since at the
+start of 1919 I was horrified to read an article by Zinoviev . . . on the
+monopoly of the party in power"_. [**The Serge-Trotsky Papers**, p. 188] It
+must be stressed that Serge's horror was well hidden and, as noted in [section
+H.1.2](secH1.html#sech12) he joined the Bolsheviks and publicly defended this
+monopoly of power as a necessity of revolution. Lenin admitted the reality in
+1919:
+
+> _"When we are reproached with having established a dictatorship of one party
+and . . . . a united Socialist front is proposed, 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]
+
+Not only did the Bolsheviks not shift from that position, they recommended
+this position to the world revolutionary movement at the Second Congress of
+the Second International in 1920. In the words of Zinoviev:
+
+> _"Today, people like Kautsky come along and say that in Russia you do not
+have the dictatorship of the working class but the dictatorship of the party.
+They think this is a reproach against us. Not in the least! We have a
+dictatorship of the working class and that is precisely why we also have a
+dictatorship of the Communist Party. The dictatorship of the Communist Party
+is only a function, an attribute, an expression of the dictatorship of the
+working class . . . the dictatorship of the proletariat is at the same time
+the dictatorship of the Communist Party."_ [**Proceedings and Documents of the
+Second Congress 1920**, vol. 1, pp. 151-2]
+
+_"We must have a state organisation"_ he argued, _"and only the party can
+direct it, because a state political organisation is one that encompasses the
+best working-class elements of the entire country."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 154]
+Elsewhere that year he argued that _"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 be 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 of 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]
+In short: _"The chief conclusion of the proletarian revolution is the need for
+an iron, organised and monolithic Party."_ [Zinoviev, quoted by Robert
+Service, **The Bolshevik Party in Revolution**, p. 144] Lenin dismissed the
+notion that workers could govern themselves:
+
+> _"In the transition to socialism the dictatorship of the proletariat is
+inevitable, but it is not exercised by an organisation which takes in all
+industrial workers . . . What happens is that the Party, shall we say, absorbs
+the vanguard of the proletariat, and this vanguard exercises the dictatorship
+of the proletariat . . . 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 directly
+exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard . .
+. Such is the basic mechanism of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the
+essentials of transition from capitalism to communism . . . for the
+dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised by a mass proletarian
+organisation."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 32, pp. 20-1]
+
+This, of course, did not stop the Bolsheviks also claiming their regime was
+far more democratic than any other. In 1920, Zinoviev as head of the Communist
+International wrote a letter to the **Industrial Workers of the World**, a
+revolutionary labour union, which stated that the _"Russian Soviet Republic .
+. . is the most highly centralised government that exists. It is also the most
+democratic government in history. For all the organs of government are in
+constant touch with the working masses, and constantly sensitive to their
+will."_ [**Proceedings and Documents of the Second Congress 1920**, vol. 2, p.
+928] Lenin, in his diatribe against Left-Wing Communism made a similar claim
+and proclaimed the soviets _"**democratic** institutions, the like of which
+even the best democratic republics of the bourgeois have never known"_ while
+also suggesting that it was _"ridiculously absurd, and stupid"_ to make _"a
+contrast, **in general**, between the dictatorship of the masses and the
+dictatorship of the leaders."_ He also pointed to _"non-Party workers' and
+peasants' conferences"_ as means by which the party secured its rule and so
+the Bolsheviks would have to _"support, develop and extend"_ non-Party
+conferences _"to be able to observe the temper of the masses, come closer to
+them, meet their requirements, promote the best among them to state posts"_.
+[**The Lenin Anthology**, p. 573] Yet **if** the soviets were so democratic,
+then why were the non-Party Congresses needed at all? Perhaps because _"the
+dictatorship of the leaders"_ is **not** the same as _"dictatorship of the
+masses"_ and so the Soviets were irrelevant due to the party dictatorship?
+
+Perhaps unsurprisingly given the fate of the soviets in 1918, the Bolsheviks
+disbanded these "non-Party" conferences because _"[d]uring the disturbances"_
+of late 1920, _"they provided an effective platform for criticism of Bolshevik
+policies."_ Their frequency was decreased and they _"were discontinued soon
+afterward."_ [Richard Sakwa, **Soviet Communists in Power**, p. 203] Lenin
+summarised the reasons for this policy:
+
+> _"Non-Party conferences are not a fetish. They are valuable if they help us
+to come closer to the impassive masses -- the millions of working people still
+outside politics. They are harmful if they provide a platform for the
+Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries masquerading as 'non-party' men. They
+are helping the mutinies, and the whiteguards. The place for Mensheviks and
+Socialist-Revolutionaries, avowed or in non-party guise, is not at a non-Party
+conference but in prison . . . We can and must find other methods of testing
+the mood of the masses and coming closer to them. We suggest that those who
+want to play the parliamentary, constituent assembly and non-Party conference
+game, should go abroad . . . "_ [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 32, p. 362]
+
+In other words, the conferences were used by the proletariat to express its
+opinions and these were found to be lacking in the eyes of its vanguard. Like
+soviet democracy, they threatened the rule of the party and as Lenin suggested
+in 1920 _"[w]hoever brings about even the slightest weakening of the iron
+discipline of the party of the proletariat (especially during its
+dictatorship) is actually aiding the bourgeoisie against the proletariat."_
+[**The Lenin Anthology**, p. 570] So any conflict between the vanguard and the
+proletariat would, by this logic, necessitates the victory of the former over
+the latter -- in the latter's interests, of course. As Trotsky put it in 1921:
+
+> _"The Workers' Opposition has come out with dangerous slogans, making a
+fetish of democratic principles! They place the workers' right to elect
+representatives above the Party, as if the party were not entitled to assert
+its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the
+passing moods of the workers' democracy. It is necessary to create amongst us
+the awareness of the revolutionary birthright of the party, which is obliged
+to maintain its dictatorship, regardless of temporary wavering even in the
+working classes. This awareness is for us the indispensable element. The
+dictatorship does not base itself at every given moment on the formal
+principle of a workers' democracy."_ [quoted by Farber, **Op. Cit.**, p. 209]
+
+So, politically, the Bolsheviks systematically disbanded democratic
+institutions -- whether bourgeois (the Constituent Assembly) or proletarian
+(the soviets and non-Party Conferences). They proclaimed to the world the
+necessity of party dictatorship and how mass working class organisations could
+not exercise the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat. In March 1923 the
+Central Committee of the Communist Party, in a statement issued to mark the
+25th anniversary of the founding of the Party, summarised the lessons gained
+from the Russian revolution: _"the party of the Bolsheviks proved able to
+stand out fearlessly against the vacillations within its own class,
+vacillations which, with the slightest weakness in the vanguard, could turn
+into an unprecedented defeat for the proletariat."_ Vacillations, of course,
+are expressed by workers' democracy. Little wonder the statement rejects it:
+_"The dictatorship of the working class finds its expression in the
+dictatorship of the party."_ [_"To the Workers of the USSR"_ in G. Zinoviev,
+**History of the Bolshevik Party**, p. 213 and p. 214]
+
+Bolshevik authoritarianism, needless to say, was not limited to the political
+regime. In the workplace, they replaced workers' economic democracy with _
+"one-man management"_ selected from above, by the state. These _"individual
+executives"_ would have _"dictatorial powers (or 'unlimited' powers)"_ as
+there was _"absolutely **no** contradiction in principle between Soviet
+(**that is**, socialist) democracy and the exercise of dictatorial powers by
+individuals."_ The applied also at the national level for _"our task is to
+study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare **no effort** in copying
+it and not to shrink from adopting **dictatorial** methods to hasten the
+copying of it."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 27, p. 267, p. 268 and p. 340] He
+suggested dictatorial power was universal fact of all revolutions:
+
+> _"in the history of revolutionary movements the dictatorship of individuals
+was very often the expression, the vehicle, the channel of the dictatorship of
+the revolutionary classes has been shown by the irrefutable experience of
+history."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 267]
+
+It is churlish, but essential, to note that previous revolutionary movements
+had transformed one form of class society into another and so we must note, as
+well as refuting McNally's claim that Leninism is a democratic tradition,
+Lenin's comments display a distinct confusion over the nature of a **social**
+revolution (rather than a political one). Yes, **previous** revolutions may
+have utilised the dictatorship of individuals but these revolutions have been
+revolutions from one class system to another. The "revolutionary" classes in
+question were **minority** classes and so elite rule would not in any way
+undermine their class nature. Not so with a **socialist** revolution which
+must be based on mass participation (in every aspect of society, economic,
+political, social) if it is too achieve its goals -- namely a classless
+society. Little wonder, with such theoretical confusion, that the Russian
+revolution ended in Stalinism -- the means used determined the ends.
+Unsurprisingly enough, the Bolshevik imposition of one-management simply
+transformed private-capitalism into state-capitalism, that is one form of
+class society into another (see [section H.3.13](secH3.html#h313)). After the
+end of the Civil War Lenin summarised his position: _"Industry is
+indispensable, democracy is not. Industrial democracy breeds some utterly
+false ideas."_ [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 32, p. 27]
+
+This system of state-appointed "one-man" managers armed with _"dictatorial"_
+powers was not considered as opposed to socialism, as McNally implies. Lenin
+stressed in 1919 that the _"organisation of the communist activity of the
+proletariat and the entire policy of the Communists have new acquired a final,
+lasting form."_ [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 30, p. 144] Moreover, after the end of the
+civil war he combated the idea of workers' control as (rightly!) a syndicalist
+and anarchist deviation within the party at odds with Marxism:
+
+> _"Syndicalism hands over to the mass of non-Party workers . . . the
+management of their industries . . . thereby making the Party superfluous. . .
+Why have a Party, if industrial management is to be appointed . . . by trade
+unions nine-tenths of whose members are non-Party workers?"_ [**Op. Cit.**,
+vol. 32, p. 50]
+
+He went so far as to admit that he thought _"the syndicalist deviation"_
+(i.e., giving the proletariat economic democracy, the power to elect their own
+workplace managers and economic conferences) _"leads to the collapse of the
+dictatorship of the proletariat"_. [**Op. Cit.**, p. 86] This was a theme to
+which he repeatedly returned:
+
+> _"Does every worker know how to run the state? . . . this is not true . . .
+If we say that it is not the Party but the trade unions that put up the
+candidates and administrate, it may sound very democratic . . . It will be
+fatal for the dictatorship of the proletariat . . . To govern you need an army
+of steeled revolutionary Communists. We have it, and it is called the Party.
+All this syndicalist nonsense about mandatory nominations of producers must go
+into the wastepaper basket. To proceed on those lines would mean thrusting the
+Party aside and making the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia
+impossible."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 61-2]
+
+In short, the economic relations favoured by the Bolsheviks were identical to
+that of capitalism except that the boss was replaced by a state-appointed
+bureaucrat, private-capitalism by state-capitalism (an awkward fact McNally
+cannot bring himself to mention, never mind admit to). _"In the shops where
+one-man management (Lenin's own preference) replaced collegial management,"_
+notes Diane Koenker, _"workers faced the same kinds of authoritarian
+management they thought existed only under capitalism."_ The _"overall
+management of industry in 1921 was no more democratic than it had been in
+1914; indeed, it was much more highly centralised, hierarchical, and
+bureaucratic."_ [**Labour Relations in Socialist Russia**, p. 177 and p. 190]
+
+Needless to say, the Bolsheviks also combated independent trade unions with
+the same methods. As one historian summarises, _"Soviets and trade unions with
+non-Bolshevik majorities, and there was a definite revival in the electoral
+fortunes of the opposition in the spring of 1918, were dispersed"_ and by the
+_"beginning of 1920 non-Bolshevik controlled trade union organisations no
+longer existed at the national level"_. [Jonathan Aves, _"The Demise of Non-
+Bolshevik Trade Unionism in Moscow: 1920-21"_, pp. 101-33, **Revolutionary
+Russia**, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 101-2 and p. 103] By the end of 1920, the
+Bolsheviks had broken the both Menshevik-influenced printers and anarchist-
+influenced bakers union, with the offices of the former _"occupied by
+soldiers. Eleven members of the [union] board where arrested along with
+twenty-nine members of the Council of Representatives, factory committees and
+ordinary unionists . . . five were also members of the Moscow soviet. After
+being held without trial most were sentenced to terms between six months and
+two years in prison. The disbandment was approved by the plenum of the Moscow
+trade union council"_ which _"also voted to disband the bakers' section. The
+leading anarchist members of the section . . . and . . . an SR Maximalist . .
+. and two other members . . . were barred from office and arrested to stand
+trial."_ [Jonathan Aves, **Workers Against Lenin**, pp. 68-9] In May 1921, to
+present another example, the All-Russian Congress of the Metalworkers' Union
+met and the _"Central Committee of the [Communist] Party handed down to the
+Party faction in the union a list of recommended candidates for **union**
+(sic!) leadership. The metalworkers' delegates voted down the list, as did the
+Party faction in the union . . . The Central Committee of the Party
+disregarded every one of the votes and appointed a Metalworkers' Committee of
+its own. So much for 'elected and revocable delegates.' Elected by the union
+rank and file and revocable by the Party leadership!"_ [M. Brinton, _"The
+Bolsheviks and Workers' Control"_, **For Workers' Power, **, p. 375] The same
+year also saw the Bolshevik disperse provincial trade unions conferences in
+Vologda and Vitebsk _"because they had anti-communist majorities."_ [Aves,
+**Op. Cit.**, p. 176]
+
+A similar onslaught by the party against democracy also occurred in the armed
+forces. Trotsky simply abolished the soldier's committees and elected officers
+in early 1918, stating that _"the principle of election is politically
+purposeless and technically inexpedient, and it has been, in practice,
+abolished by decree."_ This destruction of military democracy was compared to
+the concurrent push by the Bolsheviks to introduce "one-man" management in
+production, as workplace democracy _"is not the last word in the economic
+constructive work of the proletariat"_. The _"next step must consist in self-
+limitation of the collegiate principle"_ and its replacement by _"[p]olitical
+collegiate control by the Soviets"_, i.e. the state control Lenin had
+repeatedly advocated in 1917. Moreover _"for executive functions we must
+appoint technical specialists."_ He ironically called this the working class
+_"throwing off the one-man management principles of its masters of yesterday"_
+and failed to recognise it was imposing the one-man management principles of
+new masters. As with Lenin, the destruction of workers' power at the point of
+production was of little concern for what mattered was that _"with power in
+our hands, we, the representatives of the working class"_ would introduce
+socialism. [_"Work, Discipline, and Order to save the Socialist Soviet
+Republic"_, **How the Revolution Armed**, vol. 1, p. 47, p. 37 and p. 38]
+
+Thus the Bolshevik tradition clearly placed the power of the party above the
+ability of working people to elect their own representatives, managers and
+officer. And McNally claims that his tradition aims at _"workers' power"_ and
+a _"direct and active democracy"_!
Of course McNally tries to blame the destruction of democracy in Russia on the
-Civil War but, as indicated above, the undermining of democracy started
-**before** the civil war started and continued after it had finished. The
-claim that the "working class" had been destroyed by the war cannot justify
-the fact that attempts by working class people to express themselves were
-systematically undermined by the Bolshevik party. Nor does the notion of an
-_"exhausted"_ or _"disappeared"_ working class make much sense when _"in the
-early part of 1921, a spontaneous strike movement . . . took place in the
-industrial centres of European Russia"_ and strikes involving around 43 000
-per year took place between 1921 and 1925\. [Samuel Farber, **Op. Cit.**, p.
-188 and p. 88] While it is undeniable that the working class was reduced in
-numbers because of the civil war, it cannot be said to have been totally
-"exhausted" and, obviously, did survive the war and was more than capable of
-collective action and decision making. Strikes, as Bakunin argued, _"indicate
-a certain collective strength"_ and so rather than there being objective
-reasons for the lack of democracy under Lenin we can suggest **political**
-reasons -- the awareness that, given the choice, the Russian working class
-would have preferred someone else in power!
-
-Also, we must point out a certain ingenuity in McNally's comments that
+Civil War: _"By 1920, the very face of Russia had changed. Workers' democracy,
+in the meaningful sense of the term, had disappeared -- as had most of the
+working class through death or retreat to the countryside."_ This meant the
+rise of Stalinism for _"[a]s workers' democracy disintegrated, a new
+bureaucracy rose to power."_ However, this is hard to accept, given that the
+undermining of democracy began **before** the civil war started and continued
+**after** it had finished (for example, the onslaught on soviet democracy and
+attempts to impose one-man management in the workplace and armed forces
+predate the start of the civil war at the end of May 1918). Moreover, as we
+indicate in [section 13](append31.html#app13), the Bolshevik state was marked
+by bureaucracy from the start.
+
+Both these developments did not occur by accident, they were due to the nature
+of Bolshevik ideology and the kind of centralised structures it favoured.
+Trotsky is typical. In April 1918 he argued that once elected the government
+was to be given total power to make decisions and appoint people as required
+as it is _"better able to judge in the matter than"_ the masses. The sovereign
+people were expected to simply obey their public servants until such time as
+they _"dismiss that government and appoint another."_ Trotsky raised the
+question of whether it was possible for the government to act _"against the
+interests of the labouring and peasant masses?"_ And answered no! Yet it is
+obvious that Trotsky's claim that _"there can be no antagonism between the
+government and the mass of the workers, just as there is no antagonism between
+the administration of the union and the general assembly of its members"_ is
+just nonsense. [**Leon Trotsky Speaks**, p. 113] The history of trade unionism
+is full of examples of committees betraying their membership. Needless to say,
+the subsequent history Lenin's government showed that there can be
+_"antagonism"_ between rulers and ruled and that appointments are always a key
+way to further elite interests. Needless to say, the notion that the party
+leaders are _"better able to judge in the matter than"_ has its roots in
+Lenin's vanguardism, as discussed in [section 11](append31.html#app11).
+
+McNally's claim that the working class had been destroyed by the civil war is
+equally flawed and cannot explain the fact that attempts by working class
+people to express themselves were systematically undermined by the Bolshevik
+party. Nor does the notion of a _"disappeared"_ working class make much sense
+when _"in the early part of 1921, a spontaneous strike movement . . . took
+place in the industrial centres of European Russia"_ and strikes involving
+around 43 000 per year took place between 1921 and 1925. [Samuel Farber, **Op.
+Cit.**, p. 188 and p. 88] As we show in [section H.6.3](secH6.html#sech63),
+while the number of workers **did** decrease from 1918 to 1921, there remained
+substantial numbers who were able to and did take collective action before,
+during and after the civil war. So rather than there being objective reasons
+for the lack of democracy under Lenin we can suggest **political** reasons --
+the awareness that, given the choice, the Russian working class would have
+preferred someone else in power. Indeed, McNally's argument can be traced back
+to Lenin who formulated it _"to justify a political clamp-down"_ in the face
+of rising working class protest rather than its lack: _"As discontent amongst
+workers became more and more difficult to ignore, Lenin . . . began to argue
+that the consciousness of the working class had deteriorated . . . workers had
+become 'declassed.'"_ However, there _"is little evidence to suggest that the
+demands that workers made at the end of 1920 . . . represented a fundamental
+change in aspirations since 1917."_ [Aves, **Op. Cit.**, p. 18, p. 90 and p.
+91]
+
+Also, we must point out a certain duplicity in McNally's comments that
Stalinism can be explained purely by the terrible civil war Russia
-experienced. After all, Lenin himself stated that every _"revolution . . ., in
-its development, would give rise to exceptionally complicated circumstances"_
-and _"[r]evolution is 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."_ [**Will the Bolsheviks
-Maintain Power?**, p. 80 and p. 81] Thus McNally's assertion that for _"the
-germ cell of socialism to grow [in Russia], it required several essential
-ingredients. One was peace. The new workers' state could not establish a
-thriving democracy so long as it was forced to raise an army and wage war to
-defend itself"_ is simply incredible. It also raises an important question
-with regards Leninist ideas. If the Bolshevik political and organisational
-form cannot survive during a period of disruption and complicated
-circumstances then it is clearly a theory to be avoided at all costs.
-
-Therefore, in practice, Leninism has proven to be profoundly anti-democratic.
-As we argue in sections [ 13](append31.html#app13) and
-[14](append31.html#app14) this is due to their politics -- the creation of a
-_"strong government and centralism"_ will inevitably lead to a new class
-system being created [Lenin, **Will the Bolsheviks Maintain Power?**, p. 75]
-This is not necessarily because Leninists seek dictatorship for themselves.
-Rather it is because of the nature of the state machine. In the words of
-Murray Bookchin:
+experienced. After all, Lenin himself before seizing power mocked those who
+opposed revolution because _"the situation is exceptionally complicated"_ and
+argued that _"the development of the revolution itself **always** creates an
+**exceptionally** complicated situation"_ and that it was an _"incredibly
+complicated and painful process."_ In fact, it was _"the most intense,
+furious, desperate class war and civil war. Not a single great revolution in
+history has taken place without civil war. And only a 'man in a muffler' can
+think that civil war is conceivable without an 'exceptionally complicated
+situation.'"_ _"If the situation were not exceptionally complicated there
+would be no revolution."_ [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 26, pp. 118-9] Thus McNally's
+assertion that for _"the germ cell of socialism to grow [in Russia], it
+required several essential ingredients. One was peace. The new workers' state
+could not establish a thriving democracy so long as it was forced to raise an
+army and wage war to defend itself"_ is simply incredible. It also raises an
+important question with regards Leninist ideas: if Bolshevik politics and its
+organisational form cannot survive during a period of disruption and
+complicated circumstances (i.e., a revolution) then it is clearly a theory to
+be avoided at all costs.
+
+The leading Bolsheviks all argued that the specific problems their latter day
+followers blame for their authoritarianism were natural results of any
+revolution and, consequently, unavoidable. In addition, there is a slight
+irony in this standard but flawed excuse for Bolshevik authoritarianism as
+Leninists like to suggest that anarchists do not recognise the possibility of
+counter-revolution and so reject the idea of defending a revolution. As we
+discuss in [section H.2.1](secH2.html#sech21), this is simply untrue -- the
+anarchist rejection of "the dictatorship of the proletariat" has nothing to do
+with defending revolution. As Bakunin stressed, _"the sole means of opposing
+the reactionary forces of the state"_ was the _"organising of the
+revolutionary force of the people."_ [**Statism and Anarchy**, p. 156] So
+given that Leninists mock anarchists for their supposed naivety over the
+dangers of counter-revolution, it seems ironic that McNally uses what he is
+supposed to consider an inevitable aspect of revolution to explain (excuse
+would be the better word) the degeneration of the Bolshevik revolution. Long
+after 1917, Lenin repeated his earlier comments by stating _"history teaches
+us that no big question has ever been settled and no revolution accomplished
+without a series of wars."_ [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 31, p. 494] He was adamant
+that _"were it not for this iron rule of the workers, of this workers'
+vanguard, we should not have been able to hold out for two months, let alone
+two years"_. [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 30, p. 498]
+
+Simply put, if counter-revolution is considered inevitable by your ideology
+then explaining Bolshevik authoritarianism by it is unconvincing --
+particularly if that authoritarianism started **before** the start of the
+civil war at the end of May 1918 and continued **after** its end. So _"the
+effective conclusion of the Civil War at the beginning of 1920 was followed by
+a more determined and comprehensive attempt to apply these so-called War
+Communism policies rather than their relaxation"_ and so the _"apogee of the
+War Communism economy occurred after the Civil War was effectively over."_
+With the fighting over Lenin _"forcefully raised the introduction of one-man
+management . . . Often commissars fresh from the Red Army were drafted into
+management positions in the factories."_ By the autumn of 1920, one-man
+management was in 82% of surveyed workplaces. This _"intensification of War
+Communism labour policies would not have been a significant development if
+they had continued to be applied in the same haphazard manner as in 1919, but
+in early 1920 the Communist Party leadership was no longer distracted by the
+Civil War from concentrating its thoughts and efforts on the formulation and
+implementation of its labour policies."_ While the _" experience of the Civil
+War was one factor predisposing communists towards applying military methods"_
+to the economy in early 1920, _"ideological considerations were also
+important."_ [Jonathan Aves, **Workers Against Lenin**, p. 2, p. 17, p. 15, p.
+30, p. 17 and p. 11] Unsurprisingly, then, the defeat of Wrangel in November
+1920 saw no changes in Bolshevik policy nor the Bolshevik use of coercion
+against workers and peasants calling and protesting for the re-introduction of
+freedom and democracy.
+
+So there is a continuity between Bolshevik policies before, during and after
+the civil war which McNally does not mention. Take one-man management, for
+example. This was advocated by Lenin **before** the civil war started and when
+he looked back at this time from April 1920, he reiterated his position
+(_"Dictatorial powers and one-man management are not contradictory to
+socialist democracy"_) while also stressing that this was not forced upon the
+Bolsheviks by civil war. It was time to build socialism and the _"whole
+attention of the Communist Party and the Soviet government is centred on
+peaceful economic development, on problems of the dictatorship and of one-man
+management"_. _"When we tackled them for the first time in 1918, there was no
+civil war and no experience to speak of"_ and so it was _"not only
+experience"_ of civil war, argued Lenin _"but something more profound . . .
+that has induced us now, as it did two years ago, to concentrate all our
+attention on labour discipline."_ Lenin stressed that we _"need more
+discipline, more individual authority and more dictatorship"_. [**Collected
+Works**, vol. 30, p. 503, p. 504 and p. 514]
+
+The same can be said of the arguments for party dictatorship, which were
+raised at the Second Congress of the Communist International and aimed to
+influence the revolutionary movement across the globe. Trotsky wrote his
+infamous **Terrorism and Communism** as part of this debate between socialists
+and, to quote syndicalist-turned-Bolshevik Alfred Rosmer, it _"dealt with the
+theoretical and practical problems posed by the revolution, the civil war and
+the building of the new society"_ and it _"formed a sort of introduction and
+commentary on the **Theses** prepared for the Congress."_ As we show in
+[section 15](append31.html#app15), this work acknowledged that party
+dictatorship was a necessity of a successful revolution, the need for one-man
+management as well as the militarisation of labour (needless to say, we also
+show how -- McNally's claims notwithstanding -- Trotsky did not reject these
+positions in the 1920s and 1930s). In addition, the congress took place in
+July 1920 when the civil war appeared to have been won, with Rosmer recalling
+that when he had arrived in _"June 1920"_ in Russia _"the civil war was
+virtually at an end"_ for _"[a]fter the triple blow struck at the
+interventionist forces, after the destruction of Kolchak, Yudenich and
+Denikin, the counter-revolution was defeated."_ [**Lenin's Moscow**, p. 58, p.
+65, p. 128 and p. 101]
+
+To stress the point, Lenin, Zinoviev and Trotsky were all clearly arguing for
+party power, **not** workers' power, and that party dictatorship is inevitable
+in **every** revolution. This position was **not** put in terms of the
+problems facing the Russian Revolution but rather were expressed in universal
+terms and unsurprisingly, then _"[f]rom the first days of Bolshevik power
+there was only a weak correlation between the extent of 'peace' and the
+mildness or severity of Bolshevik rule, between the intensity of the war and
+the intensity of proto-war communist measures . . . Considered in ideological
+terms there was little to distinguish the 'breathing space' (April-May 1918)
+from the war communism that followed."_ Unsurprisingly, then, _"the breathing
+space of the first months of 1920 after the victories over Kolchak and Denikin
+. . . saw their intensification and the militarisation of labour"_ and, in
+fact, _"no serious attempt was made to review the aptness of war communist
+policies."_ Ideology _"constantly impinged on the choices made at various
+points of the civil war . . . Bolshevik authoritarianism cannot be ascribed
+simply to the Tsarist legacy or to adverse circumstances."_ [Richard Sakwa,
+**Soviet Communists in Power**, p. 24, p. 27 and p. 30]
+
+As we discuss in [section H.6.2](secH6.html#sech62), Bolshevik ideology and
+the decisions it inspired helped make the difficult circumstances the
+revolution was facing worse. Their centralised vision of socialism could not
+help but produce economic mismanagement as well as a new class of bureaucrats.
+The inherent tendencies of Bolshevism were revealed by the civil war, a war
+which only accelerated the development of what was implicit (and, often, not
+so implicit) in Bolshevik ideology and its vision of socialism, the state and
+the role of the party. Therefore, in practice, Leninism has proven to be
+profoundly anti-democratic. In terms of McNally's argument, to not discuss in
+detail Bolshevik authoritarianism and blame it on the impact of the civil war
+is dishonest, particularly given the awkward fact that their anti-democratic
+activities started **before** its beginning at the end of May 1918.
+
+Bolshevik authoritarianism had two main causes.
+
+First, the obvious change in its social position -- it became part of the
+state and, as a result, viewed society -- and the working class -- from above,
+as rulers. So as Marxism is _"centralist"_ and aims for _"conscious,
+democratic, proletarian centralism"_ it will inevitably lead to a new class
+system being created. [**The Lenin Anthology**, p. 348] This is not
+necessarily because Leninists seek dictatorship for themselves (although they
+do aim for party power -- see [section H.3.11](secH3.html#sech311)) but rather
+it is because of the nature of the state machine. In the words of Murray
+Bookchin:
> _"Anarchist critics of Marx pointed out with considerable effect that any
system of representation would become a statist interest in its own right, one
@@ -1052,9 +3525,7 @@ that at best would work against the interests of the working classes
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."_
-
-He continues:
+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
@@ -1063,111 +3534,306 @@ 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.
+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**]
-
-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. Moreover, as indicated in
-[section 14](append31.html#app14), their idea of the party being the
-"vanguard" of the working class, combined with its desire for centralised
-power, makes the dictatorship of the party **over** the proletariat
-inevitable.
+abolition of classes, be mobilised as a class to manage society."_ [_"The
+Communist Manifesto: Insights and Problems"_, pp. 14-17, **Black Flag**, no.
+226, pp. 16-7]
+
+As we discuss in [section H.3.9](secH3.html#sech39), anarchists argue that the
+state cannot be considered as simply an instrument of economic class but,
+rather, has interests of its own. As such, concentrations of political power
+will produce a new class system and become independent of the masses of people
+and even of economically dominant classes like capitalists. 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. As we note in [section
+14](append31.html#app14), that is anarchists have long argued for the need for
+social transformation _"from below"_.
+
+Second, as indicated in [section H.5](secH5.html), their idea of the party
+being the "vanguard" of the working class, combined with its desire for
+centralised power, makes the dictatorship of the party **over** the
+proletariat inevitable. Lenin's belief that working class people could not
+liberate themselves explains his continual emphasis on **representative**
+democracy and centralism as well as the Bolshevik's easy slide into both
+practicing and advocating party dictatorship -- simply put, the party must
+have power **over** the working class as that class could not be trusted to
+make the right decisions (i.e. know what its "real" interests were). At best
+they would be allowed to vote for the government, but even this right could be
+removed if they voted for the wrong people as shown above. For Leninists,
+revolutionary consciousness is not generated by working class self-activity in
+the class struggle, but is embodied in the party (_"Since there can there can
+be no talk of an independent ideology being developed by the masses of the
+workers in the process of their movement **the only choice is**: either
+bourgeois or socialist ideology"_ [Lenin, **The Essential Works of Lenin**,
+82]). The conclusions of this position are obvious: the important issues
+facing the working class are to be determined not by the workers ourselves,
+but by the leadership of the party, who are the (self-appointed) _"vanguard of
+the proletariat"_.
+
+The nature of the relationship between the party and the working class is
+clear. We remain incapable of achieving revolutionary consciousness and have
+to be led by the vanguard -- using state coercion, if need be. As Lenin
+argued:
+
+> _"it must he made clear that democracy under the Soviet system does not
+contradict dictatorship . . . Unity of will must not be a catchword, a symbol.
+We demand it in practice. This is how unity of will was expressed during the
+[civil] war -- anybody who placed his own interests (or the interests of his
+village or group) above the common interests, was branded as a self-seeker and
+was shot; this was justified by the moral consciousness of the working class
+that it must achieve victory. We spoke about these shootings openly; we said
+that we made no secret of coercion, because we realised that we could not
+emerge from the old society without resorting to compulsion as far as the
+backward section of the proletariat was concerned . . ."_ [**Op. Cit.**, vol.
+30 pp. 509-10]
+
+This raises numerous questions, the most obvious is **who** (which individual
+or group) decides which is and is not in the common interests? Another is,
+what is to stop this pivileged person or group placing **their** interests
+above _"the common interests"_ and repressing those who object in the name of
+those very same _"common interests"_? Moreover, as **everyone** is -- by
+definition! -- _"backward"_ in comparison to the vanguard in its own eyes,
+Lenin's position ensures that _"compulsion"_ can be used by the party against
+**all** who it considers an danger to its power -- including the proletariat
+it claims to be the ruling class. Hence the destruction of soviet, workplace,
+union and armed forces democracy and, of course, the creation of bodies of
+armed men (such as the political police, the Cheka) separate from the people
+(i.e., a state in the normal sense of the word -- see [section
+H.3.8](secH3.html#sech38)).
+
+In short, the notion that dictatorship does not contradict democracy is simply
+nonsense -- self-serving nonsense, of course -- and which could have no other
+impact than a negative one of socialism. What would stop, say, a Stalin
+proclaiming that his regime was simply using coercion against the backward
+sections of the masses in the common interest and that those who objected were
+placing their own interests above it? It is the crudest form of idealism to
+hope that the socialist principles of the ruling elite will overcome the
+pressures of their position in the social hierarchy and, unsurprisingly, it
+did not happen.
+
+_"If we perish"_, Lenin said privately to Trotsky in 1921, _"it is all the
+more important to preserve our ideological line and give a lesson to our
+continuators. This should never be forgotten, even in hopeless
+circumstances"_. [quoted by Brinton, _"The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control"_,
+**For Workers' Power**, p. 372] Hence the comments made by Zinoviev at the
+Second Congress of the Communist International, Trotsky in **Terrorism and
+Communism** and Lenin in innumerable speeches and articles. Sadly for
+McNally's case, the lesson that the Bolsheviks wanted to give to the world
+revolutionary movement was not the importance of freedom and democracy but
+rather that party dictatorship and one-man management were necessary to
+achieve a successful revolution and that an economic regime which was obvious
+**state-capitalism** was socialism. Little wonder Leninists had so much
+difficulty in recognising Stalinism was a new class system -- to do so would
+have been to raise awkward questions about the similar -- if less brutal --
+regime under Lenin and Trotsky.
+
+To conclude, both anarchism and Leninism have a critical position on
+democracy. Lenin argued that _"formal democracy must be subordinate to the
+revolutionary interest"_ and in a sense he was right. [**Collected Works**,
+vol. 32, p. 86] As we indicated in [section 7](append31.html#app7), anarchists
+argue that minorities should ignore (or rebel against) the majority if it is
+oppressing the minority -- for progress to be achieved the _"revolutionary
+interest"_ (freedom) must come first. Only in this way can the liberatory
+promise of democracy can be secured in the face of any potential dictatorship
+of the majority. The Leninist position is that a minority can ignore the
+majority only if it is the party leadership for it is they, the vanguard, who
+determine what the _"revolutionary interest"_ is and, as a result, Leninism --
+for all its rhetoric -- is fundamentally an anti-democratic ideology simply
+because this justifies party dictatorship as **everyone** is "backward"
+compared to the vanguard. McNally distorts the anarchist position while
+proclaiming the democratic credentials of Leninism. The facts are otherwise.
## 9\. Why is McNally wrong on the relation of syndicalism to anarchism?
After slandering anarchism, McNally turns towards another form of libertarian
socialism, namely syndicalism. It is worth quoting him in full as his comments
-are truly ridiculous. He states that there is _"another trend which is
-sometimes associated with anarchism. This is syndicalism. The syndicalist
-outlook does believe in collective working class action to change society.
-Syndicalists look to trade union action -- such as general strikes -- to
-overthrow capitalism. Although some syndicalist viewpoints share a superficial
-similarity with anarchism -- particularly with its hostility to politics and
-political action -- syndicalism is not truly a form of anarchism. By accepting
-the need for mass, collective action and decision-making, syndicalism is much
-superior to classical anarchism."_
-
-What is ridiculous about McNally's comments is that all serious historians who
-study the links between anarchism and syndicalism agree that **Bakunin** (for
-want of a better expression) is the father of syndicalism (see [section
-J.3.8](secJ3.html#secj38) \-- indeed, many writers point to syndicalist
-aspects in Proudhon's ideas as well but here we concentrate on Bakunin)!
-Bakunin looked to trade union action (including the general strike) as the
-means of overthrowing capitalism and the state. Thus Arthur Lehning's comment
-that _"Bakunin's collectivist anarchism . . . ultimately formed the
-ideological and theoretical basis of anarcho-syndicalism"_ is totally true and
-indicative. [_"Introduction"_, **Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings**, p. 29]
-As is Rudolf Rocker's:
+are truly ridiculous:
+
+> _"There is . . . another trend which is sometimes associated with anarchism.
+This is syndicalism. The syndicalist outlook does believe in collective
+working class action to change society. Syndicalists look to trade union
+action -- such as general strikes -- to overthrow capitalism. Although some
+syndicalist viewpoints share a superficial similarity with anarchism --
+particularly with its hostility to politics and political action --
+syndicalism is not truly a form of anarchism. By accepting the need for mass,
+collective action and decision-making, syndicalism is much superior to
+classical anarchism."_
+
+The weakness of McNally's position can be seen from comparing his summary of
+syndicalism's key ideas with _"classical anarchism"_, namely Bakunin's
+revolutionary anarchism. This passage by Bakunin expresses almost all the
+ideas McNally ascribes to syndicalism:
+
+> _"Toilers count no longer on anyone but yourselves. Do not demoralise and
+paralyse your growing strength by being duped into alliances with bourgeois
+Radicalism . . . Abstain from all participation in bourgeois Radicalism and
+organise outside of it the forces of the proletariat. The bases of this
+organisation . . . are the workshops and the federation of workshops . . .
+instruments of struggle against the bourgeoisie, and their federation, not
+only national, but international . . . when the hour of revolution sounds, you
+will proclaim the liquidation of the State and of bourgeois society, anarchy,
+that is to say the true, frank people's revolution."_ [quoted by K.J.
+Kenafick, **Michael Bakunin and Karl Marx**, pp. 120-1]
+
+Bakunin, therefore, stressed trade union action, arguing as _"strikes spread
+from one place to another, they come close to turning into a general strike.
+And with the ideas of emancipation that now hold sway over the proletariat, a
+general strike can result only in a great cataclysm which forces society to
+shed its old skin."_ He raised the possibility that this could _"arrive before
+the proletariat is sufficiently organised"_ and dismissed it the _"necessities
+of the struggle impel the workers to support one another"_ and the _"more
+active the struggle becomes . . . the stronger and more extensive this
+federation of proletarians must become."_ Thus strikes _"indicate a certain
+collective strength already"_ and _"each strike becomes the point of departure
+for the formation of new groups."_ [**The Basic Bakunin**, pp. 149-50]
+
+For Bakunin, like the later syndicalists, _"the natural organisation of the
+masses . . . is organisation based on the various ways that their various
+types of work define their day-to-day life; it is organisation by trade
+association"_ and once _"every occupation . . . is represented within the
+International [Working-Men's Association], its organisation, the organisation
+of the masses of the people will be complete."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 139] Thus
+_"unions create that conscious power without which no victory is possible"_
+while strikes _"create, organise, and form a workers' army, an army which is
+bound to break down the power of the bourgeoisie and the State, and lay the
+ground for a new world."_ [**The Political Philosophy of Bakunin**, p. 379 and
+pp. 384-5] The _"organisation of the trade sections and their representation
+by the Chambers of Labour . . . 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]
+
+And yet McNally proclaims that Bakunin _"shared most of Proudhon's views"_ and
+so, by implication, _"so feared the organised power of the developing working
+class that he went so far as to oppose trade unions"_! Rather than be against
+the _"freedom of the working class to make collectively a new society"_,
+Bakunin repeatedly argued that _"the new social order"_ would be attained
+_"through the social (and therefore anti-political) organisation and power of
+the working masses of the cities and villages."_ This would see _"capital and
+all tools of labour belong to the city workers -- to the workers associations.
+The whole organisation of the future should be nothing but a free federation
+of workers -- agricultural workers as well as factory workers and associations
+of craftsmen."_ [**The Political Philosophy of Bakunin**, p. 300 an p. 410]
+This position was common to all revolutionary anarchists (see sections
+[H.2.2](secH2.html#sech22) and [H.2.7](secH2.html#sech27)).
+
+What is ridiculous about McNally's comments is that all historians who take
+the time to read Bakunin's works note the obvious links between his ideas and
+syndicalism. Let us present a few examples here (many writers also point to
+syndicalist aspects in Proudhon's ideas as well but we will concentrate on
+Bakunin). Thus we discover Caroline Cahm pointing out _"the basic syndicalist
+ideas of Bakunin"_ and that he _"argued that trade union organisation and
+activity in the International [Working Men's Association] were important in
+the building of working-class power in the struggle against capital . . . He
+also declared that trade union based organisation of the International would
+not only guide the revolution but also provide the basis for the organisation
+of the society of the future."_ Indeed, he _"believed that trade unions had an
+essential part to play in the developing of revolutionary capacities of the
+workers as well as building up the organisation of the masses for
+revolution."_ [**Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism**, p. 219,
+p. 215 and p. 216] George R. Esenwein noted that syndicalism _"had deep roots
+in the Spanish libertarian tradition. It can be traced to Bakunin's
+revolutionary collectivism"_ and the class struggle was _"central to Bakunin's
+theory."_ [**Anarchist Ideology and the Working Class Movement in Spain**, p.
+209 and p. 20] The syndicalists _"viewed themselves as the descendants of the
+federalist wing of the First International, personified above else by Mikhail
+Bakunin."_ [Wayne Thorpe, **"The Workers Themselves"**, pp. xiii-xiv] _"Hardly
+any of these ideas [associated with syndicalism] are new"_, stated Bertrand
+Russell _"almost all are derived from the Bakunist [sic!] section of the old
+International"_ and this was _"often recognised by Syndicalists themselves."_
+[**Roads to Freedom**, p. 52] J. Romero Maura correctly summarised that for
+the _"Bakuninists"_ in the First International, the _"anarchist revolution,
+when it came, would be essentially brought about by the working class.
+Revolutionaries needed to gather great strength and must beware of
+underestimating the strength of reaction"_ and so they _"logically decided
+that revolutionaries had better organise along the lines of labour
+organisations."_ [_"The Spanish case"_, pp. 60-83, **Anarchism Today**, D.
+Apter and J. Joll (eds.), p. 66]
+
+We could go on but as leading syndicalist activist and thinker Rudolf Rocker
+summarised:
> _"Modern Anarcho-syndicalism is a direct continuation of those social
aspirations which took shape in the bosom of the First International and which
were best understood and most strongly held by the libertarian wing of the
-great workers' alliance."_ [**Anarcho-Syndicalism**, p. 49]
-
-Little wonder, then, we discover Caroline Cahm pointing out _"the basic
-syndicalist ideas of Bakunin"_ and that he _"argued that trade union
-organisation and activity in the International [Working Men's Association]
-were important in the building of working-class power in the struggle against
-capital . . . He also declared that trade union based organisation of the
-International would not only guide the revolution but also provide the basis
-for the organisation of the society of the future."_ Indeed, he _"believed
-that trade unions had an essential part to play in the developing of
-revolutionary capacities of the workers as well as building up the
-organisation of the masses for revolution."_ [**Kropotkin and the Rise of
-Revolutionary Anarchism**, p. 219, p. 215 and p. 216] Cahm quotes Bakunin on
-the role of the general strike:
-
-> _"When strikes spread by contagion, it is because they are close to becoming
-a general strike, and a general strike in view of the ideas of emancipation
-which hold sway over the proletariat, can only lead to a cataclysm which would
-make society start a new life after shedding its old skin."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p.
-217]
-
-Or George R. Esenwein's comment that syndicalism _"had deep roots in the
-Spanish libertarian tradition. It can be traced to Bakunin's revolutionary
-collectivism."_ He also notes that the class struggle was _"central to
-Bakunin's theory."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 209 and p. 20]
-
-Perhaps, in the face of such evidence (and the writings of Bakunin himself),
+great workers' alliance."_ [**Anarcho-Syndicalism**, p. 54]
+
+Perhaps, in the face of such evidence (and the writings of Bakunin himself!),
Marxists like McNally could claim that the sources we quote are either
anarchists or "sympathetic" to anarchism. To counter this we will quote Marx
-and Engels. According to Marx Bakunin's theory consisted of urging the working
-class to _"only organise themselves by trades-unions"_ and _"not occupy itself
-with **politics.**"_ Engels asserted that in the _"Bakuninist programme a
-general strike is the lever employed by which the social revolution is
-started"_ and that they admitted _"this required a well-formed organisation of
-the working class"_ (i.e. a trade union federation). [Marx, Engels and Lenin,
-**Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism**, p. 48, p. 132 and p. 133] Ignoring the
+and Engels. According to Marx, Bakunin's theory consisted of urging the
+working class to _"only organise themselves by trades-unions"_ and _"not
+occupy itself with **politics.**"_ Engels asserted that in the _"Bakuninist
+programme a general strike is the lever employed by which the social
+revolution is started"_ and that they admitted _"this required a well-formed
+organisation of the working class"_. [Marx, Engels and Lenin, **Anarchism and
+Anarcho-Syndicalism**, p. 48, p. 132 and p. 133] Ignoring the
misrepresentations of Marx and Engels about the theories of their enemies, we
can state that they got the basic point of Bakunin's ideas -- the centrality
-of trade union organisation and struggle as well as the use of strikes and the
-general strike.
+of trade union organisation and struggle as well as the use of strikes as the
+means of starting a social revolution.
(As an aside, ironically enough, Engels distorted diatribe against Bakunin and
the general strike was later used against more radical Marxists like Rosa
Luxemburg -- usually claimed by Leninists as part of their tradition -- by the
reformists in Social Democratic Parties. For orthodox Marxists, the mass
strike was linked to anarchism and Engels had proven that only political
-action -- i.e. electioneering -- could lead to working class emancipation.)
-
-Thus, according to McNally, _"syndicalism"_ (i.e. Bakunin's ideas) is _"much
-superior to classical anarchism"_ (i.e. Bakunin's ideas)! How spurious
-McNally's argument actually is can be seen from his comments about syndicalism
-and its relation to anarchism.
+action -- i.e. electioneering -- could lead to working class emancipation.
+This appeal to authority lead Luxemburg to the innovative tactic of suggesting
+Engels was correct against the anarchist **general** strike but not against
+her **mass** strike! That this involved distorting the anarchist position --
+as Engels had done -- should go without saying -- see [section
+H.3.5](secH3.html#sech35).)
+
+It should be stressed that Bakunin's position on revolutionary class struggle
+waged by workers' organisations became the basis of revolutionary anarchism.
+Thus we find, for example, Emma Goldman arguing that in the First
+International _"Bakunin and the Latin workers"_ forged ahead _"along
+industrial and Syndicalist lines"_ and so syndicalism _"is, in essence, the
+economic expression of Anarchism"_ and _"[l]ike Anarchism, Syndicalism
+prepares the workers along direct economic lines, as conscious factors in the
+great struggles of to-day, as well as conscious factors in the task of
+reconstructing society."_ The _"most powerful weapon"_ for liberation was
+_"the conscious, intelligent, organised, economic protest of the masses
+through direct action and the general strike."_ [**Red Emma Speaks**, p. 89,
+p. 91 and p. 60] Kropotkin summarised the libertarian perspective well in
+1907:
+
+> _"Workmen's organisations are the real force capable of accomplishing the
+social revolution -– after the awakening of the proletariat has been
+accomplished, first by individual action, then by collective action, by
+strikes and revolts extending more and more; and where workmen's organisations
+have not allowed themselves to be dominated by the gentlemen who advocate 'the
+conquest of political power', but have continued to walk hand in hand with
+anarchists –- as they have done in Spain -– they have obtained, on the one
+hand, immediate results (an eight-hour day in certain trades in Catalonia),
+and on the other have made good propaganda for the social revolution -– the
+one to come, not from the efforts of those highly-placed gentlemen, but from
+below, from workmen's organisations."_ [_"Anarchists and Trade Unions"_,
+**Direct Struggle Against Capital**, pp. 391-2]
+
+We will leave the matter here and point interested readers to our extended
+discussion of the links between anarchism and syndicalism in [section
+H.2.8](secH2.html#sech28). However, the inaccuracy of McNally's statement
+should be clear as we have shown that according to him _"syndicalism"_ (i.e.
+Bakunin's ideas) is _"much superior to classical anarchism"_ (i.e. Bakunin's
+ideas)! How spurious his argument actually is can be seen from his comments
+about syndicalism and its relation to anarchism.
## 10\. Do syndicalists reject working class political action?
-His last argument against syndicalism is equally flawed. He states that _"by
+McNally, after getting the relationship between _"classical anarchism"_ and
+syndicalism completely wrong (see [last section](append31.html#app9)), moves
+on to an equally flawed argument against syndicalism. He states that _"by
rejecting the idea of working class political action, syndicalism has never
been able to give real direction to attempts by workers to change society."_
However, syndicalists (like all anarchists) are clear what kind of politics
@@ -1182,19 +3848,15 @@ altogether erroneous and springs either from outright ignorance or wilful
distortion of the facts. It is not the political struggle as such which
distinguishes the Anarcho-Syndicalists from the modern labour parties, both in
principle and in tactics, but the form of this struggle and the aims which it
-has in view. . .
+has in view. . ._
->
-
-> "The attitude of Anarcho-Syndicalism toward the political power of the
+> _"The attitude of Anarcho-Syndicalism toward the political power of the
present-day state is exactly the same as it takes toward the system of
capitalist exploitation. . . [and so] Anarcho-Syndicalists pursue the same
tactics in their fight against that political power which finds its expression
-in the state. . .
-
->
+in the state. . ._
-> "For just as the worker cannot be indifferent to the economic conditions of
+> _"For just as the worker cannot be indifferent to the economic conditions of
his life in existing society, so he cannot remain indifferent to the political
structure of his country. . . It is, therefore, utterly absurd to assert that
the Anarcho-Syndicalists take no interest in the political struggles of the
@@ -1203,32 +3865,26 @@ legislative bodies, but in the people. . . If they, nevertheless, reject any
participation in the work of bourgeois parliaments, it is not because they
have no sympathy with political struggles in general, but because they are
firmly convinced that parliamentary activity is for the workers the very
-weakest and the most hopeless form of the political struggle. . .
+weakest and the most hopeless form of the political struggle. . ._
->
-
-> "But, most important of all, practical experience has shown that the
+> _"But, most important of all, practical experience has shown that the
participation of the workers in parliamentary activity cripples their power of
resistance and dooms to futility their warfare against the existing system. .
-.
-
->
+._
-> "Anarcho-Syndicalists, then, are not in any way opposed to the political
+> _"Anarcho-Syndicalists, then, are not in any way opposed to the political
struggle, but in their opinion this struggle, too, must take the form of
direct action, in which the instruments of economic power which the working
-class has at its command are the most effective. . .
+class has at its command are the most effective. . ._
->
-
-> "The focal point of the political struggle lies, then, not in the political
+> _"The focal point of the political struggle lies, then, not in the political
parties, but in the economic fighting organisations of the workers. It as the
recognition of this which impelled the Anarcho-Syndicalists to centre all
their activity on the Socialist education of the masses and on the utilisation
of their economic and social power. Their method is that of direct action in
both the economic and the political struggles of the time. That is the only
method which has been able to achieve anything at all in every decisive moment
-in history."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 63-66]
+in history."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 73-78]
Rocker's work, **Anarcho-Syndicalism**, was written in 1938 and is considered
the standard introduction to that theory. McNally wrote his pamphlet in the
@@ -1237,11 +3893,11 @@ claims to be refuting. That in itself indicates the worth of his pamphlet and
any claims it has for being remotely accurate with respect to anarchism and
syndicalism.
-Thus syndicalists **do** reject working class _"political action"_ only if you
-think "political action" means simply bourgeois politics -- that is,
+Syndicalists, then, **do** reject working class _"political action"_ only if
+you think "political action" means simply bourgeois politics -- that is,
electioneering, standing candidates for Parliament, local town councils and so
on. It does not reject "political action" in the sense of direct action to
-effect political changes and reforms. As syndicalists Ford and Foster argue,
+effect political changes and reforms. As syndicalists Ford and Foster argued,
syndicalists use _"the term 'political action' . . . in its ordinary and
correct sense. Parliamentary action resulting from the exercise of the
franchise is political action. Parliamentary action caused by the influence of
@@ -1249,9 +3905,8 @@ direct action tactics . . . is not political action. It is simply a
registration of direct action."_ They also note that syndicalists _"have
proven time and again that they can solve the many so-called political
questions by direct action."_ [Earl C. Ford and William Z. Foster,
-**Syndicalism**, p. 19f and p. 23]
-
-A historian of the British syndicalist movement reiterates this point:
+**Syndicalism**, p. 19f and p. 23] A historian of the British syndicalist
+movement reiterates this point:
> _"Nor did syndicalists neglect politics and the state. Revolutionary
industrial movements were on the contrary highly 'political' in that they
@@ -1260,6 +3915,43 @@ in society. They quite clearly perceived the oppressive role of the state
whose periodic intervention in industrial unrest could hardly have been
missed."_ [Bob Holton, **British Syndicalism: 1900-1914**, pp. 21-2]
+This awareness that the state could not be ignored but had to be fought is
+reflected in the 1909 French syndicalist novel _How We Shall Bring About the
+Revolution_ which discussed how the Chamber of Deputies was _"invaded from all
+sides"_ by the crowd during the revolution, which _"threatened with death any
+deputies who should dare sit again."_ The _"General Strikers were on watch"_
+and _"in order to guard against any aggressive action by the fallen power, or
+any effort to re-establish Parliamentarianism, a certain number of their
+comrades should remain permanently at the Palais Bourdon"_ and _"oppose by
+force any counter-revolutionary measures."_ Guards were also used in _"the
+Police Offices, the Government Offices, the Elysée, etc."_ after _"having
+taken them by assault."_ The town hall _"was not neglected"_ and _"was
+occupied"_ in a similar fashion. Thus there was a _"definite intention of
+disorganising the State, of dismantling and thoroughly disabling it"_ to
+ensure it was _"impossible for the Government to recover itself, or rally
+around any point whatever."_ Thus the general strike _"very soon changed into
+an insurrectional strike"_ and _“the General Strikers occupied the centres of
+Government action, and expelled the representative of the State._ The state
+would be replaced by _Bourses du Travail_ (local federation of unions) and the
+Trades Unions Congress, with the latter being formed by delegates _"from all
+parts of France"_ and _"from all trades, from all professions"_ and _"having
+to decide upon points previously discussed by the comrades who had sent
+them."_ The similarities to soviets -- and Bakunin's ideas (see [section
+5](append31.html#app5)) -- are clear. Nor did they ignore the need to defend a
+revolution and like revolutionary anarchists (see [section
+H.2.1](secH2.html#sech21)) argued for the unions to form _"bands"_ to _"watch
+over the security of the committees"_ and _"sought to arm themselves"_ in
+order to _"counterbalance the military and other forces"_ which _"held them
+under the yoke."_ The trade unions distributed arms and in each syndicate _"a
+group for defence was formed"_ which entered _"into relation with like groups
+in the same district, and with distant centres"_ by means of an _"organisation
+of defence, with a Trade Union and Federal basis."_ These _"Syndicalist
+battalions were not a force external to the people. They were the people
+themselves"_ who _"had the common-sense to arm themselves in order to protect
+their conquered liberty."_ [Emile Pataud and Emile Pouget, **How We Shall
+Bring About the Revolution**, pp. 79-83, p. 94, pp. 128-9, p. 69 and pp.
+155-7]
+
As we argued in [section J.2.10](secJ2.html#secj210), anarchist support for
direct action and opposition to taking part in elections does not mean we are
"apolitical" or reject political action. Anarchists have always been clear --
@@ -1267,49 +3959,127 @@ we reject "political action" which is bourgeois in nature in favour of
"political action" based on the organisations, action and solidarity of
working class people. This is because electioneering corrupts those who take
part, watering down their radical ideas and making them part of the system
-they were meant to change.
-
-And history has proven the validity of our anti-electioneering ideas. For
-example, as we argue in [ section J.2.6](secJ2.html#secj26), the net result of
-the Marxists use of electioneering ("political action") was the de-
-radicalising of their movement and theory and its becoming yet another barrier
-to working class self-liberation. Rather than syndicalism not giving _"real
-direction to attempts by workers to change society"_ it was Marxism in the
-shape of Social Democracy which did that. Indeed, at the turn of twentieth
-century more and more radicals turned to Syndicalism and Industrial Unionism
-as the means of by-passing the dead-weight of Social Democracy (i.e. orthodox
-Marxism), its reformism, opportunism and its bureaucracy. As Lenin once put
-it, anarchism _"was not infrequently a kind of penalty for the opportunist
-sins of the working-class movement."_ [Marx, Engels and Lenin, **Anarchism and
-Anarcho-Syndicalism**, p. 305]
-
-Lenin's claim that anarchist and syndicalist support in the working class is
-the result of the opportunist nature of the Social Democratic Parties has an
-element of truth. Obviously militants sick to death of the reformist, corrupt
-and bureaucratic "working class" parties will seek a revolutionary alternative
-and find libertarian socialism.
-
-However, Lenin seeks to explain the symptoms (opportunism) and not the disease
-itself (Parliamentarianism) . Nowhere does Lenin see the rise of "opportunist"
-tendencies in the Marxist parties as the result of the tactics and
-organisational struggles they used. Indeed, Lenin desired the new Communist
-Parties to practice electioneering ("political action") and work within the
-trade unions to capture their leadership positions. Anarchists rather point
-out that given the nature of the means, the ends surely follow. Working in a
-bourgeois environment (Parliament) will result in bourgeoisifying and de-
-radicalising the party. Working in a centralised environment will empower the
-leaders of the party over the members and lead to bureaucratic tendencies.
-
-In other words, as Bakunin predicted, using bourgeois institutions will
-corrupt "revolutionary" and radical parties and tie the working class to the
-current system. Lenin's analysis of anarchist influence as being the off-
-spring of opportunist tendencies in mainstream parties may be right, but if so
-its a natural development as the tactics supported by Marxists inevitably lead
-to opportunist tendencies developing. Thus, what Lenin could not comprehend
-was that opportunism was the symptom and electioneering was the disease --
-using the same means (electioneering) with different parties/individuals
-("Communists" instead of "Social Democrats") and thinking that opportunism
-would not return was idealistic nonsense in the extreme.
+they were meant to change. As Rocker summarised:
+
+> _"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."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 54]
+
+Rocker's last point is important, given that McNally seeks to appropriate the
+idea of _"from below"_ for Marxism. He is well aware of the results of
+socialist electioneering, reporting how by the start of the 20th century
+_"most European socialists. . . came to the view that socialism would be
+achieved gradually, through the slow transformation of capitalism into a kind
+of welfare capitalism under which workers would prosper"_ and _"[g]one was
+Marx's notion that socialism could only come into being through a
+revolutionary transformation of society from below. In its place developed the
+view that capitalism would slowly grow over into socialism."_ However, he
+significantly fails to note that these parties considered themselves as
+Marxist and had been following the strategy Marx and Engels had advocated.
+
+It would have been informative to his readership if McNally had found time to
+discuss this awkward fact. One of the key differences between Marx and Bakunin
+in the First International was over _"political action"_: the forming of
+political parties and standing in elections. Bakunin argued that _"it is
+usually enough for these men of the people to enter government for them to
+become members of the bourgeoisie in their turn, sometimes scorning the people
+from whom they came more than do the natural-born members of the
+bourgeoisie."_ The need was _"**the organisation of the might of the
+workers**, the unification of the proletariat of the entire world"_ by
+_"eliminat[ing] from its program all bourgeois political schemes"_ in favour
+of _"workers' solidarity in their struggle against the bosses. It means
+**trades unions, organisation, and the federation of resistance funds**."_
+[**The Basic Bakunin**, p. 51, p. 93, p. 99 and p. 103] Marx and Engels, in
+contrast, favoured _"political action"_ and completely failed, unlike Bakunin,
+to recognise the dangers of reformism in the tactic. Indeed, in 1891 Engels
+proudly announced that the Brussels Congress of the Second International
+_"proved a brilliant success for us . . . And, best of all, the anarchists
+have been shown the door, just as they were at the Hague Congress. The new,
+incomparably larger and avowedly Marxist International is beginning again at
+the precise spot where its predecessor ended."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 49,
+p. 238]
+
+McNally, like most Leninists, is keen to distance Marx and Engels from Social
+Democracy and so does not note their repeated comments -- both before **and**
+after the Paris Commune that socialism **could** come about peacefully by
+utilising elections (see [section H.3.10](secH3.html#sech310)). Engels in
+1847, for example, argued that the _"first, fundamental condition for the
+introduction of community of property is the political liberation of the
+proletariat through a democratic constitution"_ and so the revolution's had to
+_"inaugurate a **democratic constitution** and thereby . . . the political
+rule of the proletariat"_ as in _"America, where a democratic constitution has
+been introduced"_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 6, p. 102, p. 350 and p. 356] In
+contrast, Proudhon had concluded the year before that the state could **not**
+be captured and reformed and socialism could only be created by proletarian
+self-organisation:
+
+> _"Thus power [i.e. the state] . . . finds itself inevitably enchained to
+capital and directed against the proletariat . . . The problem before the
+labouring classes, then, consists, not in capturing, but in subduing both
+power and monopoly -- that is, in generating from the bowels of the people,
+from the depths of labour, a greater authority, a more potent fact, which
+shall envelop capital and the State and subjugate them. Every proposition of
+reform which does not satisfy this condition is simply one scourge more . . .
+which threatens the proletariat."_ [**Property is Theft!**, p. 226]
+
+
+
+The syndicalists, like Bakunin, argued the same -- although, unlike the
+Frenchman, saw the trade union movement as the means of social transformation.
+It is almost redundant to note that history has proven the validity of
+anarchist anti-electioneering ideas. For example, as we argue in [section
+J.2.6](secJ2.html#secj26), the net result of the Marxists use of
+electioneering ("political action") was the de-radicalising of their movement
+and theory and its becoming yet another barrier to working class self-
+liberation. Rather than syndicalism not giving _"real direction to attempts by
+workers to change society"_ it was Marxism in the shape of Social Democracy
+which did that. Indeed, at the turn of twentieth century more and more
+radicals turned to Syndicalism and Industrial Unionism as the means of by-
+passing the dead-weight of Social Democracy (i.e. orthodox Marxism), its
+reformism, its opportunism and its bureaucracy.
+
+This was recognised by Lenin, if in his own way. Anarchism, he suggested,
+_"was not infrequently a kind of penalty for the opportunist sins of the
+working-class movement."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 31, p. 32] His claim that
+anarchist and syndicalist support in the working class is the result of the
+opportunist nature of the Social Democratic Parties has an element of truth.
+Obviously militants sick to death of the reformist, corrupt and bureaucratic
+"working class" parties will seek a revolutionary alternative and find
+libertarian socialism. However, Lenin seeks to explain the symptoms
+(opportunism) and not the disease itself (Parliamentarianism) . Nowhere does
+he see the rise of "opportunist" tendencies in the Marxist parties as the
+result of the tactics and organisational struggles they used. Indeed, Lenin
+desired the new Communist Parties to practice electioneering ("political
+action"). Anarchists rather point out that given the nature of the means, the
+ends surely follow. Working in a bourgeois environment (Parliament) will
+result in bourgeoisifying and de-radicalising the party. Working in a
+centralised environment will empower the leaders of the party over the members
+and lead to bureaucratic tendencies. In short, the means urged inevitably
+produced a _"from above"_ mentality and the descent into reformism -- a
+descent Lenin only noticed with the outbreak of war in 1914 and the siding of
+German Social Democracy with its state in the imperialist slaughter.
+
+As Bakunin predicted, using bourgeois institutions will corrupt
+"revolutionary" and radical parties and tie the working class to the current
+system. Lenin's analysis of anarchist influence as being the off-spring of
+opportunist tendencies in mainstream parties may be right, but if so it is a
+natural development as the tactics supported by Marxists from Marx onwards
+inevitably lead to opportunist tendencies developing. What Lenin could not
+comprehend was that opportunism was the symptom and electioneering was the
+disease -- using the same means (electioneering) with different
+parties/individuals ("Communists" instead of "Social Democrats") and thinking
+that opportunism would not return was idealistic nonsense.
+
+Sadly for his readers, McNally did not discuss any of this and preferred to
+present an inaccurate account of the syndicalist position on political
+struggles. Perhaps this is understandable, for an accurate account would
+mention the debates of the First International and have to draw the obvious
+conclusion: Bakunin -- and the syndicalists -- were right.
## 11\. Why is McNally's claim that Leninism supports working class self-
emancipation wrong?
@@ -1318,32 +4088,36 @@ McNally claims that Marx _"was the first major socialist thinker to make the
principle of self-emancipation -- the principle that socialism could only be
brought into being by the self-mobilisation and self-organisation of the
working class -- a fundamental aspect of the socialist project."_ This is not
-entirely true. Proudhon in 1848 had argued that _"the proletariat must
-emancipate itself without the help of the government."_ [quoted by George
-Woodcock, ** Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: A Biography**, p. 125] This was because
-the state _"finds itself inevitably enchained to capital and directed against
-the proletariat."_ [Proudhon, **System of Economical Contradictions**, p. 399]
-Thus, working class people must organise themselves for their own liberation:
-
-> _"it is of no use to change the holders of power or introduce some variation
-into its workings: an agricultural and industrial combination must be found by
-means of which power, today the ruler of society, shall become its slave."_
-[**Op. Cit.**, p. 398]
-
-While Proudhon placed his hopes in reformist tendencies (such as workers' co-
-operatives and mutual banks) he clearly argued that _"the proletariat must
-emancipate itself."_ Marx's use of the famous expression -- _"the emancipation
-of the working class is the task of the working class itself"_ \-- dates from
-1865, 17 years after Proudhon's comment that _"the proletariat must emancipate
-itself."_ As K. Steven Vincent correctly summarises:
-
-> _"Proudhon insisted that the revolution could only come from below, through
-the action of the workers themselves."_ [**Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise
-of French Republican Socialism**, p. 157]
-
-Indeed, as Libertarian Marxist Paul Mattick points out, Marx was not even the
-first person to use the expression _"the emancipation of the working class is
-the task of the working class itself."_ Flora Tristan used it in 1843. [**Marx
+entirely true as _"Proudhon insisted that the revolution could only come from
+below, through the action of the workers themselves."_ [K. Steven Vincent,
+**Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism**, p.
+157] In his words:
+
+> _"Workers, labourers, men of the people, whoever you may be, the initiative
+of reform is yours. It is you who will accomplish that synthesis of social
+composition which will be the masterpiece of creation, and you alone can
+accomplish it."_ [quoted by George Woodcock, **Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: A
+Biography**, p. 64]
+
+As we indicated in [section 2](append31.html#app2), Proudhon stressed that the
+working class had to free itself by its own means and its own organisations
+for, as indicated in [section 10](append31.html#app10), the state was a
+capitalist institution which could not be captured by the masses. So while
+Proudhon placed his hopes in reformist tendencies (such as workers' co-
+operatives and mutual banks) he clearly believed in working class self-
+emancipation, even stating in 1848 that _"the proletariat must emancipate
+itself"_ for _"the revolutionary power . . . is not in the National Assembly:
+it is in you. The people alone, acting upon themselves without intermediary,
+can achieve the economic Revolution begun in February. The people alone can
+save civilisation and advance humanity!"_ [**Property is Theft!**, 306 and p.
+366]
+
+Marx's use of the famous expression -- _"the emancipation of the working class
+is the task of the working class itself"_ \-- dates from 1865, 17 years after
+Proudhon's comment that _"the proletariat must emancipate itself."_ Moreover,
+as Libertarian Marxist Paul Mattick pointed out, Marx was not even the first
+person to use the expression _"the emancipation of the working class is the
+task of the working class itself"_ as Flora Tristan used it in 1843. [**Marx
and Keynes**, p. 333] Thus a case could be made that Marx was, in fact, the
**third** _"major socialist thinker to make the principle of self-emancipation
-- the principle that socialism could only be brought into being by the self-
@@ -1351,79 +4125,151 @@ mobilisation and self-organisation of the working class -- a fundamental
aspect of the socialist project."_
Similarly, Bakunin continually quoted Marx's (and so Tristan's) words from the
-Preamble to the General Rules of the First International -- _"That the
+Preamble to the General Rules of the First International: _"That the
emancipation of the workers must be accomplished by the workers themselves."_
-[**The Basic Bakunin**, p. 92] Far more than Marx, Bakunin argued that
-workers' can only free themselves by a _"single path, that of **emancipation
-through practical action**"_ namely _"workers' solidarity in their struggle
-against the bosses"_ by trades unions and solidarity. The _"collective
-experience"_ workers gain in the International combined with the _"collective
-struggle of the workers against the bosses"_ will ensure workers _"will
-necessarily come to realise that there is an irreconcilable antagonism between
-the henchmen of reaction and [their] own dearest human concerns. Having
-reached this point, [they] will recognise [themselves] to be a revolutionary
-socialist."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 103] In contrast Marx placed his hopes for
-working class self-emancipation on a political party which would conquer
-"political power." As history soon proved, Marx was mistaken -- "political
-power" can only be seized by a minority (i.e. the party, **not** the class it
-claims to represent) and if the few have the power, the rest are no longer
-free (i.e. they no longer govern themselves). That the many elect the few who
-issue them orders does **not** signify emancipation!
+Far more than Marx, Bakunin argued that workers' can only free themselves by a
+_"single path, that of **emancipation through practical action**"_ namely
+_"workers' solidarity in their struggle against the bosses"_ by _"**trades-
+unions, organisation, and the federation of resistance funds**"_. The
+_"collective experience"_ workers gain in the _"collective struggle of the
+workers against the bosses"_ will ensure they _"will necessarily come to
+realise that there is an irreconcilable antagonism between the henchmen of
+reaction and [their] own dearest human concerns. Having reached this point,
+[the worker] will recognise [themselves] to be a revolutionary socialist."_
+[**The Basic Bakunin**, p. 92 and p. 103]
+
+In contrast Marx placed his hopes for working class self-emancipation on a
+political party which would conquer "political power." As history soon proved,
+Marx was mistaken on two levels. First, as Bakunin predicted, political action
+by socialist parties resulted in the political system changing the party
+rather than vice versa, that it _"inexorably enmeshes its adherents, under the
+pretext of political tactics, in endless accommodations with governments and
+the various bourgeois political parties -- that is, it thrusts them directly
+into reaction."_ [**Statism and Anarchy**, p. 180] Second, "political power"
+can only be seized by a minority (i.e. the party, **not** the class it claims
+to represent) and if the few have the power, the rest are no longer free (i.e.
+they no longer govern themselves). That the many elect the few who issue them
+orders does **not** signify emancipation!
However, this is beside the point. McNally proudly places his ideas in the
Leninist tradition. It is thus somewhat ironic that McNally claims that
Marxism is based on self-emancipation of the working class while claiming
-Leninism as a form of Marxism. This it because Lenin explicitly stated the
-opposite, namely that the working class **could not** liberate itself by its
-own actions. In **What is to be Done?** Lenin argued that _"the working class,
+Leninism as a form of Marxism as Lenin explicitly stated the opposite, namely
+that the working class **could not** liberate itself by its own actions. In
+his 1902 book **What is to be Done?** Lenin argued that _"the working class,
exclusively by their own effort, is able to develop only trade union
-consciousness . . . The theory of socialism [i.e. Marxism], however, grew out
-of the philosophic, historical and economic theories that were elaborated by
-the educated representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals . .
-. the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose quite independently of
-the spontaneous growth of the labour movement; it arose as a natural and
+consciousness . . . The theory of socialism [i.e. Marxism] . . . grew out of
+the philosophic, historical and economic theories that were elaborated by the
+educated representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals . . .
+the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose quite independently of the
+spontaneous growth of the labour movement; it arose as a natural and
inevitable outcome of ideas among the revolutionary socialist
intelligentsia."_ This meant that _"Social Democratic [i.e. socialist]
-consciousness . . . could only be brought to them from without."_ [**Essential
-Works of Lenin**, pp. 74-5]
+consciousness . . . could only be brought to them [the workers] from
+without."_ Speaking on behalf of workers, he asked that the _"intellectuals
+must talk to us, and tell us more about what we do not know and what we can
+never learn from our factory and 'economic' experience, that is, you must give
+us political knowledge."_ [**Essential Works of Lenin**, pp. 74-5 and p. 108]
Thus, rather than believe in working class self-emancipation, Lenin thought
the opposite. Without the radical bourgeois to provide the working class with
"socialist" ideas, a socialist movement, let along society, was impossible.
-Hardly what you would consider self-emancipation. Nor is this notion of
-working class passivity confined to the "early" Lenin of **What is to Be
-Done?** infamy. It can be found in his apparently more "libertarian" work
-**The State and Revolution**.
-
-In that work he argues _"we do not indulge in 'dreams' of dispensing **at
-once** . . . with all subordination; these anarchist dreams . . . are totally
-alien to Marxism . . . we want the socialist revolution with human nature as
-it is now, with human nature that cannot dispense with subordination, control
-and 'managers'"_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 307] No where is the notion that working
-class people, during the process of mass struggle, direct action and
-revolution, **revolutionises themselves** (see sections
+Hardly what you would consider self-emancipation. As Lenin put it:
+
+> _"Since there can be no talk of an independent ideology being developed by
+the masses of the workers in the process of their movement, **the only choice
+is**: either bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle course . . .
+Hence, to belittle socialist ideology **in any way,** to **deviate from it in
+the slightest degree** means strengthening bourgeois ideology. There is a lot
+of talk about spontaneity, but the **spontaneous** development of the labour
+movement leads to its becoming subordinated to bourgeois ideology . . . Hence
+our task, the task of Social-Democracy, is to **combat spontaneity,** to
+**divert** the labour movement from its spontaneous, trade unionist striving
+to go under the wing of the bourgeoisie, and to bring it under the wing of
+revolutionary Social-Democracy."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 82-3]
+
+As we discuss in [section H.5](secH5.html), this is a deeply anti-socialist
+position which, due to its privileging of the party, creates the theoretical
+justification for the anti-democratic actions of the Bolsheviks we sketched in
+[section 8](append31.html#app8). This perspective states that the party has a
+better understanding of what the interests of the people are than the people
+themselves. If they reject the party then it means that they simply do not
+understand their own class interests and so they have become _"declassed"_, to
+use Lenin's term. The party, due to it being the repository of what socialism
+is, then has the right -- the duty -- to ignore the masses for to do otherwise
+_"means strengthening bourgeois ideology"_. That this is self-serving circular
+logic is an understatement but it is self-serving circular logic which, in
+revolutionary Russia, destroyed socialism in favour of state-capitalism and
+party dictatorship.
+
+For this notion of working class passivity is not confined to the "early"
+Lenin of **What is to Be Done?** infamy (not that there is any evidence that
+Lenin later repudiated the ideas expressed there -- see [section
+H.5.4](secH5.html#sech54)). It can be found in his apparently more
+"libertarian" work **The State and Revolution** which argues that _"we do not
+indulge in 'dreams' of dispensing **at once** . . . with all subordination;
+these anarchist dreams . . . are totally alien to Marxism . . . we want the
+socialist revolution with human nature as it is now, with human nature that
+cannot dispense with subordination, control and 'managers'"_ Nowhere is the
+notion that working class people, during the process of mass struggle, direct
+action and revolution, **revolutionises themselves** (see sections
[A.2.7](secA2.html#seca27) and [J.7.2](secJ7.html#secj72), for example).
Instead, we find a vision of people as they are under capitalism (_"human
nature as it is now"_) and no vision of self-emancipation of the working class
and the resulting changes that implies for those who are transforming society
-by their own action.
-
-Perhaps it will be argued that Lenin sees _"subordination"_ as being _"to the
-armed vanguard of all the exploited . . . i.e., to the proletariat"_
-[**Ibid.**] and so there is no contradiction. However, this is not the case as
-he confuses the rule of the party with the rule of the class. As he states
-_"[w]e cannot imagine democracy, not even proletarian democracy, without
-representative institutions."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 306] Thus _"subordination"_
-is **not** to the working class itself (i.e. direct democracy or self-
-management). Rather it is the _"subordination"_ of the majority to the
-minority, of the working class to "its" representatives. Thus we have a vision
-of a "socialist" society in which the majority have not revolutionised
-themselves and are subordinated to their representatives. Such a
+by their own action. Perhaps it will be argued that Lenin sees
+_"subordination"_ as being _"to the armed vanguard of all the exploited . . .
+i.e., to the proletariat"_ and so there is no contradiction. However, this is
+not the case as he confuses the rule of the party with the rule of the class:
+_"We cannot imagine democracy, not even proletarian democracy, without
+representative institutions."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 307 and p. 306]
+
+Thus _"subordination"_ is **not** to the working class itself (i.e. direct
+democracy or self-management). Rather it is the _"subordination"_ of the
+majority to the minority, of the working class to "its" representatives. Thus
+we have a vision of a "socialist" society in which the majority have not
+revolutionised themselves and are subordinated to "their" party. Such a
subordination, however, ensures that a socialist consciousness **cannot**
develop as only the **process** of self-management generates the abilities
-required for self-management (as Malatesta put it, _"[o]nly freedom or the
-struggle for freedom can be the school for freedom."_ [**Life and Ideas**, p.
-59]).
+required for self-management (_"Only freedom or the struggle for freedom can
+be the school for freedom."_ [Malatesta, **Errico Malatesta: His Life and
+Ideas**, p. 59]). Lenin saw the revolution as the means by which the mass of
+the people will recognise that the vanguard party represents their interests
+and so vote it into power. However, as _"there can be no talk of an
+independent ideology being developed by the masses of the workers in the
+process of their movement"_ any clash between the party and masses simply mean
+that the latter are wrong and _"the armed vanguard"_ needs _"to **combat
+spontaneity**"_ \-- literally, as we showed in [section
+H.6.3](secH6.html#sech63). As Lenin admitted in 1920:
+
+> _"Without revolutionary coercion directed against the avowed enemies of the
+workers and peasants, it is impossible to break down the resistance of these
+exploiters. On the other hand, revolutionary coercion is bound to be employed
+towards the wavering and unstable elements among the masses themselves."_
+[**Collected Works**, vol. 42, p. 170]
+
+As we indicate in [section H.3.8](secH3.html#sech38), this perspective meant
+that Leninist theorists ended up arguing for a state separate from the working
+class (a _"state in the proper sense of the word"_) rather than the semi-state
+promised in such works as **The State and Revolution** (a work whose promises,
+as we note in [section H.1.7](secH1.html#sech17), were forsaken completely
+within six months of the Bolshevik seizure of power). This was required to
+ensure that the party could _"combat"_ spontaneous movements in the working
+class which questioned the privileged position of the party -- both
+ideologically (in terms of its advanced ideas) and politically (its holding of
+power). This privileged position for the party engenders a perspective which
+can (and did) justify party dictatorship **over** the proletariat. Given
+Lenin's position that the working class cannot formulate its own "ideology" by
+its own efforts, of its incapacity to move beyond _"trade union
+consciousness"_ independently of the party, the clear implication is that the
+party could in no way be bound by the predominant views of the working class
+as these are, **by definition** non-socialist, bourgeois even. As the party
+embodies _"socialist consciousness"_ (and this arises outside the working
+class and its struggles) then opposition of the working class to the party
+signifies a failure of the class to resist alien influences, a failure that
+the party must fight to ensure that this failure does not spread to the
+revolution itself -- the proletariat, in short, must be repressed in its own
+interests by the "proletarian" dictatorship.
Therefore McNally's comments that Leninism is a valid expression of Marx's
idea of proletarian self-emancipation is false. In reality, Lenin rejected the
@@ -1432,15 +4278,15 @@ claim that this tradition stands for proletarian self-emancipation is false.
Rather Leninism, for all its rhetoric, has no vision of working class self-
activity leading to self-liberation -- it denies it can happen and that is why
it stresses the role of the party and its need to take centralised power into
-its own hands (of course, it never entered Lenin's mind that if bourgeois
+its own hands. Of course, it never entered Lenin's mind that if bourgeois
ideology imposes itself onto the working class it also imposes itself on the
party as well -- more so as they are bourgeois intellectuals in the first
-place).
+place.
While anarchists are aware of the need for groups of like minded individuals
to influence the class struggle and spread anarchist ideas, we reject the idea
that such ideas have to be "injected" into the working class from outside.
-Rather, as we argued in [ section J.3](secJ3.html), anarchist ideas are
+Rather, as we argued in [section J.3](secJ3.html), anarchist ideas are
developed within the class struggle by working people themselves. Anarchist
groups exist because we are aware that there is an uneven development of ideas
within our class and to aid the spreading of libertarian ideas it is useful
@@ -1448,159 +4294,307 @@ for those with those ideas to work together. However, being aware that our
ideas are the product of working class life and struggle we are also aware
that we have to learn from that struggle. It is because of this that
anarchists stress self-management of working class struggle and organisation
-from below. Anarchists are (to use Bakunin's words) _"convinced that
+from below (anarchists are, to use Bakunin's words, _"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."_ [**Michael Bakunin: Selected
-Writings**, p. 237] Only when this happens can new ways of life be created and
-truly develop freely. It also explains anarchist opposition to political
+inevitably and immediately becomes reaction"_ [**Michael Bakunin: Selected
+Writings**, p. 237]). Only when this happens can new ways of life be created
+and truly develop freely. It also explains anarchist opposition to political
groups seizing power -- that will only result in old dogmas crushing the
initiative of people in struggle and the new forms of life they create. That
-is way anarchists stress the importance of revolutionaries using _"natural
+is why anarchists stress the importance of revolutionaries using _"natural
influence"_ (i.e. arguing their ideas in popular organisations and convincing
by reason) -- doing so allows new developments and ideas to be expressed and
enriched by existing ones and vice versa.
-One last point. It could be argued that Lenin's arguments were predated by
-Marx and Engels and so Marxism **as such** rather than just Leninism does not
-believe in proletarian self-emancipation. This is because they wrote in **The
-Communist Manifesto** that _"a portion of the bourgeois goes over to the
-proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who
-have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the
-historical movement as a whole."_ They also note that the Communists are _"the
-most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties . . . [and]
-they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly
-understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the general results of
-the proletarian movement."_ [**Selected Works**, p. 44 and p. 46] Thus a
-portion of the bourgeois comprehend _"the historical movement as a whole"_ and
-this is also the _"advantage"_ of the Communist Party over _"the great mass of
-the proletariat."_ Perhaps Lenin's comments are not so alien to the Marxist
-tradition after all.
+One last point. It could be argued that similar comments to Lenin's arguments
+can be found in Marx and Engels and so Marxism **as such** rather than just
+Leninism does not believe in proletarian self-emancipation. After all, had not
+**The Manifesto of the Communist Party** proclaimed that _"a small section of
+the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class"_ and
+this _"portion of the bourgeois ideologists"_ have _"raised themselves to the
+level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole."_ In
+addition, the Communists are _"the most advanced and resolute section of the
+working-class parties"_ and _"they have over the great mass of the proletariat
+the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and
+the general results of the proletarian movement"_. [**The Marx-Engels
+Reader**, p. 481 and p. 484] This, needless to say, places _"bourgeois
+ideologists"_ and party leaders (like Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky) in a
+privileged position within the party, labour movement and society as a whole.
+Had not Marx and Engels argued in **The Holy Family** that the _"question is
+not what this or that proletarian, or even the whole of the proletariat at the
+moment **considers** as its aim. The question is **what the proletariat is**,
+and what, consequent on that **being**, it will be compelled to do."_ [quoted
+by Murray Bookchin, **The Spanish Anarchists**, p. 280] As Murray Bookchin
+argued:
+
+> _"These lines and others like them in Marx's writings were to provide the
+rationale for asserting the authority of Marxist parties and their armed
+detachments over and even against the proletariat. Claiming a deeper and more
+informed comprehension of the situation than 'even the whole of the
+proletariat at the given moment,' Marxist parties went on to dissolve such
+revolutionary forms of proletarian organisation as factory committees and
+ultimately to totally regiment the proletariat according to lines established
+by the party leadership."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 289]
+
+Unlike Lenin and Trotsky, Marx and Engels rarely drew the obvious conclusions
+from their arguments (although their contempt for working class socialist
+thinkers -- like Proudhon -- was legendary) but the elitism was there. It is
+to Bakunin's merit that he recognised the danger long before the likes of
+Lenin and Trotsky (see [section 15](append31.html#app15)) made it explicit.
## 12\. Why is Marxist "class analysis" of anarchism contradictory?
-Another ironic aspect of McNally's pamphlet is his praise for the Paris
-Commune and the Russian Soviets. This is because key aspects of both
-revolutionary forms were predicted by Proudhon and Bakunin.
-
-For example, McNally's and Marx's praise for revocable mandates in the Commune
-was advocated by Proudhon in 1840s and Bakunin in 1860s (see sections
-[4](append31.html#app4) and [5](append31.html#app5)). Similarly, the Russian
-Soviets (a federation of delegates from workplaces) showed a marked similarity
-with Bakunin's discussions of revolutionary change and the importance of
-industrial associations being the basis of the future socialist commune (as he
-put it, the _"future organisation must be made solely from the bottom upwards,
-by free association or free federation of workers, firstly in their unions,
-then in the communes, regions, nations and finally in a great federation,
-international and universal."_ [**Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings**, p.
-206]).
+Another ironic aspect of McNally's pamphlet is its demonisation of anarchism
+combined with praise for the Paris Commune and the Russian Soviets. This is
+because key aspects of both revolutionary forms were predicted by Proudhon and
+Bakunin. For example, McNally's and Marx's praise for revocable mandates in
+the Commune was advocated by Proudhon in 1840s (see [section
+4](append31.html#app4)). Bakunin also advocated this in the late 1860s along
+with a federation of delegates from workplaces which showed a marked
+similarity with the Russian soviets (see [section 5](append31.html#app5)).
Indeed, the Paris Commune (in both its economic and political aspects) showed
a clear inspiration from Proudhon's works. In the words of George Woodcock,
there are _"demands in the Commune's Manifesto to the French People of the
19th April, 1871, that might have been written by Proudhon himself."_
[**Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: A Biography**, p. 276] K. Steven Vincent also
-points out that the declaration _"is strongly federalist in tone [one of
-Proudhon's favourite ideas], and it has a marked proudhonian flavour."_
-[**Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism**, p.
-232] Moreover, the desire to replace wage labour with associated labour by the
-creation of co-operatives expressed during the Commune clearly showed the
-influence of Proudhon (see [section A.5.1](secA5.html#seca51) for more
-details). As Marx mentions the _"rough sketch of national organisation"_
-produced by the Commune it is useful to quote the Commune's declaration in
-order to show clearly its anarchist roots and tendencies:
-
-> _"The absolute autonomy of the Commune extended to all districts of France .
-. . to every Frenchman the full exercise of his faculties and aptitudes, as
-man, citizen, and worker.
-
->
-
-> "The autonomy of the Commune shall have no limits other than the right of
-autonomy equally enjoyed by all other communes adhering to the contract, and
-by whose association together French Unity will be preserved. . . Selection by
-ballot . . . with the responsibility and permanent right of control and
-dismissal of magistrates and all communal civil servants of all grades . . .
-Permanent intervention of citizens in communal affairs by the free expression
-of their ideas. Organisation of urban defence and of the National Guard, which
-elects its leaders . . .the large central administration delegated by the
-federation of communes shall adopt and put into practice these same
-principles.
-
->
-
-> "The Unity which has been imposed on us up to now . . . is nothing but
-despotic centralisation . . . The Political Unity which Paris desires is the
-voluntary association of all local initiatives . . .
-
->
-
-> "The Communal Revolution . . . spells the end of the old world with its
-governments and its clerics, militarism, officialdom, exploitation, stock-
-jobbing, monopolies, and privileges, to which the proletariat owes its
-servitude, the country its ills and its disasters."_ [_"Declaration to the
-French People"_, contained in David Thomson (ed.), **France: Empire and
-Republic, 1850-1940**, pp. 186-7]
-
-The links with Proudhon's ideas cannot be clearer. Both Proudhon and the
-Commune stressed the importance of decentralisation of power, federalism, the
-end of both government and exploitation and so on. Moreover, in his letter to
-Albert Richard, Bakunin predicted many aspects of the Paris Commune and its
-declaration (see **Bakunin on Anarchism**, pp. 177-182).
-
-Little wonder few Marxists (nor Marx himself) directly quote from this
-declaration. It would be difficult to attack anarchism (as "petty-bourgeois")
-while proclaiming the Paris Commune as the first example of _"the dictatorship
-of the Proletariat."_ The decentralised, federalist nature of the Commune
-cannot be squared with the usual Marxist instance on centralisation and the
-claim that federalism _"as a principle follows logically from the petty-
-bourgeois views of anarchism. Marx was a centralist."_ [Lenin, _"The State and
-Revolution"_, Marx, Engels and Lenin, **Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism**,
-p. 273]
+points out that the declaration _"is strongly federalist in tone, and it has a
+marked proudhonian flavour."_ [**Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French
+Republican Socialism**, p. 232] Moreover, the desire to replace wage labour
+with associated labour by the creation of co-operatives expressed during the
+Commune clearly showed the influence of Proudhon. Marx mentions a _"rough
+sketch of national organisation which the Commune had no time to develop"_ but
+does not quote from it. [**The Marx-Engels Reader**, p. 633] This is perhaps
+unsurprising as the Commune's declaration clearly shows its anarchist roots
+and tendencies:
+
+> _"The absolute autonomy of the Commune extended to all localities in France
+and assuring to each one its full rights, and to every Frenchman the full
+exercise of his faculties and abilities as man, citizen and producer._
+
+> _"The only limit to the autonomy of the Commune should be the equal right to
+autonomy for all communes adhering to the contract, whose association shall
+insure French unity . . . The choice by election or competition of magistrates
+and communal functionaries of all orders, as well as the permanent right of
+control and revocation._
+
+> _"The absolute guarantee of individual freedom and freedom of conscience._
+
+> _"The permanent intervention of citizens in communal affairs by the free
+manifestation of their ideas, the free defence of their interests . . . _
+
+> _"The organisation of urban defence and the National Guard, which elects its
+chiefs and alone watches over the maintenance of order in the city . . ._
+
+> _"Paris wants nothing else as a local guarantee, on condition, of course, of
+finding in the great central administration -- the delegation of federated
+Communes -- the realisation and the practice of the same principles. But as an
+element of its autonomy, and profiting by its freedom of action, within its
+borders it reserves to itself the right to operate the administrative and
+economic reforms called for by the populace as it wills; to create the
+institutions needed to develop and spread instruction, production, exchange
+and credit; to universalise power and property in keeping with the needs of
+the moment, the wishes of those concerned and the facts furnished by
+experience._
+
+> _"Unity, as it has been imposed on us until today by the Empire, the
+monarchy or parliamentarism is nothing but unintelligent, arbitrary or onerous
+centralisation._
+
+> _"Political unity, as Paris wants it, is the voluntary association of all
+local initiatives, the spontaneous and free concourse of all individual
+energies in view of a common goal: the well-being, the freedom and the
+security of all._
+
+> _"The communal revolution, begun by popular initiative on March 18, begins a
+new era of experimental, positive, scientific politics._
+
+> _"It is the end of the old governmental and clerical world, of militarism
+and bureaucracy, of exploitation, speculation, monopolies and privileges to
+which the proletariat owe their servitude and the Fatherland its misfortunes
+and disasters."_ [_"Declaration to the French People"_, pp. 789-791,
+**Property is Theft!**, pp. 789-790]
+
+The links with Proudhon's ideas cannot be clearer. Little wonder, then, that
+during the Commune anarchist James Guillaume stated that _"the Paris
+Revolution is federalist . . . in the sense given it years ago by the great
+socialist, Proudhon."_ It is _"above all the negation of the nation and the
+State."_ [contained in **The Paris Commune of 1871: The View From the Left**,
+Eugene Schulkind (ed.), p. 191] Bakunin, for his part, rightly argued that its
+_"general effect was so striking that the Marxists themselves, who saw their
+ideas upset by the uprising, found themselves compelled to take their hats off
+to it. They went further, and proclaimed that its programme and purpose where
+their own, in face of the simplest logic . . . This was a truly farcical
+change of costume, but they were bound to make it, for fear of being overtaken
+and left behind in the wave of feeling which the rising produced throughout
+the world."_ [**Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings**, p. 261]
+
+To see why, we need simply to compare Marx's reporting of the Commune with
+Proudhon's words. Marx stated, correctly, that the Commune _"was formed of the
+municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of
+the town, responsible and revocable at short terms"_ and was _"a working, not
+a parliamentary, body, executive and legislative at the same time"_. The
+delegates would _"revocable and bound by the **mandat imperatif** (formal
+instructions) of his constituents"_ [**The Marx-Engels Readers**, p. 632 and
+p. 633] As well as arguing that _"federalism is the political form of
+humanity"_, Proudhon also argued that the _"legislative power is not
+distinguished from the executive power."_ [**Property is Theft!**, p. 678 and
+p. 674] As he put it in 1848:
+
+> _"It is up to the National Assembly, through organisation of its committees,
+to exercise executive power, just the way it exercises legislative power . . .
+Besides universal suffrage and as a consequence of universal suffrage, we want
+implementation of the imperative mandate [**mandat impératif**]. Politicians
+balk at it! Which means that in their eyes, the people, in electing
+representatives, do not appoint mandatories but rather abjure their
+sovereignty! That is assuredly not socialism: it is not even democracy."_
+[**Op. Cit.**, pp. 378-9]
+
+This applies to the economic goals of the Commune, with Marx suggesting that
+it _"wanted to make individual property a truth by transforming the means of
+production, land, capital, now chiefly the means of enslaving and exploiting
+labour, into mere instruments of free and associated labour"_ and _"this is
+Communism"_. Engels, twenty years later, painted a picture of Proudhon being
+opposed to association (except for large-scale industry) and stated that _"to
+combine all these associations in one great union"_ was _"the direct opposite
+of the Proudhon doctrine"_ and so _"the Commune was the grave of the Proudhon
+school of socialism."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 635 and p. 626] Yet they must have
+been aware of Proudhon's support for large-scale industry and workers
+associations ([section 4](append31.html)) as expressed, for example, in his
+1863 call for an _"agricultural-industrial federation"_ or his 1846 comment
+that _"to unfold the system of economic contradictions is to lay the
+foundations of universal association"_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 712 and p. 179] As he
+put it in 1848:
+
+> _"under universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments
+of labour is **social** ownership . . . We want the mines, canals, railways
+handed over to democratically organised workers’ associations . . . We want
+these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the
+pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies woven into
+the common cloth of the democratic and social Republic."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp.
+777-8]
Given that Marx described the Commune as _"essentially a working-class
-government"_ and as _"the political form, at last discovered, under which to
-work out the economic emancipation of labour,"_ it is strange that McNally
-terms Proudhon's and Bakunin's ideas as those of the past. [**Selected
-Writings**, p. 290] In actually, as can be seen from the Paris Commune and the
-soviets, they were the ideas **of the future** \-- and of working class self-
-liberation and self-organisation. And ones that Marx and his followers paid
-lip service to.
-
-(We say lip service for Lenin quoted Marx's statement that the future
-proletarian state, like the Paris Commune, would abolish the distinction
-between executive and administrative powers but did not honour it. Immediately
-after the October Revolution the Bolsheviks established an executive power
-**above** the soviets, namely the Council of People's Commissars. Those who
-quote Lenin's **State and Revolution** as proof of his democratic nature
-usually fail to mention this little fact. In practice that work was little
-more than an election manifesto to be broken as required.)
-
-Perhaps it could be argued that, in fact, the Paris Commune was the work of
-artisans. This does have an element of truth in it. Marx stated in 1866 that
-the French workers were _"corrupted"_ by _"Proudhonist"_ ideas, _"particularly
-those of Paris, who as workers in luxury trades are strongly attached, without
-knowing it [!], to the old rubbish."_ [Marx, Engels and Lenin, **Anarchism and
-Anarcho-syndicalism**, pp. 45-6] Five years later, these workers (still
-obviously influenced by _"the old rubbish"_) created _"the political form"_ of
-_"the economic emancipation of labour."_ How can the Paris Commune be the
-_"Dictatorship of the Proletariat"_ (as Engels claimed [**Selected Writings**,
-p. 259]) when 35 members of the Commune's council were artisans and only 4 or
-5 were industrial workers (i.e. proletarians)?
-
-Can the fact that artisans were, according to McNally and Marx, social strata
-of the past, were backward looking, etc. be reconciled with the claim that the
-Paris Commune was the political form of proletarian emancipation? No, not from
-a Marxist class analysis. Hence Marxists ignoring the real nature of the
-Parisian working class when discussing the commune. However, from an anarchist
-perspective -- which sees the artisan, peasant and proletariat forming a
-common class of working people -- the development of the Paris Commune is no
-surprise. It is the work of people seeking to end wage labour and the threat
-of wage labour **now** rather than sometime in the future once capitalism has
-fully developed. Thus McNally's (and Marx's) support for the Commune makes a
-mockery of his attacks on anarchism as the theory of the artisans and peasants
-for it was the artisans who created the first model of their _"proletarian"_
-state!
+government"_, _"the political form at last discovered under which to work out
+the economic emancipation of labour"_ and _"will be for ever celebrated as the
+glorious harbinger of a new society"_, it is strange that McNally terms
+Proudhon's and Bakunin's ideas as those of the past. [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 634-5
+and p. 652] It seems the height of hypocrisy for McNally to attack Proudhon
+while praising the Paris Commune.
+
+So the awkward fact is that anarchists had been advocating these forms since
+Proudhon in the 1840s and they were developed by Bakunin in the 1860s. Nothing
+similar can be found in Marx until the Commune which suggests, as Anarchist
+K.J. Kenafick stated, _"that the programme [the Commune] set out is . . . the
+system of Federalism, which Bakunin had been advocating for years, and which
+had first been enunciated by Proudhon. The Proudhonists . . . exercised
+considerable influence in the Commune. This 'political form' was therefore not
+'at last' discovered; it had been discovered years ago; and now it was proven
+to be correct by the very fact that in the crisis the Paris workers adopted it
+almost automatically, under the pressure of circumstance, rather than as the
+result of theory, as being the form most suitable to express working class
+aspirations."_ [**Michael Bakunin and Karl Marx**, pp. 212-3]
+
+Little wonder few Marxists (like Marx himself) directly quote from the
+Commune's declaration. It would be difficult to attack anarchism (as "petty-
+bourgeois") while proclaiming the Paris Commune as the first example of _"the
+dictatorship of the Proletariat."_ The decentralised, federalist nature of the
+Commune cannot be squared with the usual Marxist instance on centralisation
+and the claim that federalism _"as a principle follows logically from the
+petty-bourgeois views of anarchism. Marx was a centralist"_ and to _"confuse
+Marx's views . . . with Proudhon's federalism is positively monstrous!"_ While
+there may be _"not a trace of federalism"_ in Marx's _"observations on the
+experience of the Commune"_, the Commune **itself** was distinctly federalist
+in its aspirations. If Marx _"upheld democratic centralism, the republic --
+one and indivisible"_ the same cannot be said of the Communards themselves.
+[Lenin, _"The State and Revolution"_, **The Lenin Anthology**, p. 348, p. 347
+and p. 361] As Paul Avrich noted, the _"influence of Proudhon --
+unquestionably greater than that of Marx -- was reflected in the title of
+'Federals' by which the Communards were known."_ [**Anarchist Portraits**, p.
+232]
+
+This is not to suggest that the Commune was a perfect example of anarchism in
+action -- far from it. As we indicate in [section A.5.1](secA5.html#seca51),
+while it wished federalism outside of Paris it was not federalist within its
+boundaries. If, as Marx put it, _"the Paris Commune took the management of the
+revolution in its own hands"_ then its structure simply was not up to its
+tasks. [**Op. Cit.**, p. 636] As Bakunin put it, while the Commune was _"a
+bold and outspoken negation of the State"_, the Communards had set up _"a
+revolutionary government"_ within Paris and so organised _"themselves in
+reactionary Jacobin fashion, forgetting or sacrificing what they themselves
+knew were the first conditions of revolutionary socialism"_, rather than _"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"_ organised _"solely from the bottom upwards."_
+[**Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings**, p. 199, p. 202 and p. 206] Building
+on Bakunin's comments, Kropotkin argued that while _"proclaiming the free
+Commune, the people of Paris proclaimed an essential anarchist principle"_ but
+_"they stopped mid-course"_ and gave _"themselves a Communal Council copied
+from the old municipal councils."_ Thus the Paris Commune did not _"break with
+the tradition of the State, of representative government, and it did not
+attempt to achieve within the Commune that organisation from the simple to the
+complex it inaugurated by proclaiming the independence and free federation of
+the Communes."_ Kropotkin continually stressed that the revolutionaries were
+isolated from the masses and shut-up in the town hall which lead to disaster
+as the Commune council became _"immobilised . . . by red tape"_ and lost _"the
+sensitivity that comes from continued contact with the masses . . . Paralysed
+by their distancing from the revolutionary centre –- the people -– they
+themselves paralysed the popular initiative."_ [**Words of a Rebel**, p. 97,
+p. 93 and p. 97]
+
+So the Commune applied aspects of anarchism but not all. However, the main
+thrust of the revolt was federalist in nature -- something Marxists tend to
+forget to mention. Anarchists argued that the Commune should have rejected the
+Municipal Council and instead organised a workers' council. Anarchist ideas,
+then, as can be seen from the Paris Commune and the soviets were the ideas
+**of the future** \-- and of working class self-liberation and self-
+organisation. And ones that Marx and his followers paid lip service to.
+
+(We say lip service for Marx's praise for the Commune did not stop him
+recommending the labour movement to stand candidates in national elections nor
+did Lenin quoting Marx's statement that the future proletarian state, like the
+Paris Commune, would abolish the distinction between executive and
+administrative powers mean he honoured it. Immediately after the October
+Revolution the Bolsheviks established an executive power **above** the
+soviets, namely the Council of People's Commissars. Those who quote Lenin's
+**The State and Revolution** as proof of his democratic nature usually fail to
+mention this little fact. In practice that work was little more than an
+election manifesto to be broken as required, as we shown in [section
+H.1.7](secH1.html#sechh17))
+
+In fact, the Paris Commune was primarily the work of artisans (the bulk of the
+Parisian workers at the time). This is reflected in Marx's comments in 1866
+that the French workers were _"corrupted"_ by Proudhon's _"sham criticism and
+sham opposition to the Utopians (he himself is only a petty-bourgeois utopian
+. . .)"_, _"particularly those of Paris, who as workers in luxury trades are
+strongly attached, without knowing it [!], to the old rubbish."_ The
+_"Parisian gentlemen had their heads full of the emptiest Proudhonist
+phrases"_ and so _"Proudhon did enormous mischief."_ [Marx, Engels and Lenin,
+**Anarchism and Anarcho-syndicalism**, pp. 45-6] Five years later, these
+workers (still obviously influenced by _"the old rubbish"_ and their heads
+still full of _"Proudhonist phrases"_) created _"the political form"_ of _"the
+economic emancipation of labour."_ This is not explained by Marxists, who also
+do not trouble themselves to explain how can the Paris Commune be the
+_"Dictatorship of the Proletariat"_ when 35 members of the Commune's council
+were artisans and only 4 or 5 were industrial workers (i.e. proletarians).
+
+Can the fact that Proudhon-influenced artisans were, according to McNally and
+Marx, social strata of the past, were backward looking, etc. be reconciled
+with the claim that the Paris Commune was the political form of proletarian
+emancipation? No, not from a Marxist class analysis. Hence Marxists ignoring
+the real nature of the Parisian working class when discussing the commune.
+However, from an anarchist perspective -- which sees the artisan, peasant and
+proletariat forming a common class of working people -- the development of the
+Paris Commune is no surprise. It is the work of people seeking to end wage
+labour and the threat of wage labour **now** rather than sometime in the
+future once capitalism has fully developed. Thus McNally's (and Marx's)
+support for the Commune makes a mockery of his attacks on anarchism as the
+theory of the artisans and peasants for it was the artisans who created the
+first model of their _"proletarian"_ state and applied what they say they
+consider the foundations of _"proletarian"_ democracy -- electing mandated and
+recallable delegates. That the "petty-bourgeois" Proudhon advocated this 23
+years before Marx did is, of course, left unsaid.
As indicated, McNally's arguments do not hold water. Ironically, if anarchism
was the death-cry of the artisan and peasant then it is strange, to say the
@@ -1613,23 +4607,9 @@ artisans, peasants **and** industrial proletariat (i.e. the working class as a
whole). In other words, it is a philosophy and theory for the future, not of
the past. This can be seen from the libertarian aspects of the Paris Commune,
aspects Marx immediately tried to appropriate for his own theories (which,
-unfortunately, were swamped by the authoritarian elements that existing
+unfortunately, were swamped by the authoritarian elements that existed
already).
-And one last point, McNally claims that Marx _"immediately rallied to the
-cause of the Paris Commune."_ This is not true. As John Zerzan points out
-_"[d]ays after the successful insurrection began he failed to applaud its
-audacity, and satisfied himself with grumbling that 'it had no chance of
-success.' Though he finally recognised the fact of the Commune (and was
-thereby forced to revise his reformist ideas regarding proletarian use of
-existing state machinery), his lack of sympathy is amply reflected by the fact
-that throughout the Commune's two-month existence, the General Council of the
-International spoke not a single word about it . . . his **Civil War in
-France** constitutes an obituary."_ [**Elements of Refusal**, p. 126] Perhaps
-the delay was due to Marx wondering how Parisian artisans had became the
-vanguard of the proletariat overnight and how he could support a Commune
-created by the forces of the past?
-
In addition the _"old rubbish"_ the Parisian workers supported was very much
ahead of its time. In 1869 the delegate of the Parisian Construction Workers'
Trade Union argued that _"[a]ssociation of the different corporations [labour
@@ -1653,43 +4633,149 @@ present, but their future interests"_ and so _"desert[ed] their own standpoint
to place themselves at that of the proletariat"_ (the class they are being
_"tranfer[ed]"_ into by the rise of capitalism) then, clearly, anarchist ideas
are _"future,"_ proletarian, ideas as it is that class interest artisans serve
-_"[i]f by chance they are revolutionary."_ [Marx and Engels, **The Communist
-Manifesto**, p. 44]
+_"[i]f by chance they are revolutionary."_ [Marx and Engels, _"The Communist
+Manifesto"_, **The Marx-Engels Reader**, p. 482]
Whichever way you look at it, McNally's claims on the class nature of
anarchism do not stand up to close analysis. Proudhon addressed both
-artisan/peasant and wage slave in his works. He addressed both the past and
-the present working class. Bakunin did likewise (although with a stronger
-emphasis on wage slaves). Therefore it is not surprising that Proudhon and
-Bakunin predicted aspects of the Paris Commune -- they were expressing the
-politics of the future. As is clear from their writings, which still remain
-fresh today.
+artisan/peasant and wage-worker in his works. He addressed both the current
+and the future working class. Bakunin did likewise. Moreover, both were part
+of the workers movement. Proudhon was working class, the son of an artisan and
+peasant who was a printer by trade, and took part in the debates and polemics
+of the French socialist movement as well as the 1848 Revolution. Bakunin
+joined the First International, taking an active part in its debates and
+championing the syndicalist ideas which had evolved from Proudhon's mutualism
+in France, Belgium, Spain and Italy. As Paul Avrich suggests, as _"early as
+the 1860's and 1870's, the followers of Proudhon and Bakunin in the First
+International were proposing the formation of workers' councils designed both
+as a weapon of class struggle against capitalists and as the structural basis
+of the future libertarian society"_ [**The Russian Anarchists**, p. 73]
+Therefore it is not surprising that Proudhon and Bakunin predicted aspects of
+the Paris Commune -- they were expressing the politics of the future. As is
+clear from their writings, which still remain fresh today.
+
+This is reflected in another comment by McNally, who writes that _"all major
+trends in Russian socialism had believed that a bourgeois democratic
+revolution -- a revolution against Czarism and for the establishment not of
+socialism but merely of liberal capitalism -- would have to precede a workers'
+revolution in Russia. In 1906, Leon Trotsky developed a dissenting view. Only
+the working class of Russia, Trotsky argued, would be willing and able to
+carry through the fight for democratic reforms and for a democratic republic.
+But why, he asked, should the workers be expected to stop at that point? Why
+should they not extend the fight for democratic rights into a struggle for
+workers' control and socialist democracy?"_ In reality, the idea that working
+people should extend a revolution from political to economic goals was raised
+by both Proudhon and Bakunin long before Trotsky and, moreover, was advocated
+by Kropotkin the year before Trotsky introduced it into Marxism.
+
+Thus Proudhon argued that the 1848 revolution _"had been made 'without an
+idea' and that it had unfortunately satisfied itself with the proclamation of
+purely political palliatives"_ and _"he did not believe that such political
+reforms would solve the social problem."_ [K. Steven Vincent, **Op. Cit.**, p.
+169] Bakunin took up, as with so many other things, Proudhon's argument and,
+as we discuss in [section H.1.1](secH1.html#sech11), a key part of Bakunin's
+critique of Marxism was precisely that it looked to political change before
+social and economic transformation, the latter coming as a result of
+"political action" allowed by the previous political revolution. Thus _"[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] This meant that anarchists aimed to ensure
+any revolution was _"simultaneously universal, social, philosophical, economic
+and political revolution"_. The _"revolution as we understand it will . . .
+set about the . . . complete destruction of the State . . . The natural and
+necessary upshot of that destruction"_ will include the _"[d]issolution of the
+army, magistracy, bureaucracy, police and clergy"_ and _"[a]ll productive
+capital and instruments of labour . . . be[ing] confiscated for the benefit of
+toilers associations, which will have to put them to use in collective
+production"_ as well as the _"[s]eizure of all Church and State properties."_
+The _"federated Alliance of all labour associations . . . will constitute the
+Commune."_ The people _"must make the revolution everywhere, and . . .
+ultimate direction of it must at all times be vested in the people organised
+into a free federation of agricultural and industrial associations . . .
+organised from the bottom up."_ [**No Gods, No Masters**, vol. 1 pp. 152-6]
+This was echoed by Kropotkin in 1905:
+
+> _"The Russian people -- the working men -- having compelled the autocrat to
+abdicate his despotic power, must compel him now to give body to his
+abdication by sending away the troops upon which rest his power and the power
+of bureaucracy, the power of unbridled capitalism._
+
+> _"The people must arm itself; otherwise the Tsar, the bureaucrats and the
+capitalists will crush it down . . . the Russian working men must not forget
+**their own demands**. To guarantee the individual against police
+arbitrariness is necessary for all. But he who works and produces riches with
+his own hands requires something else. . . . If you are compelled tomorrow,
+after the Constitution has been proclaimed, to return to the factories the
+same slaves as you have been before, then you will have been betrayed . . ._
+
+> _"Don't expect anything from would-be saviours. But in every factory, every
+building yard, every workshop, and every mine, **establish yourselves the
+order of things which, by common accord, you will find proper to establish**.
+But remember this: Don't allow others to interfere! It is **your** affair, and
+**you** have to settle it._
+
+> _"**Accomplish yourselves a revolution in the organisation of labour as you
+have accomplished it in the general administration of the Russian State.**_
+
+> _"Don't trust those who will tell you: 'Not yet! It is too soon!' No, it is
+not too soon; it is just the time for it."_ [_"The Revolution in Russia"_,
+**Direct Struggle Against Capital**, pp. 456-7]
+
+As with the Paris Commune and the soviets, yet another key aspect of McNally's
+Marxism was first advocated by anarchists. As Emma Goldman noted in 1918, the
+Bolsheviks where _"adopting Anarchist Revolutionary tactics"_ and, unlike in
+1905, in 1917 they _"no longer believe"_ that _"the industrialisation of
+Russia and the historic mission of the bourgeoisie as a necessary evolutionary
+process before the Russian masses could come into their own"_ and now accepted
+_"the point of view held by the Anarchists since Bakunin; namely, that once
+the masses become conscious of their economic power, they make their own
+history"_ and so revolution _"means a fundamental social and economic change,
+something which has its roots in the needs and hopes of the people and which
+must not end until the disinherited of the earth come into their own. In a
+word, the Russian people saw in the overthrow of the autocracy the
+**beginning** and not the **finale** of the Revolution."_ For the toiler, the
+Russian Revolution _"can mean nothing . . . unless it sets the land fee and
+joins to the dethroned Tsar his partner, the dethroned land-owner, the
+capitalist."_ [_"The Truth About the Bolsheviki"_, **Writings of Emma
+Goldman**, p. 163 and p. 165]
+
+So when Victor Serge, like McNally, stated that by concluding the _"self-
+evident truth"_ that _"the Russian Revolution cannot confine itself to
+changing the political order"_ in 1917 but that it had to take in _"a social
+character"_ by expropriating capital and land he was unknowingly _"on the
+line"_ advocated by Lenin we must remember that this was not _"the line"_
+pioneered by Trotsky but rather the one raised by Kropotkin and other
+anarchists during the 1905 revolution (and rejected at the time by all
+Marxists) **and** that this had been argued for since the late 1860s by
+Bakunin and other libertarians. [**Memoirs of a Revolutionary**, p. 60]
This confusion associated with Marxist "class analysis" of anarchism was also
present in Lenin. Given that anarchism is apparently associated with the
petty-bourgeois we find a strange contradiction in Lenin's work. On the one
hand Lenin argued that Russia _"despite the more petty-bourgeois composition
-of her population as compared with the other European countries"_ had, in
-fact, _"negligible"_ anarchist influence during the two revolutions of 1905
-and 1917. He claimed that this was due to Bolshevism's having _"waged a most
-ruthless and uncompromising struggle against opportunism."_ [Marx, Engels and
-Lenin, **Op. Cit.**, p. 305]
-
-On the other he admitted that, in the developed capitalist nations, anarchists
-and syndicalists were _"quite revolutionary and connected with the masses"_
-and that it is _"the duty of all Communists to do everything to help all
+of her population as compared with the other European countries"_ anarchist
+influence was _"negligible during the two revolutions (of 1905 and 1917)"_.
+The lack of influence in Russia, he claimed, was due to Bolshevism having
+_"waged a most ruthless and uncompromising struggle against opportunism"_ for
+anarchism was _"a penalty for the opportunist sins of the working-class
+movement."_ On the other he admitted that, in the developed capitalist
+nations, syndicalism was _"a profoundly proletarian and mass movement"_ and
+that it is _"the duty of all Communists to do everything to help all
proletarian mass elements to abandon anarchism . . . the measure in which
genuinely Communist parties succeed in winning mass proletarian elements . . .
-away from anarchism, is a criterion of the success of those Parties."_ [**Op.
-Cit.**, pp. 317-8]
+away from anarchism, is a criterion of the success of those Parties."_
+[**Collected Works**, vol. 31, p. 31, p. 32, p. 200 and p. 201]
Thus, in the most capitalist nations, ones with a more widespread and
developed proletariat, the anarchist and syndicalist movements were more
firmly developed and had closer connections with the masses than in Russia.
Moreover, these movements were also quite revolutionary as well and should be
won to Bolshevism. But anarchism is the politics of the petit-bourgeois and so
-should have been non-existent in Western countries but widespread in Russia.
-The opposite was the case, thus suggesting that Lenin's analysis is wrong.
+should have been far smaller in Western countries than in Russia due to the
+larger numbers of artisans and peasants in the latter. The opposite was the
+case, thus suggesting that Lenin's analysis is wrong.
We can point to another explanation of these facts. Rather than the Bolsheviks
_"struggle against opportunism"_ being the reason why anarchism was
@@ -1697,34 +4783,35 @@ _"negligible"_ in 1917-18 in Russia (it was not, in fact) but had mass appeal
in Western Europe perhaps it was the fact that anarchism was a product of
working class struggle in advanced capitalist countries while Bolshevism was a
product of **bourgeois** struggle (for Parliament, a liberal republic, etc.)
-in Tsarist Russia?
-
-Similarly, perhaps the reason why Bolshevism did not develop opportunist
-tendencies was because it did not work in an environment which encouraged
-them. After all, unlike the German Social Democrats, the Bolsheviks were
-illegal for long periods of time and worked in an absolutist monarchy. The
-influences that corrupted the German SPD were not at work in the Tsarist
-regime. Thus, Bolshevism, perhaps at best, was applicable to Tsarist
+in Tsarist Russia? Similarly, perhaps the reason why Bolshevism did not
+develop the same opportunist tendencies as in other Social-Democratic
+movements was because it did not work in an environment which encouraged them.
+After all, unlike the German Social Democrats, the Bolsheviks were illegal for
+long periods of time and worked in an absolutist monarchy. The influences that
+corrupted the German Social Democrats were not at work in the Tsarist regime
+simply because there was no genuine Parliamentarianism for the party to get
+corrupted by. Thus, Bolshevism, perhaps at best, was applicable to Tsarist
conditions and anarchism to Western ones.
-However, as noted and contrary to Lenin, Russian anarchism was far from
-_"negligible"_ during 1917-18 and was growing which was why the Bolsheviks
-suppressed them **before** the start of the civil war. As Emma Goldman noted,
-a claim such as Lenin's _"does not tally with the incessant persecution of
-Anarchists which began in [April] 1918, when Leon Trotsky liquidated the
-Anarchist headquarters in Moscow with machine guns. At that time the process
-of elimination of the Anarchists began."_ [**Trotsky Protests Too Much**] This
-fact of anarchist influence during the revolution does not contradict our
+However, contrary to Lenin, Russian anarchism was far from _"negligible"_
+during 1917-18 and was growing in influence within the Russian working class
+which was the real reason why the Bolsheviks suppressed them **before** the
+start of the civil war. As Emma Goldman noted, a claim such as Lenin's _"does
+not tally with the incessant persecution of Anarchists which began in [April]
+1918, when Leon Trotsky liquidated the Anarchist headquarters in Moscow with
+machine guns. At that time the process of elimination of the Anarchists
+began."_ [_Trotsky Protests Too Much"_, **Writings of Emma Goldman**, p. 265]
+This fact of anarchist influence during the revolution does not contradict our
earlier analysis. This is because the Russian anarchists, rather than
appealing to the petit-bourgeois, were influencing exactly the same workers,
sailors and soldiers the Bolsheviks were. Indeed, the Bolsheviks often had to
radicalise their activities and rhetoric to counter anarchist influence. As
-Alexander Rabinowitch (in his study of the July uprising of 1917) notes:
+Alexander Rabinowitch in his study of the July uprising of 1917 notes:
> _"At the rank-and-file level, particularly within the [Petrograd] garrison
and at the Kronstadt naval base, there was in fact very little to distinguish
-Bolshevik from Anarchist. . . The Anarchist-Communists and the Bolsheviks
-competed for the support of the same uneducated, depressed. and dissatisfied
+Bolshevik from Anarchist . . . The Anarchist-Communists and the Bolsheviks
+competed for the support of the same uneducated, depressed and dissatisfied
elements of the population, and the fact is that in the summer of 1917, the
Anarchist-Communists, with the support they enjoyed in a few important
factories and regiments, possessed an undeniable capacity to influence the
@@ -1736,62 +4823,74 @@ This is hardly what would be expected if anarchism was "petit-bourgeois" as
Marxists assert.
It could, in fact, be argued that the Bolsheviks gained the support of so many
-working class people (wage slaves) during the summer of 1917 **_because they
-sounded and acted like anarchists_** and **not** like Marxists. At the time
-many considered the Bolsheviks as anarchists and one fellow Marxist (an ex-
-Bolshevik turned Menshevik) thought Lenin had _"made himself a candidate for
-one European throne that has been vacant for thirty years -- the throne of
-Bakunin!"_ [quoted by Alexander Rabinowitch, **Op. Cit.**, p. 40] As Alexander
-Berkman argues, the _"Anarchist mottoes proclaimed by the Bolsheviks did not
-fail to bring results. The masses relied to their flag."_ [**What is Communist
-Anarchism**, p. 101]
-
-Moreover, this stealing of anarchist slogans and tactics was **forced** upon
-the Bolsheviks by the working class. On Lenin's own admission, the masses of
-peasants and workers were _"a hundred times further to the left"_ than the
-Bolsheviks. Trotsky himself notes that the Bolsheviks _"lagged behind the
-revolutionary dynamic . . . The masses at the turning point were a hundred
-times to the left of the extreme left party."_ [**History of the Russian
-Revolution**, Vol. 1, p. 403f] Indeed, one leading Bolshevik stated in June,
-1917 (in response to a rise in anarchist influence), _"[b]y fencing ourselves
-off from the Anarchists, we may fence ourselves off from the masses."_ [quoted
-by Alexander Rabinowitch, **Op. Cit.**, p. 102] That, in itself, indicates the
-weakness of Lenin's class analysis of anarchism.
-
-Rather than seeing the Russian experience refute the claim that anarchism is a
+workers during the summer of 1917 **because they sounded and acted like
+anarchists** and **not** like Marxists and lost it, by the summer of 1918,
+because, once in power, they reverted to acting like Marxists and their
+centralised policies were simply not solving the problems facing the
+revolution. At the time many considered the Bolsheviks as anarchists and one
+fellow Marxist (an ex-Bolshevik turned Menshevik) thought Lenin had _"made
+himself a candidate for one European throne that has been vacant for thirty
+years -- the throne of Bakunin!"_ [quoted by Rabinowitch, **Op. Cit.**, p. 40]
+As Alexander Berkman argued, the _"Anarchist mottoes proclaimed by the
+Bolsheviks did not fail to bring results. The masses relied to their flag."_
+[**What is Anarchism?**, p. 120] Indeed, as we note in [section
+H.5.12](secH5.html#sech512), the Bolshevik party in the summer of 1917 was far
+from the disciplined vanguard party of Leninist myth and far more like a
+federation of local groups which could -- and did -- ignore the party's
+central committee and its conservatism. It was in 1918, faced with the
+realities of holding state power in the face of popular discontent and
+counter-revolution that Lenin's long desired model of a centralised, top-down,
+disciplined party came to be -- a development which contributed to the
+degeneration of the regime away from socialism and towards state capitalism.
+
+Moreover, this stealing of anarchist slogans and tactics in 1917 was
+**forced** upon the Bolsheviks by the working class. On Lenin's own admission,
+the masses of peasants and workers were _"a hundred times further to the
+left"_ than the Bolsheviks. Trotsky himself notes that the Bolsheviks _"lagged
+behind the revolutionary dynamic . . . The masses at the turning point were a
+hundred times to the left of the extreme left party."_ [**History of the
+Russian Revolution**, Vol. 1, p. 403f] Indeed, one leading Bolshevik stated in
+June 1917 (in response to a rise in anarchist influence), _"[b]y fencing
+ourselves off from the Anarchists, we may fence ourselves off from the
+masses."_ [quoted by Rabinowitch, **Op. Cit.**, p. 102] That, in itself,
+indicates the weakness of Lenin's class analysis of anarchism.
+
+Rather than the Russian experience refute the claim that anarchism is a
working class theory, it reinforces it -- the Bolsheviks would not have
-succeeded if they had used traditional Marxist slogans and tactics. Instead,
-much to the dismay of their more orthodox comrades, the Bolsheviks embraced
-traditional anarchist ideas and tactics and thereby gained increased influence
-in the working class. After the Bolshevik seizure of power in the name of the
-soviets, anarchist influence increased (see [section
-A.5.4](secA5.html#seca54)) as more working people recognised that what the
-Bolsheviks meant by their slogans was different than what working people
-thought they meant!
-
-Thus the experience of the Russian Revolution re-enforces the fact that
-Marxist "class analysis" of anarchism fails to convince. Far from proving that
-libertarian socialism is non-proletariat, that Revolution proved that it was
-(just as confirmed the prophetic correctness of the views of the founders of
-anarchism and, in particular, their critique of Marxism).
-
-The usual Marxist "class analysis" of anarchism is somewhat confused. On the
-one hand, it claims that anarchism is backward looking and the politics of the
-petit-bourgeois being destroyed by the rise and development of capitalism. On
-the other hand Marxists point to events and organisations created in working
-class struggle which were predicted and/or influenced by **anarchist** ideas
-and ideals, **not** Marxist ones. That indicates better than any other
-argument that Marxists are wrong about anarchism and their "class analysis"
-nothing more than distortions and bigotry.
-
-Based on the evidence and the contradictions it provokes in Marxist ideology,
-we have to argue that McNally is simply wrong. Rather than being an ideology
-of the petit-bourgeois anarchism is, in fact, a political theory of the
-working class (both artisans and proletariat). Rather than a backward looking
-theory, anarchism is a theory of the present and future -- it has a concrete
-and radical critique of current society and a vision of the future and a
+succeeded if they had used traditional Marxist slogans and tactics (as was the
+fate of the Mensheviks). Instead, much to the dismay of their more orthodox
+comrades, the Bolsheviks embraced traditional anarchist ideas and tactics and
+thereby gained increased influence in the working class. After the Bolshevik
+seizure of power in the name of the soviets, anarchist influence increased as
+more working people recognised that what the Bolsheviks meant by their slogans
+was different than what working people thought they meant (see [section
+A.5.4](secA5.html#seca54)). So the experience of the Russian Revolution re-
+enforces the fact that Marxist "class analysis" of anarchism fails to
+convince. Far from proving that libertarian socialism is non-proletarian, that
+Revolution proved that it was: just as it confirmed the prophetic correctness
+of the views of the founders of anarchism and, in particular, their critique
+of Marxism.
+
+To conclude, the usual Marxist "class analysis" of anarchism is somewhat
+confused. On the one hand, it claims that anarchism is backward looking and
+the politics of the petit-bourgeois being destroyed by the rise and
+development of capitalism. On the other hand Marxists point to events and
+organisations created in working class struggle which were predicted and/or
+influenced by **anarchist** ideas and ideals, **not** Marxist ones. That
+indicates better than any other argument that Marxists are wrong about
+anarchism and their "class analysis" nothing more than distortions and
+bigotry. Based on the evidence and the contradictions it provokes in Marxist
+ideology, we have to argue that McNally is simply wrong. Rather than being an
+ideology of the petit-bourgeois anarchism is, in fact, a political theory of
+the working class (artisans, peasants and proletariat). Rather than a backward
+looking theory, anarchism is a theory of the present and future -- it has a
+concrete and radical critique of current society, a vision of the future and a
theory how to get there which appeals to working people in struggle. Such is
-obviously the case when reading anarchist theory.
+obviously the conclusion when you read anarchist theory and see how Marxists
+have appropriated aspects of it which they had previously denounced. Sadly, as
+we note in [section H.3.5](secH3.html#sech35), this appropriation has been
+selective and had not made Leninism any more libertarian, its pre-revolution
+rhetoric aside.
## 13\. If Marxism is _"socialism from below,"_ why do anarchists reject it?
@@ -1806,23 +4905,28 @@ restore to socialism its democratic essence, its passionate concern with human
freedom."_
So, if this is the case, why the hostility between anarchists and Marxists?
-Surely it is a question of semantics? No, for while Marxists pay lip-service
+Surely it is a question of semantics? No, for while Leninists pay lip-service
to such developments of working class self-activity and self-organisation as
workers' councils (soviets), factory committees, workers' control, revocable
and mandated delegates they do so in order to ensure the election of their
party into positions of power (i.e. the government). Rather than see such
developments as working people's **direct** management of their own destinies
-(as anarchists do) and as a means of creating a self-managed (i.e. free)
-society, Marxists see them as a means for their party to take over state
-power. Nor do they see them as a framework by which working class people can
-take back control of their own lives. Rather, they see them, at best, as
-typical bourgeois forms -- namely the means by which working people can
-delegate their power to a new group of leaders, i.e. as a means to elect a
-socialist government into power.
-
-This attitude can be seen from Lenin's perspectives on the Russian soviets.
-Rather than seeing them as a means of working class self-government, he saw
-them purely as a means of gaining influence for his party. In his own words:
+and as a means of creating a self-managed (i.e. free) society as anarchists
+do, Leninists see them as a means for their party to take over state power.
+Nor do they see them as a framework by which working class people can take
+back control of their own lives. Rather, they see them, at best, as typical
+bourgeois forms -- namely the means by which working people can delegate their
+power to a new group of leaders, i.e. as a means to elect a socialist
+government into power. The nature of the regimes they wish to create are
+centralised in nature, so reducing meaningful democracy to picking a few
+leaders and, even worse, producing the natural conditions under which a
+bureaucracy can flourish -- both conditions for creating a new ruling elite
+(the bureaucracy).
+
+This attitude can be seen from Lenin's perspectives on the Russian soviets
+during the 1905 Russian Revolution. Rather than seeing them as a means of
+working class self-government, he saw them purely as a means of gaining
+influence for his party:
> _"the Party . . . has never renounced its intention of utilising certain
non-party organisations, such as the Soviets of Workers' Deputies . . . to
@@ -1833,8 +4937,7 @@ as Soviets . . . for the purpose of developing the Social-Democratic movement;
at the same time the Social-Democratic Party organisations must bear in mind
if Social-Democratic activities among the proletarian masses are properly,
effectively and widely organised, such institutions may actually become
-superfluous."_ [Marx, Engels and Lenin, **Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism**,
-pp. 209-10]
+superfluous."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 12, pp. 143-4]
Such a perspective indicates well the difference between anarchism and
Leninism. Anarchists do not seek power for their own organisations. Rather
@@ -1843,119 +4946,407 @@ as a means of eliminating hierarchy within society, of directly involving the
mass of people in the decisions that affect them. In other words, as a means
of creating the organisations through which people can change both themselves
and the world by their own direct action and the managing of their own
-struggles, lives, communities and workplaces. For Leninists, view working
-class self-organisation as a means of gaining power for their own party (which
-they identify with the power of the working class). Mass organisations, which
-could be schools for self-management and freedom, are instead subjected to an
-elitist leadership of intellectual ideologues. The party soon substitutes
-itself for the mass movement, and the party leadership substitutes itself the
-party.
-
-Despite its radical language, Leninism is totally opposed to the nature of
-revolt, rebellion and revolution. It seeks to undermine what makes these
-organisations and activities revolutionary (their tendencies towards self-
-management, decentralisation, solidarity, direct action, free activity and co-
-operation) by using them to build their party and, ultimately, a centralised,
-hierarchical state structure on the corpse of these once revolutionary forms
-of working class self-organisation and self-activity.
+struggles, lives, communities and workplaces. Leninists view working class
+self-organisation as a means of gaining power for their own party (which they
+identify with the power of the working class -- see [section
+H.3.11](secH3.html#sech311)). Mass organisations, which could be schools for
+self-management and freedom, are instead subjected to an elitist leadership of
+intellectual ideologues. The party soon substitutes itself for the mass
+movement, and the party leadership substitutes itself the party. This is the
+inevitable result of a vision of socialism rooted in being _"fully and
+unreservedly in favour of a strong state power and of centralism."_ [**Op.
+Cit.**, vol. 26, p. 116]
Lenin's view of the soviets was instrumental: he regarded them merely as a
-means for educating the working class (i.e. of getting them to support the
-Bolshevik Party) and enlisting them in the service of his party. Indeed, he
-constantly confused soviet power with party power, seeing the former as the
-means to the latter and the latter as the key to creating socialism. What is
-missing from his vision is the idea of socialism as being based on working
-class self-activity, self-management and self-government (_"Lenin believed
-that the transition to socialism was guaranteed ultimately, not by the self-
-activity of workers, but by the 'proletarian' character of state power."_ [A.
-S. Smith, **Red Petrograd**, pp. 261-2] And the 'proletarian' character of the
-state was determined by the party in government). And this gap in his
-politics, this confusion of party with class, which helped undermine the
-revolution and create the dictatorship of the bureaucracy. Little wonder that
-by the end of 1918, the Bolsheviks ruled the newly established soviet state
-entirely alone and had turned the soviets into docile instruments of their
-party apparatus rather than forms of working class self-government.
-
-For Lenin and other Bolsheviks the party of the proletariat, that is,
-**their** party, must strive to monopolise political power, if only to
-safeguard the proletarian character of the revolution. This follows naturally
-from Lenin's vanguardist politics (see [section 11](append31.html#app11)). As
-the working class people cannot achieve anything bar a trade union
-consciousness by their own efforts, it would be insane for the Party to let
-them govern directly. In the words of Lenin:
+means of getting the workers to support the Bolshevik Party and ensuring his
+party seized state power. Indeed, he constantly confused soviet power with
+party power, seeing the former as the means to the latter and the latter as
+the key to creating socialism (see [section H.3.11](secH3.html#sech311)).
+Given his vanguardist ideology (see [section H.5](secH5.html)) this is
+unsurprising and, indeed, understandable -- flawed assumptions will produce
+incorrect conclusions. What is missing from his vision is the idea of
+socialism as being based on working class self-activity, self-management,
+self-government and, ultimately, self-emancipation ([section
+11](append31.html#app11) refutes McNally's claims that Leninism is based on
+working class self-emanicipation). _"Lenin"_ as one historian concluded,
+_"believed that the transition to socialism was guaranteed ultimately, not by
+the self-activity of workers, but by the 'proletarian' character of state
+power."_ [A. S. Smith, **Red Petrograd**, pp. 261-2] Worse, the 'proletarian'
+character of the state was determined by the party in government and, as we
+indicated in [section 8](append31.html#app8), the party determined what was
+and was not "proletarian" so allowing -- indeed, justifying -- party
+dictatorship. This gap in his politics, this confusion of party with class,
+helped undermine the revolution and create the dictatorship of the
+bureaucracy. Little wonder that by the end of 1918, the Bolsheviks ruled the
+newly established soviet state entirely alone and had turned the soviets into
+docile instruments of their party apparatus rather than forms of working class
+self-government. Perhaps needless to say, this reality came to be reflected in
+Bolshevik ideology and the assertion that a socialist revolution required a
+party dictatorship was embedded into it at this time -- where it remained
+(Trotsky, for example, arguing this position throughout the 1920s and 1930s,
+as shown in [section 15](append31.html#app15)).
+
+So despite its radical language, Leninism is totally opposed to the nature of
+revolt and rebellion. It seeks to undermine what makes these activities and
+the organisations they create potentially revolutionary (their tendencies
+towards self-management, decentralisation, solidarity, direct action, free
+activity and co-operation) by using them to build the party and, ultimately, a
+centralised, hierarchical state structure on the corpse of these once
+revolutionary forms of working class self-organisation and self-activity. This
+applies both to the social organisations of the working class **and** to their
+economic ones as Leninists view nationalisation (i.e., state ownership and
+control) as the basis of socialism rather than, as anarchists do,
+socialisation and workers self-management of production. The Leninist position
+can only produce a new ruling class (the bureaucracy) in a new class system
+(state capitalism). As Kropotkin predicted:
+
+> _"The state organisation, having always been . . . the instrument for
+establishing monopolies in favour of the ruling minorities, cannot be made to
+work for the destruction of these monopolies. The anarchists consider,
+therefore, that to hand over to the state all the main sources of economical
+life -- the land, the mines, the railways, banking, insurance, and so on -- as
+also the management of all the main branches of industry, in addition to all
+the functions already accumulated in its hands (education, state-supported
+religions, defence of the territory, etc.), would mean to create a new
+instrument of tyranny. State capitalism would only increase the powers of
+bureaucracy and capitalism. True progress lies in the direction of
+decentralisation, both **territorial** and **functional**, in the development
+of the spirit of local and personal initiative, and of free federation from
+the simple to the compound, in lieu of the present hierarchy from the centre
+to the periphery."_ [**Direct Struggle Against Capital**, pp. 164-5]
+
+While Leninists point to Lenin's **The State and Revolution** as proof of
+Leninism's "socialism from below" credentials, anarchists note that, firstly,
+its promises were either not applied or quickly abandoned and, secondly, its
+vision of socialism is impoverished. As we discuss the first objection in
+[section H.1.7](secH1.html#sech17), we will note here that Lenin's work
+postulated a centralised proletarian state rooted in representative rather
+than delegate institutions as well as a "socialism" modelled on capitalist
+institutions which the workers were expected to "control" rather than self-
+management of production. Thus Lenin's pointing to the postal service, in
+which workers are usually employed by the State under capitalism, as _"an
+example of the socialist economic system"_ and argued that we needed to
+_"organise the whole economy on the lines of the postal service"_ simply
+transferred economic power to the state bureaucracy. [**Collected Works**,
+vol. 25 pp. 426-7] Anarchists, in contrast, argue that working class bodies
+like trade unions must take into their _"hands the management of production"_
+and co-operatives _"for production and for distribution, both in industry and
+agriculture"_ were expressing aspects of _"communist society"_ for _"Socialist
+forms of life could find a much easier realisation"_ by means of these bodies
+_"than by a State organisation"_. [**The Conquest of Bread**, pp. 22-23] As
+Maurice Brinton documents in great detail in his classic **The Bolsheviks and
+Workers' Control**, the Leninist vision of socialism was never based on
+workers management of the economy (see [section H.3.14](secH3.html#sech314)).
+Politically, the Bolsheviks placed an executive power (their own) over the
+soviets and so centralised power into the hands of a few party leaders.
+
+So as well as differences in the **political** nature of a socialist society,
+the role of organisations created in, by and for the class struggle and the
+nature of socialist organisation, anarchists and Marxists disagree with the
+**economic** nature of the future society. McNally claims that in Russia
+_"[c]ontrol of the factories was taken over by the workers"_ but this is a
+total distortion of what actually happened. Throughout 1917, it was the
+workers themselves, **not** the Bolshevik Party, which raised the issue of
+workers' self-management and control. As S.A. Smith puts it, the _"factory
+committees launched the slogan of workers' control of production quite
+independently of the Bolshevik party. It was not until May that the party
+began to take it up."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 154] Given that the defining aspect
+of capitalism is wage labour, the Russian workers' raised a clearly socialist
+demand that entailed its abolition. It was the Bolshevik party, we must note,
+who failed to raise above a _"trade union conscious"_ in this and so many
+other cases and, worse, they hindered the movement of workers trying to
+control, and then manage, the factories they worked in. As Maurice Brinton
+correctly argued, _"it is ridiculous to claim -- as so many do today -- that
+in 1917 the Bolsheviks really stood for the full, total and direct control by
+working people of the factories, mines, building sites or other enterprises in
+which they worked, i.e. that they stood for workers' self-management."_ [_"The
+Bolsheviks and Workers' Control"_, **For Workers' Power**, p. 328] Rather,
+Lenin identified _"workers' control"_ as something totally different:
+
+> _"When we say: 'workers' control', always **juxtaposing** this slogan to
+dictatorship of the proletariat, always putting it **immediately after** the
+latter, we thereby explain what kind of state we mean . . . if we are speaking
+of a proletarian state, that is, of the proletarian dictatorship, then
+workers' control can become the country-wide, all-embracing, omnipresent, most
+precise and most conscientious **accounting** of the production and
+distribution of goods."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 26, p. 105]
+
+By this Lenin meant the "power" to oversee the books, to check the
+implementation of decisions made by others, rather than fundamental decision
+making by the workers themselves. As he argued, when _"the proletariat is
+victorious it will do the following, it will set economists, engineers,
+agronomists, and so forth, to work **under the control** of the workers'
+organisations on drawing up a 'plan', on verifying it, on devising labour-
+saving methods of centralisation, on devising the simplest, cheapest, most
+convenient and universal measures and methods of control. For this we shall
+pay the economists, statisticians and technicians good money . . . but we
+shall not give them anything to eat if they do not perform this work
+conscientiously and entirely **in the interests of the working people**."_
+_"The important thing,"_ he stressed _"will not be even the confiscation of
+the capitalists' property, but country-wide, all-embracing workers' control
+over the capitalists and their possible supporters . . . by the workers'
+control of the **workers' state**."_ The economy would be state-run based on
+the structures inherited from capitalism: _"**Compulsory syndication**, i.e.,
+compulsory amalgamation in associations under state control -- this is what
+capitalism has prepared the way for"_ [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 26, p. 118, pp.
+107-8 and p. 108] Thus others -- a few planners at the top of a centralised
+state -- would determine the plans, not the workers themselves, and primarily
+the "control" would be exercised over the capitalists whom Lenin thought
+should remain in position for an indefinite period after the revolution.
+Rather than workers' managing their own workplaces and economy Leninism meant
+_"the organisation of really democratic control, i.e., control from 'below',
+control by the workers and the poor peasants **over** the capitalists"_ [**Op.
+Cit.**, vol. 25, p.353] Unsurprisingly, then, in 1922, he even suggested
+granting legislative power to the State Planning Commission to ensure its
+decisions _"could not be rejected by ordinary procedure in Soviet bodies, but
+would need a special procedure to be reconsidered"_ as it was _"a body of
+experienced people, experts, representatives of science and technology"_ and
+so was _"actually in a better position to form a correct judgment of
+affairs"_. [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 36, p. 598]
+
+So Lenin's commitment to workers' control was limited and as Maurice Brinton
+correctly summarised:
+
+> _"Nowhere in Lenin's writings is workers' control ever equated with
+fundamental decision-taking (i.e. with the **initiation** of decisions)
+relating to production . . . He envisioned a period during which, in a workers
+state, the bourgeois would still retain the formal ownership and effective
+management of most of the productive apparatus . . . capitalists would be
+coerced into co-operation. 'Workers' control' was seen as the instrument of
+this coercion."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 314-5]
-> _"Syndicalism hands over to the mass of non-Party workers . . . the
-management of their industries . . . thereby making the Party superfluous. . .
-Why have a Party, if industrial management is to be appointed . . . by trade
-unions nine-tenths of whose members are non-Party workers?"_ [**Op. Cit.**,
-pp. 319-20]
+Thus the capitalists would remain and wage slavery would continue but workers
+could "control" those who had the real power and gave the orders (the
+capitalists were later replaced by "one-man management" by state bureaucrats
+but the lack of effective power remained -- see [section
+H.3.14](secH3.html#sech314)). In other words, no vision of workers' self-
+management in production (and so real socialism) and the reduction of
+"socialism" to a warmed up variation of state capitalism with (in theory, but
+not in practice) a dash of liberal democracy in the form of "control" of those
+with the real power by those under them in the hierarchy. This is to be
+expected because, as S.A. Smith correctly argues, Lenin's proposals were
+_"thoroughly statist and centralist in character"_ and that he used _"the term
+['workers' control'] in a very different sense from that of the factory
+committees."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 154] As can be seen from McNally's pamphlet,
+Leninists still follow this tradition and hide the grim reality that their
+tradition advocates an economic regime drastically different from the workers'
+self-management their words imply to most readers. Using the same slogans as
+others ("workers' control" or "socialism from below", for example) but meaning
+something radically different by it can only bred confusion.
->
+Given Lenin's lack of concern about the revolutionising of the relations of
+production (a lack not shared by the Russian workers, we must stress) it is
+hardly surprising that Lenin considered the first task of the Bolshevik
+revolution was to build state capitalism. _"State capitalism,"_ he wrote, _"is
+a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a
+rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism
+there are no gaps"_. [**Collected Works**, vol. 24, p. 259] The aim was to
+ensure that _"**[a]ll** citizens are transformed into hired employees of the
+state"_ and the _"whole of society will have become a single office and a
+single factory, with equality of labour and pay."_ [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 25, pp.
+473-4] For Lenin, the _"domination of the proletariat consists in the fact
+that the landowners and capitalists have been deprived of their property . . .
+The victorious proletariat has abolished property . . . and therein lies its
+domination as a class. The prime thing is the question of property."_ [**Op.
+Cit.**, vol. 30, p. 456] Hence his support for centralisation and _"one-man
+management"_ \-- if the issue is property then working class power **in
+production** cannot be considered as a necessary condition for socialism.
+Little wonder Soviet Russia never progressed beyond state capitalism -- it
+could not as the fundamental aspect of capitalism, wage labour, was never
+replaced by workers' self-management of production. Lenin, in short, was
+firmly in the same tradition as those _"certain utopians"_ whose call that
+_"the Government seize trade, industry and agriculture, to add them to its
+attributes and to make the French nation a nation of wage-workers"_ Proudhon
+rejected during the 1848 revolution as _"expropriation by the State"_ was
+_"still wage-labour."_ [**Property is Theft!**, p. 22 and p. 377]
+
+Writing in May 1917, Lenin took the viewpoint that state capitalism _"is a
+complete **material** preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism"_
+and so socialism _"is nothing but the next step forward from state capitalist
+monopoly."_ It is _"merely state-capitalist monopoly **which is made to serve
+the interests of the whole people** and has to that extent **ceased** to be
+capitalist monopoly."_ [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 25, p. 359 and p. 358] Rather than
+seeing _"workers' control"_ as workers managing production directly by means
+of their own class organisations, he always saw it in terms of workers'
+_"controlling"_ those who did within institutions inherited from capitalism.
+It simply meant _"the country-wide, all-embracing, omnipresent, most precise
+and most conscientious **accounting** of the production and distribution of
+goods."_ He clarified what he meant, arguing for _"country-wide, all-embracing
+workers' control over the capitalists"_ who would still manage production.
+Significantly, he considered that _"as much as nine-tenths of the
+**socialist** apparatus"_ required for this _"country-wide **book-keeping,**
+country-wide **accounting** of the production and distribution of goods"_
+would be achieved by nationalising the _"big banks,"_ which _"**are** the
+'state apparatus' which we **need** to bring about socialism"_ (indeed, this
+was considered _"something in the nature of the **skeleton** of socialist
+society"_). This structure would be taken intact from capitalism for _"the
+modern state possesses an apparatus which has extremely close connection with
+the banks and [business] syndicates . . . this apparatus must not, and should
+not, be smashed."_ [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 26, p. 105, p. 107, p. 106 and pp.
+105-6] He had no real notion of workers' self-management of production nor of
+the impossibilities of combining the centralised state capitalist system with
+its big banks, monopolies, big business with genuine rank and file control,
+never mind self-management.
+
+As discussed in [section H.6.2](secH6.html#sech362), this was what the
+Bolsheviks **did** do, using the institutions inherited from Tsarism as
+framework for "socialism". They believed that this economic structure would be
+made to serve the many rather than the few by a change in the political regime
+for _"given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state-monopoly capitalism
+inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards
+socialism!"_ [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 25, pp. 357-8] Yet a centralised state (never
+mind party dictatorship!) is hardly _"a really revolutionary-democratic"_
+anything other than in Bolshevik rhetoric. Surely, then, such an centralised
+economic structure would simply become a step, and more than a step, towards
+rule by the bureaucracy? And, sadly, that was the case so confirming anarchist
+warnings that state socialism would produce a new class system with the
+bureaucracy replacing the capitalist elite.
+
+Yet even this is too generous, given the two obvious flaws in Lenin's
+position. First, in-so-far-as a social organisation **is** _"revolutionary-
+democratic"_ then it is **not** a state and, as Lenin's regime showed, any new
+state will not remain so for long. Second, Lenin seems to have forgotten the
+Marxist theory of base and superstructure. The base is the economic forces and
+relations of production while the superstructure is the culture, institutions
+and state. In Marxist theory, while some mutual influences are sometimes
+admitted, the base determines the superstructure. Given this, surely an
+economic structure created under a class system would be far more likely to
+produce an undemocratic superstructure (state) than the opposite? Surely a
+centralised economic structure would produce concentrations of economic and
+bureaucratic power and so it would be far more consistent for a Marxist to
+suggest a centralised economic base (and _"state-monopoly capitalism"_ can be
+nothing less) would produce an equally centralised political superstructure
+(state)? And so it came to be -- _"state-monopoly capitalism"_ inevitably and
+unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards a new class system
+(state-capitalism) rather than a classless one (socialism). Although, to be
+fair to Lenin, Marx and Engels were equally untroubled by this danger and did
+not draw this obvious conclusion. Anarchists were not so naive. As Alexander
+Berkman correctly argued:
-> _"Does every worker know how to run the state? . . . this is not true . . .
-If we say that it is not the Party but the trade unions that put up the
-candidates and administrate, it may sound very democratic . . . It will be
-fatal for the dictatorship of the proletariat."_ [**Op. Cit.** p. 322]
-
->
-
-> _"To govern you need an army of steeled revolutionary Communists. We have
-it, and it is called the Party. All this syndicalist nonsense about mandatory
-nominations of producers must go into the wastepaper basket. To proceed on
-those lines would mean thrusting the Party aside and making the dictatorship
-of the proletariat . . . impossible."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 323]
-
-In other words, giving the proletariat the power to elect their own managers
-means to destroy the _"dictatorship"_ of the proletariat! Lenin clearly places
-the power of the party above the ability of working people to elect their own
-representatives and managers. And McNally claims that his tradition aims at
-_"workers' power"_ and a _"direct and active democracy"_!
-
-Lenin's belief that working class people could not liberate themselves (see
-[section 11](append31.html#app11)) explains his continual emphasis on
-**representative** democracy and centralism -- simply put, the party must have
-power **over** the working class as that class could not be trusted to make
-the right decisions (i.e. know what its "real" interests were). At best they
-would be allowed to vote for the government, but even this right could be
-removed if they voted for the wrong people (see [ section
-8](append31.html#app8)). For Leninists, revolutionary consciousness is not
-generated by working class self-activity in the class struggle, but is
-embodied in the party (_"Since there can there can be no talk of an
-independent ideology being developed by the masses of the workers in the
-process of their movement **the only choice is**: either bourgeois or
-socialist ideology"_ [Lenin, **The Essential Works of Lenin**, 82]). The
-important issues facing the working class are to be determined not by the
-workers ourselves, but by the leadership of the party, who are the (self
-appointed) _"vanguard of the proletariat"_. The nature of the relationship
-between the party and the working class is clear, however, we remain incapable
-of achieving revolutionary consciousness and have to be led by the vanguard.
+> _"The role of industrial decentralisation in the revolution is unfortunately
+too little appreciated . . . Most people are still in the thraldom of the
+Marxian dogma that centralisation is 'more efficient and economical.' They
+close their eyes to the fact that the alleged 'economy' is achieved at the
+cost of the workers' limb and life, that the 'efficiency' degrades him to a
+mere industrial cog, deadens his soul, kills his body. Furthermore, in a
+system of centralisation the administration of industry becomes constantly
+merged in fewer hands, producing a powerful bureaucracy of industrial
+overlords. It would indeed be the sheerest irony if the revolution were to aim
+at such a result. It would mean the creation of a new master class."_ [**What
+is Anarchism?**, p. 229]
+
+The Leninist "vision" of the future socialist economy is one of a highly
+centralised organisation, modelled on capitalism, in which, at best, workers
+can supervise the decisions made by others and "control" those in power. It is
+a vision of a more democratic corporate structure, with the workers replacing
+the shareholders. In practice, it would be a new bureaucracy exploiting and
+oppressing those who do the actual work -- as in private capitalism -- simply
+because capitalist economic structures are designed to empower the few over
+the many. Like the capitalist state, they cannot be used by the working class
+to achieve their liberation (they are not created for the mass participation
+that real socialism requires, quite the reverse in fact). Sadly, Lenin failed
+to understand this and called the centralised, bureaucratic monstrosity the
+Bolsheviks created "socialism".
+
+In contrast, anarchists view the socialist economy as being based on workers'
+self-management of production and the workplace turned into an association of
+equals. Above the individual workplace, federations of factory committees
+would co-ordinate activities and ensure wide scale co-operation is achieved.
+Thus anarchists see a **new** form of economic structure developing, one based
+on workers' organisations created in the process of struggle **against**
+capitalism. Rather than embrace bourgeois notions of "democracy" (i.e. the
+election of leaders into positions of power) like Marxists do, anarchists
+dissolve hierarchical power by promoting workers' self-management and
+association. While Marxism ends up as state capitalism pure and simple (as can
+be seen by the experience of Russia under Lenin and then Stalin) anarchism
+destroys the fundamental social relation of capitalism -- wage labour -- via
+association and workers' self-management of production.
+
+So while both Leninists and anarchists claim to support factory committees and
+"workers' control" we have decidedly different notions of what we mean by
+this. The Leninists see them as a means of workers' to supervise (a closer
+translation of the Russian expression) those who have the real power in the
+economy and so perpetuate wage slavery with the state replacing the
+capitalist. Anarchists, in contrast, see them as a means of expressing workers
+self-organisation, self-management and self-government -- as a means of
+abolishing wage slavery and so capitalism by eliminating hierarchical
+authority. The difference could not be more striking. Indeed, it would be
+correct to state that the Leninist tradition is not, in fact, socialist as it
+identifies socialism as the natural development of capitalism and **not** as a
+new form of economy which will develop **away** from capitalism by means of
+associated labour and workers' self-management of production (see [section
+H.3.12](secH3.html#sech312)).
+
+So anarchists and Leninism may often use similar words and expressions but
+they aim for different things. Leninists seek party power over a state
+capitalist economy and favour centralised political and economic structures.
+Sadly, they seem unaware that this will simply generate a new ruling class,
+the bureaucracy as centralised structures mean placing power at the top of
+society. The new layer of rulers this produces need the means to enforce their
+decisions and to gather and process the information needed to make their
+decisions, which is why bureaucracy grows. However, by the nature of
+bureaucracy the servants of the government quickly become the masters due to
+their control over information, resources and so on. This is why anarchists
+advocate federalism, to combat the obvious dangers of centralisation. The
+Bolshevik regime confirmed the wisdom of the libertarian position as the new
+state soon saw a new bureaucratic system quickly emerge around it. The size
+and power of the bureaucracy _"grew by leaps and bounds. Control over the new
+bureaucracy constantly diminished, partly because no genuine opposition
+existed. The alienation between 'people' and 'officials,' which the soviet
+system was supposed to remove, was back again. Beginning in 1918, complaints
+about 'bureaucratic excesses,' lack of contact with voters, and new
+proletarian bureaucrats grew louder and louder."_ [Oskar Anweiler, **The
+Soviets**, p. 242] So the rise of a state bureaucracy started immediately with
+the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks, particularly as the state's functions
+grew to include economic as well as political ones. Instead of the state
+starting to "wither away" it grew:
+
+> _"The old state's political apparatus was 'smashed,' but in its place a new
+bureaucratic and centralised system emerged with extraordinary rapidity. After
+the transfer of government to Moscow in March 1918 it continued to expand . .
+. As the functions of the state expanded so did the bureaucracy, and by August
+1918 nearly a third of Moscow's working population were employed in offices.
+The great increase in the number of employees . . . took place in early to
+mid-1918 and, thereafter, despite many campaigns to reduce their number, they
+remained a steady proportion of the falling population"_ [Richard Sakwa, _"The
+Commune State in Moscow in 1918,"_ pp. 429-449, **Slavic Review**, vol. 46,
+no. 3/4, pp. 437-8]
+
+While Lenin started to be concerned about the growth of the bureaucracy after
+1920 and Trotsky argued that the Stalinist regime rested on this caste,
+neither had the theoretical framework to understand exactly why and how the
+centralisation and statist structures they favoured produced the bureaucracy
+they denounced. By not understanding the need for federalism they ensured that
+the socialistic tendencies being built by the Russian people were crushed
+under the weight of the bureaucratic machine which centralisation needs to
+function. That this bureaucracy soon became the ruling class is as
+unsurprising as Trotsky's inability to recognise the state capitalist nature
+of Stalinism (nor his and Lenin's role in producing such a regime in the first
+place).
Russia, Lenin once said, _"was accustomed to being ruled by 150 000 land
-owners. Why can 240 000 Bolsheviks not take over the task?"_ [**Collected
-Works**, Vol. 21, p. 336] The idea of socialism as working class self-
-management and self-government was lost on him -- and the possibility **real**
-socialism was soon lost to the Russian working class when the Tsar was
-replaced by the autocratic the rule of the Bolshevik Party. _"Workers' power"_
-cannot be identified or equated with the power of the Party -- as it
-repeatedly was by the Bolsheviks (and Social Democrats before them).
-
-Thus Malatesta's comments:
-
-> _"The important, fundamental dissension [between anarchists and Marxists] is
-[that] . . . [Marxist] socialists are authoritarians, anarchists are
-libertarians.
-
->
-
-> "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."_ [**Life and Ideas**, p. 142]
-
-Anarchists seek to influence people by the power of our ideas within popular
-organisations. We see such organisations as the means by which working people
-can take control of their own lives and start to create a free, libertarian
-socialist society. A self-managed society can only be created by self-
+owners. Why can 240 000 Bolsheviks not take over the task?"_ [**Op. Cit.**,
+vol. 21, p. 336] The idea of socialism as working class self-management and
+self-government was lost on him -- and the possibility **real** socialism was
+soon lost to the Russian working class when the Tsar was replaced by the
+autocratic the rule of the Bolshevik Party. _"Workers' power"_ cannot be
+identified or equated with the power of the Party -- as it repeatedly was by
+the Bolsheviks (and Social Democrats before them).
+
+Thus Malatesta's comments that the _"important, fundamental dissension"_
+between anarchists and Marxists is that the latter _"are authoritarians,
+anarchists are libertarians._ Marxists _"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."_
+[**Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, p. 142] Therefore anarchists seek
+to influence people by the power of our ideas within popular organisations. We
+see such organisations as the means by which working people can take control
+of their own lives and start to create a free, libertarian socialist society
+-- in other words, as we sketch in [section I.2.3](secI2.html#seci23), the
+structures of a free society are created in the struggle against hierarchy
+today and, moreover, people become able to govern themselves by the very
+process of that struggle. A self-managed society can only be created by self-
management, in short, and any tendencies to undermine popular self-management
in favour of hierarchical power of a party will subvert a revolution and
create an end drastically at odds with the ideals of those who take part in
@@ -1972,12 +5363,13 @@ specialists and the acquiescent and largely powerless party workers. And that
elitist power relation is extended to include the relationship between the
party and class."_ [**Carry on Recruiting!**, p. 41]
-Such an organisation can never create a socialist society. In contrast,
-anarchists argue that socialist organisations should reflect as much as
-possible the future society we are aiming to create. To build organisations
-which are statist/capitalistic in structure cannot do other than reproduce the
-very problems of capitalism/statism into them and so undermine their
-liberatory potential. As Murray Bookchin puts it:
+As we discuss in [section H.5.9](secH5.html#sech59), such an organisation can
+**never** create a socialist society. In contrast, anarchists argue that
+socialist organisations should reflect as much as possible the future society
+we are aiming to create (see [section H.1.6](secH1.html#sech16). To build
+organisations which are statist/capitalistic in structure cannot do other than
+reproduce the very problems of statism/capitalism into them and so undermine
+their liberatory potential. As Murray Bookchin put it:
> _"The 'glorious party,' when there is one, almost invariably lags behind the
events . . . In the beginning . . . it tends to have an inhibitory function,
@@ -1990,11 +5382,9 @@ command, authority, manipulation . . . Its leaders . . . lose contact with the
living situation below. The local groups, which know their own immediate
situation better than any remote leaders, are obliged to subordinate their
insights to directives from above. The leadership, lacking any direct
-knowledge of local problems, responds sluggishly and prudently. . .
-
->
+knowledge of local problems, responds sluggishly and prudently . . ._
-> "The party becomes less efficient from a revolutionary point of view the
+> _"The party becomes less efficient from a revolutionary point of view the
more it seeks efficiency by means of hierarchy, cadres and centralisation.
Although everyone marches in step, the orders are usually wrong, especially
when events begin to move rapidly and take unexpected turns -- as they do in
@@ -2005,7 +5395,7 @@ bureaucracy, centralisation and the state. It fosters the very social
conditions which justify this kind of society. Hence, instead of 'withering
away,' the state controlled by the 'glorious party' preserves the very
conditions which 'necessitate' the existence of a state -- and a party to
-'guard' it."_ [**Post-Scarcity Anarchism**, pp. 194-198]
+'guard' it."_ [**Post-Scarcity Anarchism**, pp. 123-6]
As we argue in [section J.3](secJ3.html), anarchists do not reject the need
for political organisations (anarchist groups, federations and so on) to work
@@ -2013,305 +5403,352 @@ in mass movements and in revolutionary situations. However, we do reject the
Leninist idea of a vanguard party as being totally inappropriate for the needs
of a social revolution -- a revolution that aims to create a free society.
-In addition to this difference in the **political** nature of a socialist
-society, the role of organisations created in, by and for the class struggle
-and the nature of socialist organisation, anarchists and Marxists disagree
-with the **economic** nature of the future society.
-
-McNally claims that in Russia _"[c]ontrol of the factories was taken over by
-the workers"_ but this is a total distortion of what actually happened.
-Throughout 1917, it was the workers themselves, **not** the Bolshevik Party,
-which raised the issue of workers' self-management and control. As S.A. Smith
-puts it, the _"factory committees launched the slogan of workers' control of
-production quite independently of the Bolshevik party. It was not until May
-that the party began to take it up."_ [**Red Petrograd**, p. 154] Given that
-the defining aspect of capitalism is wage labour, the Russian workers' raised
-a clearly socialist demand that entailed its abolition. It was the Bolshevik
-party, we must note, who failed to raise above a _"trade union conscious"_ in
-this and so many other cases.
-
-In reality, the Bolsheviks themselves hindered the movement of workers trying
-to control, and then manage, the factories they worked in. As Maurice Brinton
-correctly argued, _"it is ridiculous to claim -- as so many do today -- that
-in 1917 the Bolsheviks really stood for the full, total and direct control by
-working people of the factories, mines, building sites or other enterprises in
-which they worked, i.e. that they stood for workers' self-management."_ [**The
-Bolsheviks and Workers' Control**, p. 27] Rather, Lenin identified _"workers'
-control"_ as something totally different:
-
-> _"When we speak of 'workers control,' always placing this cry side by side
-with the dictatorship of the proletariat . . . we make clear thereby what
-State we have in mind . . . if we have in mind a proletarian State -- that is,
-the dictatorship of the proletariat -- then the workers' control can become a
-national, all-embracing, universally realisable, most exact and most
-conscientious regulating of the production and distribution of goods."_ [**Can
-the Bolsheviks Maintain State Power?**, pp. 46-7]
-
-By _"regulation"_ Lenin meant the "power" to oversee the books, to check the
-implementation of decisions made by others, rather than fundamental decision
-making. As he argued, _"the economists, engineers, agricultural experts and so
-on . . . [will] work out plans under the control of the workers' organisations
-. . . We are in favour of centralisation."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 78-9] Thus
-others would determine the plans, not the workers themselves. As Brinton
-states, _"[n]owhere in Lenin's writings is workers' control ever equated with
-fundamental decision-taking (i.e. with the **initiation** of decisions)
-relating to production . . . He envisioned a period during which, in a workers
-state, the bourgeois would still retain the formal ownership and effective
-management of most of the productive apparatus . . . capitalists would be
-coerced into co-operation. 'Workers' control' was seen as the instrument of
-this coercion."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 12-13] In Lenin's own words, _"[t]here is
-no other way . . . than . . . organisation of really democratic control, i.e.
-control 'from below,' of the workers and poorest peasants **over** the
-capitalists."_ [**The Threatening Catastrophe and how to avoid it**, p. 33]
-
-Thus the capitalists would remain and wage slavery would continue but workers
-could "control" those who had the real power and gave the orders (the
-capitalists were later replaced by state bureaucrats though the lack of
-effective control remained). In other words, no vision of workers' self-
-management in production (and so real socialism) and the reduction of
-"socialism" to a warmed up variation of state capitalism with (in theory, but
-not in practice) a dash of liberal democracy in the form of "control" of those
-with the real power by those under them in the hierarchy.
-
-S.A. Smith correctly argues that Lenin's _"proposals . . . [were] thoroughly
-statist and centralist in character"_ and that he used _"the term ['workers'
-control'] in a very different sense from that of the factory committees."_
-[**Op. Cit.**, p. 154] That is, he used the same slogans as many workers' but
-meant something radically different by it. Leninists follow this tradition
-today, as can be seen from McNally's use of the words _"[c]ontrol of the
-factories was taken over by the workers"_ to refer to situation drastically
-different from the workers' self-management it implies to most readers.
-
-Given Lenin's lack of concern about the revolutionising of the relations of
-production (a lack not shared by the Russian workers, we must note) it is
-hardly surprising that Lenin considered the first task of the Bolshevik
-revolution was to build state capitalism. _"State capitalism,"_ he wrote, _"is
-a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a
-rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism
-there are no gaps."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 24, p. 259] Hence his support
-for centralisation and his full support for _"one-man management"_ \-- working
-class power **in production** is never mentioned as a necessary condition for
-socialism.
-
-Little wonder Soviet Russia never progressed beyond state capitalism -- it
-could not as the fundamental aspect of capitalism, wage labour, was never
-replaced by workers' self-management of production.
-
-Lenin took the viewpoint that socialism _"is nothing but the next step forward
-from state capitalist monopoly. In other words, Socialism is merely state
-capitalist monopoly **made to benefit the whole people**; by this token it
-**ceases** to be capitalist monopoly."_ [**The Threatening Catastrophe and how
-to avoid it**, p. 37] He had no real notion of workers' self-management of
-production nor of the impossibilities of combining the centralised state
-capitalist system with its big banks, monopolies, big business with genuine
-rank and file control, never mind self-management. As Alexander Berkman
-correctly argued:
-
-> _"The role of industrial decentralisation in the revolution is unfortunately
-too little appreciated. . . Most people are still in the thraldom of the
-Marxian dogma that centralisation is 'more efficient and economical.' They
-close their eyes to the fact that the alleged 'economy' is achieved at the
-cost of the workers' limb and life, that the 'efficiency' degrades him to a
-mere industrial cog, deadens his soul, kills his body. Furthermore, in a
-system of centralisation the administration of industry becomes constantly
-merged in fewer hands, producing a powerful bureaucracy of industrial
-overlords. It would indeed be the sheerest irony if the revolution were to aim
-at such a result. It would mean the creation of a new master class."_ [**The
-ABC of Anarchism**, pp. 80-1]
-
-However, this is what Lenin aimed at. The Leninist "vision" of the future
-socialist economy is one of a highly centralised organisation, modelled on
-capitalism, in which, at best, workers can supervise the decisions made by
-others and "control" those in power. It is a vision of a more democratic
-corporate structure, with the workers replacing the shareholders. In practice,
-it would be a new bureaucracy exploiting and oppressing those who do the
-actual work -- as in private capitalism -- simply because capitalist economic
-structures are designed to empower the few over the many. Like the capitalist
-state, they cannot be used by the working class to achieve their liberation
-(they are not created for the mass participation that real socialism requires,
-quite the reverse in fact!).
-
-In contrast, anarchists view the socialist economy as being based on workers'
-self-management of production and the workplace turned into an association of
-equals. Above the individual workplace, federations of factory committees
-would co-ordinate activities and ensure wide scale co-operation is achieved.
-Thus anarchists see a **new** form of economic structure developing, one based
-on workers' organisations created in the process of struggle **against**
-capitalism.
-
-In other words, rather than embrace bourgeois notions of "democracy" (i.e. the
-election of leaders into positions of power) like Marxists do, anarchists
-dissolve hierarchical power by promoting workers' self-management and
-association. While Marxism ends up as state capitalism pure and simple (as can
-be seen by the experience of Russia under Lenin and then Stalin) anarchism
-destroys the fundamental social relation of capitalism -- wage labour -- via
-association and workers' self-management of production.
-
-Thus while both Leninists and anarchists claim to support factory committees
-and "workers' control" we have decidedly different notions of what we mean by
-this. The Leninists see them as a means of workers' to supervise those who
-have the real power in the economy (and so perpetuate wage slavery with the
-state replacing the boss). Anarchists, in contrast, see them as a means of
-expressing workers self-organisation, self-management and self-government \--
-as a means of abolishing wage slavery and so capitalism by eliminating
-hierarchical authority, in other words. The difference could not be more
-striking. Indeed, it would be correct to state that the Leninist tradition is
-not, in fact, socialist as it identifies socialism as the natural development
-of capitalism and **not** as a new form of economy which will develop **away**
-from capitalism by means of associated labour and workers' self-management of
-production.
-
In short, anarchists reject both the means and the ends Leninists aim for and
-so our disagreements with that tradition is far more than semantics.
+so our disagreements with that tradition is far more than semantics. Simply
+put, for anarchists Leninism is **not** "socialism from below" but rather a
+centralised, top-down movement aiming for a centralised, top-down state
+capitalist system.
This does not mean that all members of Leninist parties do not support
-workers' self-management in society and production, favour workers' democracy,
-actually do believe in working class self-emancipation and so on. Many do,
-unaware that the tradition they have joined does not actually share those
-values. It could, therefore, be argued that such values can be "added" to the
-core Leninist ideas. However, such a viewpoint is optimistic in the extreme.
-Leninist positions on workers' self-management, etc., do not "just happen" nor
-are they the product of ignorance. Rather they are the natural result of those
-"core" ideas. To add other values to Leninism would be like adding extensions
-to a house built on sand -- the foundations are unsuitable and any additions
-would soon fall down. This was what happened during the Russian Revolution --
-movements from below which had a different vision of socialism came to grief
-on the rocks of Bolshevik power.
-
-The issue is clear -- either you aim for a socialist society and use socialist
-methods to get there or you do not. Those who do seek a **real** socialism (as
-opposed to warmed up state capitalism) would be advised to consider anarchism
-which is truly _"socialism from below"_ (see [ next
-section](append31.html#app14)).
+workers' self-management in society and production and some genuinely seem to
+favour workers' democracy and actually do believe in working class self-
+emancipation, etc. They are simply unaware that the tradition they have joined
+does not actually share those values (thanks to, it must be stated, works like
+McNally's). It could, perhaps, be argued that such values can be "added" to
+the core Leninist ideas. However, such a viewpoint is optimistic in the
+extreme. Leninist positions on workers' self-management, etc., do not "just
+happen" nor are they the product of ignorance. Rather they are the natural
+result of those "core" ideas. To add other values to Leninism would be like
+adding extensions to a house built on sand -- the foundations are unsuitable
+and any additions would soon fall down. This was what happened during the
+Russian Revolution -- movements from below which had a different vision of
+socialism came to grief on the rocks of Bolshevik power. Simply put, adding
+self-management to a centralised system and party power is impossible and if
+we strip Leninism of all its authoritarian notions then we would simply have
+anarchism.
+
+So as we discuss in [section H.3.1](secH3.htm#sech31), while there appears to
+be some similarity between the aims of anarchism and Marxism (namely a free
+classless society of free and equal individuals) on closer look there are
+significant differences between the two and only anarchism truly represents
+_"socialism from below"_ (as we will see [next section](append31.html#app14),
+we have been talking about "from below" since the 1840s while Marxist use of
+the terminology dates from much later). This is no coincidence.. Moreover, as
+shown in [section H.6.2](secH6.html#sech62), these differences are important
+as Bolshevik ideology, once its advocates held power at the top of a
+centralises state structure and started to apply it, impacted negatively on
+the Russian revolution and ensured its failure (i.e., it was not creating
+socialism even if a self-proclaimed "communist" party remained in power at the
+end of the civil war in 1920). The issue is clear -- either you aim for a
+socialist society and use socialist methods to get there or you do not. Those
+who do seek **real** socialism (as opposed to warmed up state capitalism)
+would be advised to recognise this and study closely what Leninists actually
+mean by the slogans they use rather than taking them at face value.
## 14\. Why is McNally's use of the term _"socialism from below"_ dishonest?
McNally argues that Marxism can be considered as _"socialism from below."_
Indeed, that is the name of his pamphlet. However, his use of the term is
-somewhat ironic for two reasons.
-
-Firstly, this is because the expression _"from below"_ was constantly on the
-lips of Bakunin and Proudhon. For example, in 1848, Proudhon was talking about
-being a _"revolutionary **from below**"_ and that every _"serious and lasting
-Revolution"_ was _"made **from below,** by the people."_ A _"Revolution **from
-above**"_ was _"pure governmentalism,"_ _"the negation of collective activity,
-of popular spontaneity"_ and is _"the oppression of the wills of those
-below."_ [quoted by George Woodcock, **Pierre-Joseph Proudhon**, p. 143]
-Similarly, Bakunin saw an anarchist revolution as coming _"from below."_ As he
-put it, _"liberty can be created only by liberty, by an insurrection of all
-the people and the voluntary organisation of the workers from below upward."_
-[**Statism and Anarchy**, p. 179] Elsewhere he writes that _"future social
-organisation must be made solely from the bottom upwards, by the free
-association or federation of workers, firstly in their unions, then in the
-communes, regions, nations and finally in a great federation, international
-and universal."_ [**Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings**, p. 206]
+somewhat ironic for two reasons. First, because the expression _"from below"_
+can be found in the writings of Bakunin and Proudhon, not Marx. Second,
+because Lenin explicitly attacked the idea of _"from below"_ as an anarchist
+principle.
+
+In terms of the first point, the expression _"from below"_ was constantly on
+the lips of Bakunin and Proudhon. Indeed, it was a defining part of their
+ideas. Thus we find Proudhon attacking the state socialism of Louis Blanc in
+1846 because he _"is never tired of appealing to authority, and socialism
+loudly declares itself anarchistic; M. Blanc places power above society, and
+socialism tends to subordinate it to society; M. Blanc makes social life
+descend from above, and socialism maintains that it springs up and grows from
+below"_ [**Property is Theft!**, p. 205] He re-iterated this during the 1848
+revolution:
+
+> _"**From above** . . . signifies power; **from below** signifies the people.
+On the one hand we have the actions of government; on the other, the
+initiative of the masses . . . revolution from above is . . . inevitably
+revolution according to the whims of the Prince, the arbitrary judgement of a
+minister, the fumblings of an Assembly or the violence of a club: it is a
+revolution of dictatorship and despotism . . . Revolution on the initiative of
+the masses is a revolution by the concerted action of the citizens, by the
+experience of the workers, by the progress and diffusion of enlightenment,
+revolution by the means of liberty . . . a revolution from below, from true
+democracy . . . Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen, Cabet, Louis Blanc, all believers
+in the organisation of labour by the State, by Capital, by whatever authority,
+appealed . . . to revolution **from above**. Instead of teaching the people
+how to organise themselves, by calling on their experience and their
+reasoning, they demanded Power . . ._
+
+> _"The conclusion is that government can never be revolutionary quite simply
+because it is government. Society alone, the masses armed with their
+intelligence, can create revolution; society alone is able to deploy all its
+spontaneity, to analyse and explain the mystery of its destiny and its origin,
+to change its faith and its philosophy, because it alone is capable of
+fighting against its originator and bearing its fruit. Governments are God’s
+scourge, established to **discipline** the world: do you really expect them to
+destroy themselves, to create freedom, to make revolution?_
+
+> _"They cannot act otherwise. All revolutions . . . were achieved by the
+spontaneity of the people: governments have always hindered, always
+suppressed, always beaten back; they have never created revolution. Their role
+is not to create change but to control it."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 398-9]
+
+Thus _"experience testifies and philosophy demonstrates . . . that any
+revolution, to be effective, must be spontaneous and emanate, not from the
+heads of the authorities but from the bowels of the people: that government is
+reactionary rather than revolutionary: that it could not have any expertise in
+revolutions, given that society, to which that secret is alone revealed, does
+not show itself through legislative decree but rather through the spontaneity
+of its manifestations: that, ultimately, the only connection between
+government and labour is that labour, in organising itself, has the abrogation
+of government as its mission"_. [**No Gods, No Masters**, vol. 1., p. 52]
+_"The Revolution **from above**,"_ Proudhon stressed, _"is the intervention of
+power in everything; it is the absolutist initiative of the State, the pure
+governmentalism of . . . [state-socialist] Louis Blanc. The Revolution **from
+above** is the negation of collective activity, of popular spontaneity . . .
+What serious and lasting Revolution was not made **from below**, by the
+people? How did the Revolution of 1789 come about? How was that of February
+made? The Revolution **from above** has never been other than the oppression
+of the wills of those below."_ [quoted by George Woodcock, **Pierre-Joseph
+Proudhon**, p. 143]
+
+Proudhon, then, placed his hopes for introducing socialism in alternative
+institutions created by working class people themselves and _"insisted that
+the revolution could only come from below, through the action of the workers
+themselves."_ [K. Steven Vincent, **Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of
+French Republican Socialism**, p. 157] Bakunin did likewise, seeing the labour
+movement as the means of ensuring that an anarchist revolution would come
+_"from below."_ As he put it, _"liberty can be created only by liberty, by an
+insurrection of all the people and the voluntary organisation of the workers
+from below upward."_ [**Statism and Anarchy**, p. 179] Elsewhere he wrote that
+_"future social organisation must be made solely from the bottom upwards, by
+the free association or federation of workers, firstly in their unions, then
+in the communes, regions, nations and finally in a great federation,
+international and universal."_ [**Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings**, p.
+206] As he wrote in 1868:
+
+> _"I hate Communism because it is the negation of liberty and because for me
+humanity is unthinkable without liberty. I am not a Communist, because
+Communism concentrates and swallows up in itself for the benefit of the State
+all the forces of society, because it inevitably leads to the concentration of
+property in the hands of the State . . . I want to see society and collective
+or social property organised from below upwards, by way of free associations,
+not from above downwards, by means of any kind of authority whatsoever . . .
+That is the sense in which I am a Collectivist and not a Communist."_ [quoted
+by K.J. Kenafick, **Michael Bakunin and Karl Marx**, pp. 67-8]
+
+Anarchists, argued Bakunin, opposed the state 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] This applied to the so-called
+"workers' state" because _"every state, even the pseudo-People's State
+concocted by Mr. Marx, is in essence only a machine ruling the masses from
+above, through a privileged minority of conceited intellectuals who imagine
+that they know what the people need and want better than do the people
+themselves."_ [**Bakunin on Anarchism**, p. 338] The revolution would see _"an
+end to all masters and to domination of every kind, and the free construction
+of popular life in accordance with popular needs, not from above downward, as
+in the state, but from below upward, by the people themselves, dispensing with
+all governments and parliaments -- a voluntary alliance of agricultural and
+factory worker associations, communes, provinces, and nations; and, finally, .
+. . universal human brotherhood triumphing on the ruins of all the states."_
+[**Statism and Anarchy**, p. 33]
No such idea is present in Marx. Rather, he saw a revolution as consisting of
-the election of a socialist party into government. Therefore, the idea of
-_"socialism from below"_ is a distinctly anarchist notion, one found in the
-works of Proudhon and Bakunin, **not** Marx. It is ironic, given his distorted
-account of Proudhon and Bakunin that McNally uses their words to describe
-Marxism!
-
-Secondly, and far more serious for McNally, Lenin dismissed the idea of _"from
-below"_ as not Marxist. As he wrote in 1905 (and using Engels as an authority
-to back him up) _"the principle, 'only from below' is an **anarchist**
-principle."_ [Marx, Engels and Lenin, **Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism**,
-p. 192] In this he followed Marx, who commented that Bakunin's expression
-_"the free organisation of the working masses from below upwards"_ was
-_"nonsense."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 153] For Lenin, Marxists must be in favour of
-_"From above as well as from below"_ and _"renunciation of pressure also from
-above is **anarchism**"_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 196, p. 189] McNally does not
-mention _"from above"_ in his pamphlet and so gives his account of Marxism a
-distinctly anarchist feel (while denouncing it in a most deceitful way). Why
-is this? Because, according to Lenin, _"[p]ressure from below is pressure by
-the citizens on the revolutionary government. Pressure from above is pressure
-by the revolutionary government on the citizens."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 189-90]
+the election of a socialist party into government. At its best, for example
+when he was reporting on the Paris Commune, this vision had libertarian
+(_"from below"_) aspects -- perhaps unsurprisingly, given its obviously
+Proudhon-inspired federalism (which Marx could not bring himself to mention).
+However, at its worse this was not only reformist in the sense of utilising
+bourgeois elections (see [section H.3.10](secH3.html#sech310)) but also "from
+above" in nature. In 1850, for example, he argued that 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."_ This was because _"the path of revolutionary activity"_ can
+_"proceed only from the centre."_ This meant that the workers must be opposed
+to a _"federative republic"_ and _"must not allow themselves to be misguided
+by the democratic talk of freedom for the communities, of self-government,
+etc."_ This centralisation of power was essential to overcome local autonomy,
+which would allow _"every village, every town and every province"_ to put _"a
+new obstacle in the path"_ of the revolution due to _"local and provincial
+obstinacy."_ Decades later, Marx dismissed Bakunin's vision of _"the free
+organisation of the worker masses from bottom to top"_ as _"nonsense."_
+[**Marx-Engels Reader**, p. 509 and p. 547]
+
+As we discuss in [section H.3.2](secH3.html#sech32), the idea of _"socialism
+from below"_ is a distinctly anarchist notion, one found in the works of
+Proudhon and Bakunin, **not** Marx. It is ironic, given his distorted account
+of Proudhon and Bakunin, that McNally uses their words to describe Marxism!
+
+Secondly, and far more seriously for McNally, Lenin repeatedly dismissed the
+idea of _"from below"_ as not Marxist. In 1904, during the debate over the
+party split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, Lenin stated that the argument
+_"[b]ureaucracy **versus** democracy is in fact centralism **versus**
+autonomism; it is the organisational principle of revolutionary Social-
+Democracy as opposed to the organisational principle of opportunist Social-
+Democracy. The latter strives to proceed from the bottom upward, and,
+therefore, wherever possible . . . upholds autonomism and 'democracy,' carried
+(by the overzealous) to the point of anarchism. The former strives to proceed
+from the top downward."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 7, pp. 396-7] Lenin
+repeated this argument during the near revolution of 1905, mocking the
+Mensheviks for only wanting _"pressure from below"_ which was _"pressure by
+the citizens on the revolutionary government."_ Instead, he argued for
+_"pressure . . . from above as well as from below,"_ where _"pressure from
+above"_ was _"pressure by the revolutionary government on the citizens."_ He
+notes that Engels _"appreciated the importance of action from above"_ and that
+he saw the need for _"the utilisation of the revolutionary governmental
+power."_ Lenin summarised his position (which he considered as being in line
+with that of orthodox Marxism) by stating: _"Limitation, in principle, of
+revolutionary action to pressure from below and renunciation of pressure also
+from above is **anarchism.**"_ [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 8, p. 474, p. 478, p. 480
+and p. 481] He returned to this theme, explicitly stating that it was an
+_"anarchist stand"_ to be for _"'action only from below', not 'from below and
+from above'"_. [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 9, p. 77]
+
+How you can have _"socialism from below"_ when your _"organisational
+principle"_ is _"from the top downward"_ and _"renunciation of pressure also
+from above is **anarchism**"_ is not explained by McNally. Moreover, given
+that McNally states repeatedly the evils of _"from above"_ in his pamphlet he
+gives his account of Marxism a distinctly anarchist feel (while denouncing it
+in a most deceitful way). Why is this? Perhaps because his readers would
+recognise that in a conflict between _"pressure from above"_ (the armed might
+of the state) and _"pressure from below"_ (the people) it would be the former
+which would tend to win? And that this was the case in the Russian Revolution,
+with the Bolshevik state crushing all forms of working class protest? As we
+discuss in [section H.6](secH6.html), the _"the utilisation of the
+revolutionary governmental power"_ simply produced a "dictatorship **over**
+the proletariat" as Bakunin (see [section H.1.1](secH1.html#sech11)). and
+other anarchists had long predicted.
In other words, Marxism is based on idea that the government pressuring the
-citizens is acceptable. Given that Marx and Engels had argued in **The Holy
-Family** that the _"question is not what this or that proletarian, or even the
-whole of the proletariat at the moment **considers** as its aim. The question
-is **what the proletariat is**, and what, consequent on that **being**, it
-will be compelled to do"_ the idea of _"from above"_ takes on frightening
-overtones. [quoted by Murray Bookchin, **The Spanish Anarchists**, p. 280] As
-Murray Bookchin argues:
-
-> _"These lines and others like them in Marx's writings were to provide the
-rationale for asserting the authority of Marxist parties and their armed
-detachments over and even against the proletariat. Claiming a deeper and more
-informed comprehension of the situation then 'even the whole of the
-proletariat at the given moment,' Marxist parties went on to dissolve such
-revolutionary forms of proletarian organisation as factory committees and
-ultimately to totally regiment the proletariat according to lines established
-by the party leadership."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 289]
-
-A given ideological premise will led to certain conclusions in practice --
-conclusions Lenin and Trotsky were not shy in explicitly stating.
+citizens is acceptable. As we discuss in the [next
+section](append31.html#app15), Trotsky recognised this and openly proclaimed
+the need for party dictatorship to resist the pressures from below (dismissed
+as _"wavering"_ and _"vacillation"_ by the backward masses). As we discuss in
+[section H.5](secH5.html), the vanguardism of Leninism privileges the party
+and its leadership and lays the foundation for "socialism from below." A given
+ideological premise will led to certain conclusions in practice -- conclusions
+Lenin and Trotsky were not shy in explicitly stating.
Little wonder McNally fails to mention Lenin's support for revolutionary
-action _"from above."_ As we proved above (in [section
-8](append31.html#app8)), in practice Leninism substitutes the dictatorship of
-the party for that of the working class as a whole. This is unsurprising,
-given its confusion of working class power and party power. For example, Lenin
-once wrote _"the power of the Bolsheviks -- that is, the power of the
-proletariat"_ while, obviously, these two things **are** different. [**Will
-the Bolsheviks Maintain Power?**, p. 102] Trotsky makes the same
-identification of party dictatorship with popular self-government:
-
-> _"We have more than once been accused of having substituted for the
-dictatorship of the Soviets the dictatorship of our party. Yet it can be said
-with complete justice that the dictatorship of the Soviets became possible
-only by means of the dictatorship of the party. It is thanks to the clarity of
-its theoretical vision and its strong revolutionary organisation that the
-party has afforded to the Soviets the possibility of becoming transformed from
-shapeless parliaments of labour into the apparatus of the supremacy of labour.
-In this 'substitution' of the power of the party for the power of the working
-class there is nothing accidental, and in reality there is no substitution at
-all. The Communists express the fundamental interests of the working class. It
-is quite natural that, in the period in which history brings up those
-interests . . . the Communists have become the recognised representatives of
-the working class as a whole."_ [**Terrorism and Communism**, p. 109]
-
-In this confusion, we must note, they follow Engels who argued that _"each
+action _"from above"_ for in practice Leninism substituted the rule (and then
+dictatorship) of the party for that of the working class as a whole. Lenin
+always stressed that the _"Bolsheviks must assume power"_ and they _"can and
+must take state power into their own hands."_ He raised the question of _"will
+the Bolsheviks dare take over full state power alone?"_ and answered it: _"I
+have already had occasion . . . to answer this question in the affirmative."_
+Moreover, _"a political party . . . would have no right to exist, would be
+unworthy of the name of party . . . if it refused to take power when
+opportunity offers."_ He equated rule by the party with rule by the class,
+noting that _"proletarian revolutionary power"_ and _"Bolshevik power"_ are
+_"now one the same thing"_ and indicated that once in power the Bolsheviks
+_"shall be fully and unreservedly in favour of a strong state power and of
+centralism."_ [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 26, p. 19, p. 90, p. 179 and p. 116] In this
+confusion, we must note, Lenin followed Engels who argued that _"each
political party sets out to establish its rule in the state, so the German
Social-Democratic Workers' Party is striving to establish **its** rule, the
-rule of the working class."_ [Marx, Engels and Lenin, **Anarchism and Anarcho-
-syndicalism**, p. 94]
-
-Such confusion is deadly to a true _"revolution from below"_ and justifies the
-use of repression against the working class -- they do not understand their
-own _"fundamental interests,"_ only the party does. Anarchists recognise that
-parties and classes are different and only self-management in popular
-organisations from below upwards can ensure that a social revolution remains
-in the hands of all and not a source of power for the few. Thus _"All Power to
-the Soviets,"_ for anarchists, means **exactly** that -- not a euphemism for
-_"All Power to the Party."_ As Voline made clear:
-
-> _"[F]or, the anarchists declared, if 'power' really should belong to the
-soviets, it could not belong to the Bolshevik Party, and if it should belong
-to that Party, as the Bolsheviks envisaged, it could not belong to the
-soviets."_ [**The Unknown Revolution**, p. 213]
-
-Marxist confusion of the difference between working class power and party
-power, combined with the nature of centralised power and an ideology which
-claims to "comprehend" the "real" interests of the people cannot help but lead
-to the rise of a ruling bureaucracy, pursuing "from above" their own power and
-privileges.
-
+rule of the working class."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 23, p. 372] Such
+confusion is deadly to a true _"revolution from below"_ and justifies the use
+of repression against the working class based on the advanced ideas of the
+vanguard party.
+
+McNally, of course, stresses the impact of the civil war on the degeneration
+of Bolshevism but comments like these were not caused by circumstantial
+factors as can be seen from Lenin's work **Left-Wing Communism**. In this 1920
+tract, written for the Second Congress of the Communist International, Lenin
+lambasted those Marxists who argued for direct working class power against the
+idea of party rule (i.e. the various council communists around Europe) and
+argued that _"the Communists' correct understanding of his tasks"_ lies in
+_"correctly gauging the conditions and the moment when the vanguard of the
+proletariat can successfully assume power, when it will be able -- during and
+after the seizure of power -- to win adequate support from sufficiently broad
+strata of the working class and of the non-proletarian working masses, and
+when it is able thereafter to maintain, consolidate, and extend its rule by
+educating, training and attracting ever broader masses of the working
+people."_ Note, the vanguard (the party) seizes power, **not** the masses and
+he stressed that the _"mere presentation of the question -- 'dictatorship of
+the party **or** dictatorship of the class: dictatorship (party) of the
+leaders **or** dictatorship (party) of the masses?' -- testifies to most
+incredible and hopelessly muddled thinking"_ and _"[t]o go so far . . . as to
+contrast, **in general**, the dictatorship of the masses with a dictatorship
+of the leaders is ridiculously absurd, and stupid."_ [**The Lenin Anthology**,
+p. 575, p. 567 and p. 568] He then explained the nature of Bolshevik rule:
+
+> _"In Russia today, the connection between leaders, party, class and masses .
+. . are concretely as follows: the dictatorship is exercised by the
+proletariat organised in the Soviets and is guided by the Communist Party . .
+. The Party, which holds annual congresses . . ., is directed by a Central
+Committee of nineteen elected at the congress, while the current work in
+Moscow has to be carried on by [two] still smaller bodies . . . which are
+elected at the plenary sessions of the Central Committee, five members of the
+Central Committee to each bureau. This, it would appear, is a full-fledged
+'oligarchy.' No important political or organisational question is decided by
+any state institution in our republic [sic!] without the guidance of the
+Party's Central Committee._
+
+> _"In its work, the Party relies directly on the **trade unions**, which . .
+. have a membership of over four million and are formally **non-Party**.
+Actually, all the directing bodies of the vast majority of the unions . . .
+are made up of Communists, and carry out of all the directives of the Party.
+Thus . . . we have a formally non-communist . . . very powerful proletarian
+apparatus, by means of which the Party is closely linked up with the **class**
+and **the masses,** and by means of which, under the leadership of the Party,
+the **class dictatorship** of the class is exercised."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp.
+571-2]
+
+This was _"the general mechanism of the proletarian state power viewed 'from
+above,' from the standpoint of the practical realisation of the dictatorship"_
+and so _"all this talk about 'from above' **or** 'from below,' about 'the
+dictatorship of leaders' **or** 'the dictatorship of the masses,'"_ is
+_"ridiculous and childish nonsense."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 573] The links with
+his comments from 1904 and 1905 are clear, as clear as his explanation of the
+lessons he thought that the world communist movement had to learn from the
+Bolshevik revolution. The notion that Leninism stands for _"socialism from
+below"_ in untenable.
+
+Lenin, of course, did not bother to view "proletarian" state power "from
+below," from the viewpoint of the proletariat. If he had, perhaps he would
+have recounted the numerous strikes and protests broken by the Cheka under
+martial law, the gerrymandering and disbanding of soviets, the imposition of _
+"one-man management"_ onto the workers in production, the turning of the
+unions into agents of the state/party and the elimination of working class
+freedom by party power (see [section 8](append31.html#app8)). All of which
+suggests that there **are** fundamental differences, at least for the masses,
+between _"from above"_ and _"from below."_
+
+Anarchists, in contrast, recognise that parties and classes are different and
+only self-management in popular organisations from below upwards can ensure
+that a social revolution remains in the hands of all and not a source of power
+for the few. Thus _"All Power to the Soviets,"_ for anarchists, means
+**exactly** that -- not a euphemism for _"All Power to the Party."_ As Russian
+anarchist Voline argued, _"for, the anarchists [in 1917] declared, if 'power'
+really should belong to the soviets, it could not belong to the Bolshevik
+Party, and if it should belong to that Party, as the Bolsheviks envisaged, it
+could not belong to the soviets."_ Marxist confusion of the difference between
+working class power and party power, combined with the nature of centralised
+power and an ideology which privileges the party over the working class (see
+[section 11](append31.html#app11)) cannot help but lead to the rise of a
+ruling bureaucracy, pursuing "from above" their own power and privileges.
_"**All political power inevitably creates a privileged situation** for the
men who exercise it,"_ argued Voline. _"Thus is violates, from the beginning,
-the equalitarian principle and strikes at the heart of the Social Revolution .
-. . [and] becomes the source of other privileges . . . **power is compelled to
+the equalitarian principle and strikes at the heart of the Social Revolution"_
+and _"becomes the source of other privileges . . . **power is compelled to
create a bureaucratic and coercive apparatus** indispensable to all authority
. . . **Thus it forms a new privileged caste,** at first politically and later
-economically."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 249]
+economically."_ [**The Unknown Revolution**, p. 213 and p. 249]
-Thus the concept of revolution _"from above"_ is one that inevitably leads to
-a new form of class rule -- rule by bureaucracy. This is not because the
-Bolsheviks were "bad people" -- rather it is to do with the nature of
-centralised power (which by its very nature can only be exercised by the few).
-As the anarchist Sergven argued in 1918:
+The concept of revolution _"from above"_ is one that inevitably leads to a new
+form of class rule -- rule by bureaucracy. This is not because the Bolsheviks
+were "bad people" -- rather it is to do with the nature of centralised power
+(which by its very nature can only be exercised by the few) combined with bad
+politics (the confusion of party power with people power, unthinking
+prejudices in favour of centralism, ignoring the need for only _"from below"_,
+etc.). As the Russian anarchist Sergven argued in 1918 while the Bolshevik
+regime was building state capitalism:
> _"The proletariat is being gradually enserfed by the state. The people are
being transformed into servants over whom there has arisen a new class of
@@ -2329,10 +5766,9 @@ Firstly, it is of anarchist origin and, secondly, it was repudiated by Lenin
himself (who urged revolution _"from below"_ and _"from above"_, thus laying
the groundwork for a new class system based around the Party). It goes without
saying that either McNally is ignorant of his subject (and if so, why write a
-pamphlet on it) or he knew these facts and decided to suppress them.
-
-Either way it shows the bankruptcy of Marxism -- it uses libertarian rhetoric
-for non-libertarian ends while distorting the real source of those ideas. That
+pamphlet on it?) or he knew these facts and decided to suppress them. Either
+way it shows the bankruptcy of Marxism -- it uses libertarian rhetoric for
+non-libertarian ends while distorting the real source of those ideas. That
Lenin dismissed this rhetoric and the ideas behind them as _"anarchist"_ says
it all. McNally's (and the SWP/ISO's) use of this rhetoric and imagery is
therefore deeply dishonest.
@@ -2341,91 +5777,252 @@ therefore deeply dishonest.
McNally argues that _"[d]uring the terrible decades of the 1920s and 1940s . .
. the lone voice of Leon Trotsky kept alive some of the basic elements of
-socialism from below."_ He suggests that it _"was Trotsky's great virtue to
-insist against all odds that socialism was rooted in the struggle for human
-freedom."_
+socialism from below"_ and suggests it _"was Trotsky's great virtue to insist
+against all odds that socialism was rooted in the struggle for human
+freedom."_ By the mid-1920s _"the programme of the Left Opposition"_ which
+Trotsky lead had as one of its _"two central planks"_ that _"democracy had to
+be re-established in the Bolshevik party and in the mass organisations such as
+the trade unions and the soviets."_ In short:
+
+> _""Throughout the 1920s and until his death at the hands of Stalinist agent
+in 1940, Trotsky fought desperately to build a revolutionary socialist
+movement based on the principles of Marx and Lenin.""_
There is one slight flaw with this argument, namely that it is not actually
true. All through the 1920s and 1930s Trotsky, rather than argue for
_"socialism's democratic essence"_, continually argued for party dictatorship.
That McNally asserts the exact opposite suggests that the ideas of anarchism
-are not the only ones he is ignorant of. To prove our argument, we simply need
-to provide a chronological account of Trotsky's actual ideas.
+are not the only ones he is ignorant of. To prove our case, we simply need to
+provide a chronological account of Trotsky's actual ideas.
+
+We shall begin in early 1920 when he argued that the _"working class cannot be
+left wandering round all over Russia. They must be thrown here and there,
+appointed, commanded, just like soldiers"_ and that _"[d]eserters from labour
+ought to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps"_.
+[quoted by Maurice Brinton, _"The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control"_, **For
+Workers' Power**, p. 61] Is _"human freedom"_ (to use McNally's words)
+compatible with Trotsky's suggestions? This was no isolated comment and in
+July of that year we discover him arguing that:
+
+> _"In the hands of the party is concentrated the general control . . . it has
+the final word in all fundamental questions . . . the last word belongs to the
+Central Committee of the party . . . Such a regime is possible only in the
+presence of the unquestioned authority of the party, and the faultlessness of
+its discipline . . ._
+
+> _"The exclusive role of the Communist Party under the conditions of a
+victorious proletarian revolution is quite comprehensible. The question is of
+the dictatorship of a class. In the composition of that class there enter
+various elements, heterogeneous moods, different levels of development. Yet
+the dictatorship pre-supposes unity of will, unity of direction, unity of
+action. By what other path then can it be attained? The revolutionary
+supremacy of the proletariat pre-supposes within the proletariat itself the
+political supremacy of a party, with a clear programme of action and a
+faultless internal discipline._
+
+> _"The policy of coalitions contradicts internally the regime of the
+revolutionary dictatorship. We have in view . . . a coalition of Communists
+with other 'Socialist' organisations, representing different stages of
+backwardness and prejudice-of the labouring masses._
+
+> _"[ . . .]_
-We shall begin in 1920 when we discover Trotsky arguing that:
-
-> _ "We have more than once been accused of having substituted for the
-dictatorship of the Soviets the dictatorship of the party. Yet it can be said
+> _"We have more than once been accused of having substituted for the
+dictatorship of the Soviets the dictatorship of our party. Yet it can be said
with complete justice that the dictatorship of the Soviets became possible
-only by means of the dictatorship of the party. It is thanks to the . . .
-party . . . [that] the Soviets . . . [became] transformed from shapeless
-parliaments of labour into the apparatus of the supremacy of labour. In this
-'substitution' of the power of the party for the power of the working class
-there is nothing accidental, and in reality there is no substitution at all.
-The Communists express the fundamental interests of the working class."_
-[**Terrorism and Communism**, p. 109]
+only by means of the dictatorship of the party. It is thanks to the clarity of
+its theoretical vision and its strong revolutionary organisation that the
+party has afforded to the Soviets the possibility of becoming transformed from
+shapeless parliaments of labour into the apparatus of the supremacy of labour.
+In this 'substitution' of the power of the party for the power of the working
+class there is nothing accidental, and in reality there is no substitution at
+all. The Communists express the fundamental interests of the working class. It
+is quite natural that, in the period in which history brings up those
+interests . . . the Communists have become the recognised representatives of
+the working class as a whole."_ [**Terrorism and Communism**, pp. 107-9]
+
+He argued against those who suggested that the dictatorship should be carried
+out by the whole class: _"It is not easy to understand what actually they
+imagine when they say this. The dictatorship of the proletariat, in its very
+essence, signifies the immediate supremacy of the revolutionary vanguard,
+which relies upon the heavy masses, and, where necessary, obliges the backward
+tail to dress by the head."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 110] This rejection of
+democracy also applied to workplace democracy:
+
+> _"our Party Congress . . . expressed itself in favour of the principle of
+one-man management in the administration of industry . . . It would be the
+greatest possible mistake . . . to consider this decision as a blow to the
+independence of the working class . . . It would consequently be a most crying
+error to confuse the question as to the supremacy of the proletariat with the
+question of boards of workers at the head of factories. The dictatorship of
+the proletariat is expressed in the abolition of private property in the means
+of production, in the supremacy over the whole Soviet mechanism of the
+collective will of the workers, and not at all in the form in which individual
+economic enterprises are administered . . . we took our stand, and continue to
+do so on purely Marxist views of the revolutionary problems and creative
+duties of the proletariat when it has taken power into its own hands . . . I
+consider if the civil war had not plundered our economic organs of all that
+was strongest, most independent, most endowed with initiative, we should
+undoubtedly have entered the path of one-man management in the sphere of
+economic administration much sooner and much less painfully."_ [**Op. Cit.**,
+pp. 161-3]
+
+In this, as with party dictatorship, he was simply repeating Bolshevik
+orthodoxy -- Lenin had been arguing for state-appointed one-man management
+(armed with _"dictatorial"_ authority) since the spring of 1918. Ignoring all
+the euphemisms for party dictatorship ("_the collective will of the workers"_)
+and obvious questions (like, if this were the case, how Trotsky could argue
+that it was the proletariat which had _"taken power into its own hands"_?),
+the fact is that he was simply wrong. It **does** matter if workplaces are run
+by their workers or not for if they do not then someone else does. Replacing
+capitalists with state bureaucrats just changes the face of the boss -- as
+anarchists have been arguing since Proudhon. Trotsky did not deny how
+authoritarian this regime was:
+
+> _"Both economic and political compulsion are only forms of the expression of
+the dictatorship of the working class in two closely connected regions . . .
+the road to Socialism lies through a period of the highest possible
+intensification of the principle of the State . . . Just as a lamp, before
+going out, shoots up in a brilliant flame, so the State, before disappearing,
+assumes the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the most
+ruthless form of State, which embraces the life of the citizens
+authoritatively in every direction . . . No organisation except the army has
+ever controlled man with such severe compulsion as does the State organisation
+of the working class in the most difficult period of transition. It is just
+for this reason that we speak of the militarisation of labour."_ [**Op.
+Cit.**, pp. 169-170]
+
+Against those who argued that by _"[d]estroying or driving underground the
+other parties, you have thereby prevented their political competition with
+you, and consequently you have deprived yourselves of the possibility of
+testing your line of action"_ Trotsky replied by pointing to the efficiency of
+Bolshevik repression: _"In a period in which . . . the political struggle
+swiftly passes into a civil war, the ruling party has sufficient material
+standard by which to test its line of action, without the possible circulation
+of Menshevik papers. Noske crushes the Communists, but they grow. We have
+suppressed the Mensheviks and the SRs -- and they have disappeared. This
+criterion is sufficient for us."_ From this he concluded that Bolshevism
+_"expresses the interests of historical development."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp.
+109-110] Needless to say, he did not repeat this "might-makes-right" criteria
+when the Stalinists made the Trotskyists disappear in the late 1920s and
+1930s.
Of course, this was written during the Civil War and may be excused in terms
-of the circumstances in which it was written. Sadly for this kind of argument,
-Trotsky continued to argue for party dictatorship after its end. In 1921, he
-argued again for Party dictatorship at the Tenth Party Congress. His comments
-made there against the **Workers' Opposition** within the Communist Party make
-his position clear:
-
-> _ "The Workers' Opposition has come out with dangerous slogans, making a
+of the circumstances in which it was written. However, this ignores the
+awkward fact that Trotsky's arguments reflected the theoretical conclusions
+required to produce what he considered as a **successful** revolution and, as
+noted in [section 8](append31.html#app8), other leading Bolsheviks had
+proclaimed to the world this necessity of party dictatorship. Trotsky did not
+object and universalised the argument when he pondered the important decisions
+of the revolution and who would make them in his reply to the delegate from
+the Spanish anarcho-syndicalist union the CNT:
+
+> _"Who decides this question [and others like it]? We have the Council of
+People's Commissars but it has to be subject to some supervision. Whose
+supervision? That of the working class as an amorphous, chaotic mass? No. The
+Central Committee of the party is convened to discuss . . . and to decide . .
+. Who will solve these questions in Spain? The Communist Party of Spain."_
+[**Proceedings and Documents of the Second Congress 1920**, vol. 1, p. 174]
+
+
+
+This dismissal of working-class democracy was party orthodoxy, as can be seen
+from the awkward fact that Trotsky continued to argue for party dictatorship
+after the end of the civil war in November 1920. Thus we discover him in early
+in 1921 arguing again for Party dictatorship at the Communist Party's Tenth
+Party Congress. His comments made there against the **Workers' Opposition**
+within the Communist Party make his position clear:
+
+> _"The Workers' Opposition has come out with dangerous slogans, making a
fetish of democratic principles! They place the workers' right to elect
-representatives \- above the Party, as if the party were not entitled to
-assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the
+representatives above the Party, as if the party were not entitled to assert
+its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the
passing moods of the workers' democracy. It is necessary to create amongst us
-the awareness of the revolutionary birthright of the party. which is obliged
+the awareness of the revolutionary birthright of the party, which is obliged
to maintain its dictatorship, regardless of temporary wavering even in the
working classes. This awareness is for us the indispensable element. The
dictatorship does not base itself at every given moment on the formal
principle of a workers' democracy."_ [quoted by Samuel Farber, **Before
Stalinism**, p. 209]
-He repeated this call again. In 1922 he stated plainly that _"we maintain the
-dictatorship of our party!"_ [**The First Five Years of the Communist
-International**, vol. 2, p. 255] Writing in 1923, he argued that _"[i]f there
-is one question which basically not only does not require revision but does
-not so much as admit the thought of revision, it is the question of the
-dictatorship of the Party, and its leadership in all spheres of our work."_ He
-stressed that _"[o]ur party is the ruling party . . . To allow any changes
-whatever in this field, to allow the idea of a partial . . . curtailment of
-the leading role of our party would mean to bring into question all the
-achievements of the revolution and its future."_ He indicated the fate of
-those who **did** question the party's _"leading role"_: _"Whoever makes an
-attempt on the party's leading role will, I hope, be unanimously dumped by all
-of us on the other side of the barricade."_ [**Leon Trotsky Speaks**, p. 158
-and p. 160]
-
+It should be noted that Trotsky was being too generous to the Workers'
+Opposition, for _"while demanding more freedom of initiative for the workers"_
+in economic matters, _"it was quite content to leave untouched the state of
+affairs in which a few hundred thousand imposed their will on many millions"_
+and it _"had no wish to disturb the communist party's monopoly of political
+power."_ [Leonard Schapiro, **The Origin of the Communist Autocracy**, p. 294]
+So even limited industrial democracy was considered too much by Trotsky in
+1921. In late March 1921, he re-iterated this position in relation to the
+crushing of the Kronstadt revolt for soviet democracy by asserting that the
+_"economic, political, and national independence of Russia is possible only
+under the dictatorship of the soviets. The backbone of this dictatorship is
+the Communist Party. There is no other party that can play this part, nor can
+there be."_ [Lenin and Trotsky, **Kronstadt**, p. 73]
+
+Trotsky repeated this call again in 1922 when he stated plainly that _"we
+maintain the dictatorship of our party!"_ [**The First Five Years of the
+Communist International**, vol. 2, p. 255] Writing in the following year, he
+argued that _"[i]f there is one question which basically not only does not
+require revision but does not so much as admit the thought of revision, it is
+the question of the dictatorship of the Party, and its leadership in all
+spheres of our work."_ He stressed that _"[o]ur party is the ruling party . .
+. To allow any changes whatever in this field, to allow the idea of a partial
+. . . curtailment of the leading role of our party would mean to bring into
+question all the achievements of the revolution and its future."_ He indicated
+the fate of those who **did** question this: _"Whoever makes an attempt on the
+party's leading role will, I hope, be unanimously dumped by all of us on the
+other side of the barricade."_ [**Leon Trotsky Speaks**, p. 158 and p. 160]
Which, of course, was exactly what the Bolsheviks had done to other socialists
(anarchists and others) and working class militants and strikers after they
-had taken power.
+had taken power (see [section H.6](secH6.html) for details).
At this point, it will be argued that this was before the rise of Stalinism
-and the defeat of the Left Opposition. With the rise of Stalin, many will
-argue that Trotsky finally rejected the idea of party dictatorship and re-
-embraced what McNally terms the _"democratic essence"_ of socialism.
-Unfortunately, yet again, this argument suffers from the flaw that it is
-totally untrue.
+and his activities in the Left Opposition. As McNally suggests, many argue
+that these developments saw Trotsky finally rejecting the idea of party
+dictatorship and re-embracing what McNally terms the _"democratic essence"_ of
+Leninism. Unfortunately, yet again, this argument suffers from the flaw that
+it is false.
Let us start with the so-called _"New Course"_ of December 1923, in which
Trotsky stated that _"[w]e are the only party in the country and, in the
-period of the dictatorship, it could not be otherwise"_ and the Party was
-_"obliged to monopolise the direction of political life."_ Although, of
-course, it was _"incontestable that fractions are a scourge in the present
-situation"_ and not to be tolerated. Of course, there was talk of _"workers'
-democracy"_ but the _"New Course Resolution"_ was clear that that term in fact
-meant only internal party democracy: _"Workers' democracy means the liberty of
-frank discussion of the most important questions of party life by all members,
-and the election of all leading party functionaries and commissions"_. To
-confirm this, it explicitly stated that _"there can be no toleration of the
-formation of groupings whose ideological content is directed . . . against the
-dictatorship of the proletariat, as for instance the Workers' Truth and
-Workers' Group."_ [**The challenge of the Left Opposition (1923-25)**, p. 87,
-p. 89 and p. 460] Both these groups explicitly aimed for genuine workers'
-democracy and opposed party dictatorship.
+period of the dictatorship, it could not be otherwise"_, the Party was
+_"obliged to monopolise the direction of political life"_ and it was
+_"incontestable that fractions [within the Party] are a scourge in the present
+situation"_. Of course, there was talk of _"workers' democracy"_ but the _"New
+Course Resolution"_ was clear that that term in fact meant only internal party
+democracy: _"Workers' democracy means the liberty of frank discussion of the
+most important questions of party life by all members, and the election of all
+leading party functionaries and commissions"_. [**The Challenge of the Left
+Opposition (1923-25)**, p. 87, p. 89 and p. 460]
+
+This applied to the banning of factions **within** the Communist party, with
+Trotsky keen to stress at the 13th Party Congress in 1924 that _"party
+democracy in no way implies freedom for factional groupings which are
+extremely dangerous for the ruling party, since they threaten to split or
+divide the government and the state apparatus as a whole. I believe this is
+undisputed and indisputable"_. He linked his position to the 10th Party
+Congress _"where Valdimir Ilyich [Lenin] personally"_ made the same points and
+re-iterated his position: _"I have never recognised freedom for groupings
+inside the party, nor do I now recognise it"_. [**Op. Cit.**, p. 170 and p.
+171] He declared his faith in the Party:
+
+> _"Comrades, none of us wants to be or can be right against the party. In the
+last analysis the party is always right, because the party is the only
+historical instrument that the working class possesses for the solution of its
+fundamental tasks . . . I know that no one can be right against the party. It
+is only possible to be right only with the party and through it because
+history has not created any other way to determine the correct position . . .
+the party, in the last analysis, is always right"_. [**Op. Cit.**, p. 179]
+
+He did acknowledge that _"even the party itself can make occasional mistakes"_
+but argued that the duty of a party member was to follow its decisions if they
+could not convince the party that it had made one of these. The links to his
+arguments from 1920 and 1921 are clear enough, alongside the privileged
+position this places the party in terms of its right to ignore any democratic
+decisions of the masses it claimed to be ruling on behalf of. Needless to say,
+the "New Course Resolution" likewise stated party democracy _"does not . . .
+imply the freedom to form factional groupings"_. [**Op. Cit.**, p. 180 and p.
+460]
Moving on to Left Opposition proper, we see Trotsky opining in 1926 that the
_"dictatorship of the party does not contradict the dictatorship of the class
@@ -2436,7 +6033,7 @@ contradictions and absurdities of this assertion are all too plain. Needless
to say, when defending the concept of _"the dictatorship of the party"_ he
linked it to Lenin (and so to Leninist orthodoxy):
-> _ "Of course, the foundation of our regime is the dictatorship of a class.
+> _"Of course, the foundation of our regime is the dictatorship of a class.
But this in turn assumes . . . it is class that has come to self-consciousness
through its vanguard, which is to say, through the party. Without this, the
dictatorship could not exist . . . Dictatorship is the most highly
@@ -2446,70 +6043,243 @@ class realises its dictatorship through a party. That is why Lenin spoke not
only of the dictatorship of the class but also the dictatorship of the party
and, **in a certain sense**, made them identical."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 75-6]
-1927 saw Trotsky state that _"[w]ith us the dictatorship of the party (quite
-falsely disputed theoretically by Stalin) is the expression of the socialist
-dictatorship of the proletariat . . . The dictatorship of a party is a part of
-the socialist revolution"_? [**Leon Trotsky on China**, p. 251]
-
-The same year saw the publication of the **Platform of the Opposition**, in
-which it will soon be discovered that Trotsky **still** did not question the
-issue of Party dictatorship. Indeed, it is actually stressed in that document.
-While it urged a _"consistent development of a workers' democracy in the
-party, the trade unions, and the soviets"_ and to _"convert the urban soviets
-into real institutions of proletarian power"_ it contradicted itself by,
-ironically, attacking Stalin for weakening the party's dictatorship. In its
-words, the _"growing replacement of the party by its own apparatus is promoted
-by a 'theory' of Stalin's which denies the Leninist principle, inviolable for
-every Bolshevik, that the dictatorship of the proletariat is and can be
-realised only through the dictatorship of the party."_ Of course it did not
-bother to explain how workers' democracy **could** develop within a party
-dictatorship nor how soviets could become institutions of power when real
-power would, obviously, lie with the party. But, then, it did not have to as
-by _"workers' democracy"_ the Platform meant inter-party democracy, as can be
-seen when its authors _"affirm"_ the _"New Course Resolution"_ definition
-quoted above. [**The Challenge of the Left Opposition (1926-7)**, p. 384, p.
-395 and p. 402]
-
-It repeated this _"principle"_ by arguing that _"the dictatorship of the
-proletariat demands a single and united proletarian party as the leader of the
-working masses and the poor peasantry."_ It stressed that _"[n]obody who
-sincerely defends the line of Lenin can entertain the idea of 'two parties' or
-play with the suggestion of a split. Only those who desire to replace Lenin's
-course with some other can advocate a split or a movement along the two-party
-road."_ As such: _"We will fight with all our power against the idea of two
-parties, because the dictatorship of the proletariat demands as its very core
-a single proletarian party. It demands a single party."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 439
-and p. 441]
-
-Trotsky did not change from this perspective even after the horrors of
-Stalinism which McNally correctly documents. Writing in 1937, ten years after
-the Platform was published, this point is reiterated in his essay,
-_"Bolshevism and Stalinism"_ (written in 1937) when argued quite explicitly
-that _"the proletariat can take power only through its vanguard"_ and that
-_"the necessity for state power arises from an insufficient cultural level of
-the masses and their heterogeneity."_ Only with _"support of the vanguard by
-the class"_ can there be the _"conquest of power"_ and it was in _"this sense
-the proletarian revolution and dictatorship are the work of the whole class,
-but only under the leadership of the vanguard."_ Thus, rather than the working
-class as a whole seizing power, it is the _"vanguard"_ which takes power - _"a
-revolutionary party, even after seizing power . . . is still by no means the
-sovereign ruler of society."_ Note, the party is _"the sovereign ruler of
+The following year saw Trotsky state that _"[w]ith us the dictatorship of the
+party (quite falsely disputed theoretically by Stalin) is the expression of
+the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat . . . The dictatorship of a
+party is a part of the socialist revolution"_. [**Leon Trotsky on China**, p.
+251] 1927 also saw the publication of the **Platform of the Opposition**, in
+which Trotsky **still** did not question the issue of Party dictatorship.
+Indeed, it was actually stressed in that document and so while it urged a
+_"consistent development of a workers' democracy in the party, the trade
+unions, and the soviets"_ and to _"convert the urban soviets into real
+institutions of proletarian power"_ it contradicted itself by, ironically,
+attacking Stalin for weakening the party's dictatorship. In its words, the
+_"growing replacement of the party by its own apparatus is promoted by a
+'theory' of Stalin's which denies the Leninist principle, inviolable for every
+Bolshevik, that the dictatorship of the proletariat is and can be realised
+only through the dictatorship of the party."_ It stressed that _"the
+dictatorship of the proletariat demands a single and united proletarian party
+as the leader of the working masses and the poor peasantry"_ and _"[n]obody
+who sincerely defends the line of Lenin can entertain the idea of 'two
+parties' or play with the suggestion of a split. Only those who desire to
+replace Lenin's course with some other can advocate a split or a movement
+along the two-party road"_. Given this: _"We will fight with all our power
+against the idea of two parties, because the dictatorship of the proletariat
+demands as its very core a single proletarian party. It demands a single
+party."_ [**The Challenge of the Left Opposition (1926-7)**, p. 384, p. 395,
+p. 439 and p. 441]
+
+The Platform was as anti-democratic economically as it was politically,
+asserting that _"nationalisation of the means of production was a decisive
+step toward the socialist reconstruction of that whole social system which is
+founded upon the exploitation of man by man"_ and that the _"appropriation of
+surplus value by a workers' state is not, of course, exploitation"_ yet makes
+no call for workers' management of production (unsurprisingly as one-man
+management had been raised by Lenin in early 1918 and became Bolshevik
+orthodoxy as Trotsky had explained in 1920). The Platform does acknowledge
+that _"we have a workers' state with bureaucratic distortions"_ and so its
+_"swollen and privileged administrative apparatus devours a very considerable
+part of our surplus value"_ and _"the growing bourgeoisie, by means of trade
+and gambling on the abnormal disparity of prices, [also] appropriates a part
+of the surplus value created by our state industry"_. Thus _"all the data
+testify that the growth of wages is lagging behind the growth of the
+productivity of labour."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 347, p. 348 and p. 350] Trotsky
+appeared to believe that an economic regime marked by one-man management by
+state-appointed bosses under a party dictatorship would somehow be without
+exploitation even though someone other than the workers controlled both their
+labour and how its product (and any surplus) was used -- just as in a
+capitalist workplace. He failed to understand that this exploitation was the
+inevitable result of the economic regime he considered as "socialist" --
+namely _"nationalisation of the means of production"_ which simply handed the
+economy to the bureaucracy and created state capitalism (see [section
+H.3.13](secH3.html#sech313)). This did not abolish _"the exploitation of man
+by man"_ but rather changed the social class which exploited the working class
+from private capitalists to state bureaucrats -- as anarchists had predicted
+from Proudhon onwards.
+
+
+
+Of course **The Platform** did not bother to explain how workers' democracy
+**could** develop within a party dictatorship nor how soviets could become
+institutions of power when real power would, obviously, lie with the party.
+But, then, it did not have to as by _"workers' democracy"_ the Platform meant
+inter-party democracy, as can be seen when it _"affirm[s]"_ the _"New Course
+Resolution"_ definition quoted above. [**Op. Cit.**, p. 402]
+
+
+
+As is well know, the Opposition was crushed and Trotsky forced into exile.
+This did not lead to a fundamental re-evaluation of the degeneration of the
+revolution and the need for genuine soviet democracy. A key task was _"[t]o
+stop the dissolution of the party into the class in the USSR"_ and so, perhaps
+unsurprisingly, Soviet democracy went unmentioned. [**Writings 1930**, p. 148]
+Repeating previous arguments, Trotsky was fundamentally concerned about the
+dangers _"if the vanguard is dissolved into the amorphous mass"_ for _"the
+party is not the class, but its vanguard; it cannot pay for its numerical
+growth by the lowering of its political level"_. There was _"the demand of
+party democracy"_ for the dictatorship of the proletariat _"is inconceivable
+without a ruling proletarian party"_ but nothing on working class freedom or
+democracy. Perhaps this is unsurprising: _"What we mean by the restoration of
+party democracy is that the real revolutionary, proletarian core of the party
+win the right to curb the bureaucracy and to really purge the party"_. In
+other words, the first act of the successful Opposition would have been the
+reduction in numbers of those who had some kind of meaningful vote. Rest
+assured, though, because the new party regime _"means that the party directs
+the proletarian dictatorship but does not strangle the mass organisations of
+the toilers"_ and the secret ballot is _"one of the most important means to
+discipline the entire apparatus and subordinate it to the party"_. [**Writings
+1930-31**, p. 241, p. 244, p. 247, pp. 255-6, p. 70 and p. 130] Clearly
+_"socialism's democratic essence"_ was, at best, applicable to within the
+ruling party -- or at least what remained of it after the purges.
+
+In 1932, he was arguing that the _"same class can rule with the help of
+different political systems and methods according to circumstances. So the
+bourgeoisie on its historical road carried through its rule under absolute
+monarchy, bonapartism, parliamentary republic and fascist dictatorship . . .
+the Soviet regime means the rule of the proletariat, irrespective of how broad
+the stratum on whose hands the power is **immediately concentrated**."_ This
+was justification for his denial that there was _"a small group in the Kremlin
+who exercise oligarchical powers"_ (_"No, that is not so"_). [**Writings
+1932**, p. 217] Trotsky seemed to have forgotten that the bourgeoisie was a
+minority class which controlled the economic life of a country. Given this, it
+is not surprising that it could still rule under dictatorships. The same
+cannot be said of the working class -- particularly if, as under Lenin and
+Trotsky, its democratic control of work and so the economy was replaced by
+one-man management. Yet Trotsky had no alternative to make such an obviously
+wrong assertion -- to acknowledge the truth, that socialism needs meaningful
+workers' social and economic democracy to qualify as genuinely socialist --
+would have meant raising questions over the nature of the Bolshevik regime
+between 1918 and 1923 when he was at its commanding heights. Hence clearly
+incorrect assertions like: _"The dictatorship of a class does not mean by a
+long shot that its entire mass always participates in the management of the
+state"_ [**Writings 1933-34**, p. 124]
+
+In 1936 Trotsky finally appeared to revise his ideas in **The Revolution
+Betrayed**, although his revisionism in terms of democracy was combined with
+revisionism in the events of the Russian Revolution. It would be fair to
+suggest that McNally's account of Trotsky's ideas may be based on this work
+for in stark contrast to his early arguments he now stated that
+_"[b]ureaucratic autocracy must give place to Soviet democracy. A restoration
+of the right of criticism, and a genuine freedom of elections, are necessary
+conditions for the further development of the country. This assumes a revival
+of freedom of Soviet parties, beginning with the party of Bolsheviks"_. [**The
+Revolution Betrayed**, p. 273] Given his previous comments on the matter, the
+reader would be justified in wondering whether, rather than a sincere change
+of heart, Trotsky's position was a limited and temporary aberration
+(Anarchist-turned-Bolshevik Victor Serge, who later broke with Trotsky over
+this issue, stated that he _"had prevailed on him to include in"_ this book
+_"a declaration of freedom for all parties accepting the Soviet system."_
+[**Memoirs of a Revolutionary**, p. 348]).
+
+The evidence suggests the latter, that it was a temporary aberration --
+particularly given the misleading account of the rise of the Bolshevik
+dictatorship. Thus we find Trotsky suggesting that it was 1924-26 that saw
+_"the complete suppression of party and Soviet democracy"_ when, as noted
+above, he was publicly acknowledging the reality of party dictatorship in
+1920. He also forgot the ideas of his own Opposition from 1927 and in 1936 it
+was no longer was it a case of the necessity of a single party as _"a class
+has many 'parts' -– some look forward and some back -– [and so] one and the
+same class may create several parties . . . An example of only one party
+corresponding to one class is not to be found in the whole course of political
+history -– provided, of course, you do not take the police appearance for the
+reality."_ That the need for the dictatorship of the vanguard was justified
+**precisely** in terms of the backwardness of the class and other parties was
+forgotten. Likewise, the acknowledgement of party dictatorship as a principle
+of Leninism was overlooked in favour of the suggestion that the civil war
+resulted in the opposition parties being _"forbidden one after the other"_ and
+while this was _"obviously in conflict with the spirit of Soviet democracy,
+the leaders of Bolshevism regarded [it] not as a principle, but as an episodic
+act of self-defence."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 34, p. 252 and p. 96] It would be
+churlish to note that the final abolition of opposition parties -- like
+factions within the ruling party -- occurred **after** the end of the civil
+war.
+
+These awkward facts did not stop Trotsky from suggesting a fundamental
+difference between the Leninist and Stalinist dictatorships:
+
+> _"To be sure, during the first period of the Soviet era the Bolshevik party
+also exercised a monopoly. But to identify these two phenomena would be to
+take appearance for reality. The prohibition of opposition parties was a
+temporary measure dictated by conditions of civil war, blockade, intervention
+and famine. The ruling party, representing in that period a genuine
+organisation of the proletarian vanguard, was living a full-blooded inner
+life. A struggle of groups and factions to a certain degree replaced the
+struggle of parties. At present, when socialism has conquered 'finally and
+irrevocably,' the formation of factions is punished with concentration camp or
+firing squad. The prohibition of other parties, from being a temporary evil,
+has been erected into a principle."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 251]
+
+In reality, the necessity of a party dictatorship was embraced by leading
+Bolsheviks like Trotsky and proclaimed to the world Socialist movement. The
+prohibition of opposition parties was not lamented at the time but rather
+raised to a principle (a Leninist principle, no less!) and implemented after
+victory in the civil war was secure. Factions were banned -- with Trotsky's
+wholehearted support -- precisely because, as he later noted, they had
+replaced the struggle of parties. Nor was Trotsky bothered by state repression
+of opposition when he was in charge. For example a series of (unofficial)
+strikes broke out in July and August 1923 in Moscow and Petrograd and this
+_"gave a new lease of life to the Mensheviks"_ and so _"the GPU carried out a
+massive round up of Mensheviks, and as many as one thousand were arrested in
+Moscow alone."_ [Tony Cliff, **Trotsky**, vol. 3, p. 25] When it was the turn
+of the ex-Bolsheviks in the Workers' Group, Trotsky _"was not at all eager to
+defend"_ them and _"did not protest when their adherents were thrown into
+prison. Nor was he at all eager to support their demand for soviet democracy
+in that extreme form"_. [Isaac Deutscher, **The Prophet Unarmed**, pp. 108-9]
+It should be noted that rather than _"extreme"_ a better word would have been
+_"genuine"_ as the Workers' Group, unlike Trotsky, **did** call for a multi-
+party workers' democracy -- and paid the price. Indeed, the _"New Course
+Resolution"_ even went so far as to say that _"it is obvious that there can be
+no toleration of the formation of groupings whose ideological content is
+directed against the party as a whole and against the dictatorship of the
+proletariat, as for instance the Workers' Truth and Workers' Group."_ [**The
+Challenge of the Left Opposition (1923-25)**, p. 408]
+
+It would be remiss to not note how limited Trotsky's position was: being
+limited to the Soviet Union it does not automatically negate his arguments
+previously made to the international socialist movement. Moreover, given the
+revisionism of the origins of the Bolshevik dictatorship it is legitimate to
+ponder how honest Trotsky's statement is. He stated that if _""the Soviet
+bureaucracy is overthrown by a revolutionary party having all the attributes
+of the old Bolshevism"_ then it _"would begin with the restoration of
+democracy in the trade unions and the Soviets"_ and it _"would be able to, and
+would have to, restore freedom of Soviet parties."_ Yet it was precisely the
+Bolsheviks who decreed that other parties within the Soviets were not genuine
+Soviet parties after all and repressed them. What guarantee exists that once
+the Bolsheviks had been revived (i.e., his faction took over) they did not
+conclude, as before, the necessity of party dictatorship? None. After all, did
+he not suggest that the _"dictatorship of the Bolshevik party proved one of
+the most powerful instruments of progress in history"_? [**Op. Cit.**, pp.
+238-9 and p. 104]
+
+This limited support for Soviet Democracy was short-lived. Writing in 1937,
+ten years after the Platform was published and a year after **The Revolution
+Betrayed**, Trotsky was reiterating the privileged position of the party. In
+his essay _"Bolshevism and Stalinism"_ he argued quite explicitly that _"the
+proletariat can take power only through its vanguard"_ and that _"the
+necessity for state power arises from an insufficient cultural level of the
+masses and their heterogeneity."_ Only with _"support of the vanguard by the
+class"_ can there be the _"conquest of power"_ and it was in _"this sense the
+proletarian revolution and dictatorship are the work of the whole class, but
+only under the leadership of the vanguard."_ Thus, rather than the working
+class as a whole seizing power, it is the _"vanguard"_ which takes power --
+_"a revolutionary party, even after seizing power . . . is still by no means
+the sovereign ruler of society."_ Note, the party is _"the sovereign ruler of
society,"_ **not** the working class. Nor can it be said that he was not clear
who held power in his system: state power is required to **govern the
-masses,** who cannot exercise power themselves. As Trotsky put it, _"[t]hose
-who propose the abstraction of Soviets to the party dictatorship should
-understand that only thanks to the Bolshevik leadership were the Soviets able
-to lift themselves out of the mud of reformism and attain the state form of
-the proletariat."_ [**Writings 1936-37**, p. 490, p. 488 and p. 495] Later
-that same year he repeated this position:
-
-> _ "The revolutionary dictatorship of a proletarian party is for me not a
+masses,** who cannot exercise power themselves as _"[t]hose who propose the
+abstraction of Soviets to the party dictatorship should understand that only
+thanks to the Bolshevik leadership were the Soviets able to lift themselves
+out of the mud of reformism and attain the state form of the proletariat."_
+[**Writings 1936-37**, p. 490, p. 488 and p. 495] Later that same year he
+repeated this position clearly and unambiguously:
+
+> _"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
+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. . .
+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
@@ -2519,22 +6289,63 @@ 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."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 513-4]
-Which was, let us not forget, his argument in 1920! Such remarkable
+Which was, let us not forget, his argument in 1920. Such remarkable
consistency on this point over a 17 year period and one which cannot be
overlooked if you seek to present an accurate account of Trotsky's ideas
during this period. Significantly, this was the year after his apparent (and
-much belated) embrace of soviet democracy in **The Revolution Betrayed**. His
-advice on what to do during the Spanish Revolution followed this pattern:
-_"Because the leaders of the CNT renounced dictatorship **for themselves**
-they left the place open for the Stalinist dictatorship."_ [our emphasis,
-**Op. Cit.**, p. 514] So much for workers' power!
-
-Two years later, Trotsky repeats the same dictatorial ideas. Writing in 1939,
-he indicates yet again that he viewed democracy as a threat to the revolution
-and saw the need for party power over workers' freedom (a position,
-incidentally, which echoes his comments from 1921):
-
-> _ "The very same masses are at different times inspired by different moods
+much belated) embrace of soviet democracy for the USSR in **The Revolution
+Betrayed** and so that work must be considered as a temporary aberration,
+quickly rejected. His advice on what to do during the Spanish Revolution
+followed this pattern: _"Because the leaders of the CNT renounced dictatorship
+**for themselves** they left the place open for the Stalinist dictatorship."_
+[our emphasis, **Op. Cit.**, p. 514] So much for workers' power!
+
+The following year saw Trotsky produce an article defending the suppression of
+the Kronstadt revolt which proclaimed that a _"revolution is 'made' directly
+by a **minority**. The success of a revolution is possible, however, only
+where this minority finds more or less support, or at least friendly
+neutrality, on the part of the majority. The shift in different stages of the
+revolution, like the transition from revolution to counterrevolution, is
+directly determined by changing political relations between the minority and
+the majority, between the vanguard and the class."_ [_"Hue and Cry Over
+Kronstadt"_, Lenin and Trotsky, **Kronstadt**, p. 85] Given that Kronstadt had
+rebelled against the Bolshevik dictatorship for soviet democracy, Trotsky's
+argument suggests that for him the rule of the party (the _"minority . . . the
+vanguard"_) is more important than soviet democracy (see the appendix on
+["What was the Kronstadt Rebellion?"](append42.html) for more details of this
+key event in the history of the Russian Revolution). In other words, if the
+majority come to reject the minority then the former shows lack of sufficient
+class awareness and so the latter needs, as in Kronstadt, to use state power
+to secure its ruling position. This is implicit in the following strange
+comment:
+
+> _"It is true that some of them [the critics of Bolshevism] recognise the
+revolution and the dictatorship –- in words. But this does not help matters.
+They wish for a revolution which will not lead to dictatorship or for a
+dictatorship which will get along without the use of force. Of course, this
+would be a very 'pleasant' dictatorship. It requires, however, a few trifles:
+an equal and, moreover, an extremely high, development of the toiling masses.
+But in such conditions the dictatorship would in general be unnecessary. Some
+Anarchists, who are really liberal pedagogues, hope that in a hundred or a
+thousand years the toilers will have attained so high a level of development
+that coercion will prove unnecessary. Naturally, if capitalism could lead to
+such a development, there would be no reason for overthrowing capitalism.
+There would be no need either for violent revolution or for the dictatorship
+which is an inevitable consequence of revolutionary victory"_ [**Op. Cit.**,
+pp. 92-3]
+
+Given that the so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat" is meant to be the
+means by which the proletariat coerce the former ruling elite, it is strange
+to read Trotsky argue that coercion becomes unnecessary if the toiling masses
+have a high level of political development. Why would the ruling elite stop
+their attempts at counter-revolution in those circumstances? That seems
+unlikely so we can only conclude that the coercion (like the dictatorship) is
+directed against the _"toiling masses"_ by the ruling party. This is confirmed
+the following year (1939) when Trotsky repeats the same dictatorial ideas of
+1921 by indicating -- yet again -- that he viewed democracy as a threat to the
+revolution and saw the need for party power over workers' freedom:
+
+> _"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 . . .
@@ -2554,67 +6365,179 @@ that working people can recall and replace their delegates when those
delegates do not follow the wishes and mandates of the electors. If the
governors determine what is and what is not in the "real" interests of the
masses and "overcome" (i.e. repress) the governed, then we have dictatorship,
-not democracy. Clearly Trotsky is, yet again, arguing for party dictatorship
-and his comments are hardly in the spirit of individual/social freedom or
-democracy. Rather they mean the promotion of party power over workers' power
--- a position which Trotsky had argued consistently throughout the 1920s and
-1930s.
-
-As "Left Oppositionist" Victor Serge pointed out, _"the greatest reach of
-boldness of the Left Opposition in the Bolshevik Party was to demand the
-restoration of inner-Party democracy, and it never dared dispute the theory of
-single-party government - by this time, it was too late."_ [**The Serge-
-Trotsky Papers**, p. 181] Even in the prison camps in the late 1920s and early
-1930s, _"almost all the Trotskyists continued to consider that 'freedom of
-party' would be 'the end of the revolution.' 'Freedom to choose one's party -
-that is Menshevism,' was the Trotskyists' final verdict."_ [Ante Ciliga, **The
-Russian Enigma**, p. 280] As can be seen, they were simply following their
-leader -- and Bolshevik orthodoxy!
+not democracy.
+
+Trotsky was hardly alone in his views given that they were Bolshevik
+orthodoxy. Amazingly enough, even in the Russian prison camps in the late
+1920s and early 1930s, _"almost all the Trotskyists continued to consider that
+'freedom of party' would be 'the end of the revolution.' 'Freedom to choose
+one's party -- that is Menshevism,' was the Trotskyists' final verdict."_ This
+was because it had been _"condemned formerly by Lenin, by Trotsky"_ as well as
+by other Opposition Groups. [Ante Ciliga, **The Russian Enigma**, p. 280] As
+Left Oppositionist Victor Serge pointed out _"the greatest reach of boldness
+of the Left Opposition in the Bolshevik Party was to demand the restoration of
+inner-Party democracy, and it never dared dispute the theory of single-party
+government -- by this time, it was too late."_ [**The Serge-Trotsky Papers**,
+p. 181] Sadly, like Trotsky's **The Revolution Betrayed**, Serge's later
+**Memoirs** paint a different picture by asserting one of its _"great
+fundamental ideas"_ was _"working-class democracy"_! [**Memoirs of a
+Revolutionary**, p. 252]
As can be seen, McNally does not present a remotely accurate account of
-Trotsky's ideas. All of which makes McNally's comments deeply ironic. McNally
-argues that _"Stalin had returned to an ideology resembling authoritarian pre-
-Marxian socialism. Gone was socialism's democratic essence. Stalin's 'Marxism'
-was a variant of socialism from above"_ Clearly, Trotsky's "Marxism" was also
-a variant of _"socialism from above"_ and without _"socialism's democratic
-essence"_ (unless you think that party dictatorship can somehow be reconciled
-with democracy or expresses one of the _"basic elements of socialism from
-below"_). For Trotsky, as for Stalin, the dictatorship of the party was a
-fundamental principle of Bolshevism and one which was above democracy (which,
-by its very nature, expresses the _"vacillation of the masses"_).
-
-Ironically, McNally argues that _"[t]hroughout the 1920s and until his death .
-. . Trotsky fought desperately to build a revolutionary socialist movement
-based on the principles of Marx and Lenin."_ Leaving Marx to one side for the
-moment, McNally's comments are correct. In his support for party power and
-dictatorship (for a _"socialism from above,"_ to use McNally's term) Trotsky
-was indeed following Lenin's principles. As noted in the [ last
-section](append31.html#app14), Lenin had been arguing from a "socialism" based
-on _"above"_ and _"below"_ since at least 1905. The reality of Bolshevik rule
-(as indicated in [section 8](append31.html#app8)) showed, pressure _"from
-above"_ by a "revolutionary" government easily crushes pressure "from below."
-Nor was Lenin shy in arguing for Party dictatorship. As he put it in 1920:
-
-> _ "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 directly 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]
-
-To stress the point, Lenin is clearly arguing for party power, **not**
-workers' power, and that party dictatorship is inevitable in **every**
-revolution. This position is **not** put in terms of the extreme problems
-facing the Russian Revolution but rather is expressed in universal terms. As
-such, in **this** sense, McNally is right -- by defending the dictatorship of
-the party Trotsky was following the "principles" laid down by Lenin.
-
-Despite Lenin and Trotsky's dismissal of democracy, McNally argues that
-democracy is the core need of socialism:
+Trotsky's ideas during the 1920s and 1930s. All of which makes McNally's
+comments deeply ironic. He argues that _"Stalin had returned to an ideology
+resembling authoritarian pre-Marxian socialism. Gone was socialism's
+democratic essence. Stalin's 'Marxism' was a variant of socialism from above"_
+Clearly, Trotsky's Marxism was also a variant of _"socialism from above"_ and
+without _"socialism's democratic essence"_ (unless you think that party
+dictatorship can somehow be reconciled with democracy or expresses one of the
+_"basic elements of socialism from below"_). For Trotsky, as for Stalin, the
+dictatorship of the party was a fundamental principle of Bolshevism and one
+which was above democracy (which, by its very nature, expresses the
+_"vacillation of the masses"_). Compare McNally's words on Stalinism to
+Trotsky's position:
+
+> _""For [Stalin's] group, 'socialism' lost all foundation in organs of
+workers' democracy, soviets . . . They came increasingly to identify socialism
+with a bureaucratic monopoly of power which allowed no place for organs of
+mass democracy . . . Gone was the commitment to workers' democracy and
+international socialism . . . Stalin undertook to reshape the entire nature
+and direction of Russian society . . . the elimination of all dissent; the
+liquidation of all forms of democracy and of genuine working class
+organisation . . . "_
+
+Given that the identification of socialism with the party's _"monopoly of
+power"_ as well as removal of _"the commitment to workers' democracy"_
+occurred under Lenin and that Trotsky's defended this, the question arises was
+there any fundamental difference between Leninism and Stalinism? As Victor
+Serge admitted, _"a good many Oppositionists rallied to the [Stalinist]
+'general line' and renounced their errors since, as they put it, 'After all,
+it is our programme that is being applied'"_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 252] Hence Emma
+Goldman:
+
+> _"In point of truth I see no marked difference between the two protagonists
+of the benevolent system of the dictatorship except that Leon Trotsky is no
+longer in power to enforce its blessings, and Josef Stalin is . . . Stalin did
+not come down as a gift from heaven to the hapless Russian people. He is
+merely continuing the Bolshevik traditions, even if in a more relentless
+manner . . . I admit, the dictatorship under Stalin's rule has become
+monstrous. That does not, however, lessen the guilt of Leon Trotsky as one of
+the actors in the revolutionary drama"_ [_"Trotsky Protests Too Much"_,
+**Writings of Emma Goldman**, pp. 251-2]
+
+Ante Ciliga saw the similarities first-hand while in prison in the Soviet
+Union, noting that the Trotskyists _"who were in prison for anti-Stalinism
+could find nothing better to do than to indulge in Stalinism themselves [in
+their political groups] while in prison. This absurdity was only apparent; it
+merely served to prove that between Trotskyism and Stalinism there were many
+points in common"_. The outlook of the Trotskyist majority _"was not very
+different from that of the Stalinist bureaucracy; they were slightly more
+polite and human, that was all."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 218 and p. 263] This is
+unsurprising given, as indicated, the same Bolshevik political legacy and same
+class position (Trotskyists were labelled _"the bureaucracy in exile"_). It
+may have been that if the Trotskyists had won the inter-bureaucracy struggle
+in the mid-1920s then the Soviet Union would have avoided the horrors of
+Stalinism but it would have remained a state capitalist party dictatorship
+and, as such, a class system in which the few exploit, oppress and repress the
+many. That this few would have exploited the many less ruthlessly and aimed to
+impose similar regimes internationally rather than concentrating on building
+_"socialism in one country"_ does not mean much.
+
+Needless to say, Goldman had no difficulty in recognising that Bolshevik
+Russia was _"State Capitalism"_ in the early 1920s (i.e., when Trotsky was
+still part of the ruling class). [**My Disillusionment in Russia**, p. 247]
+McNally argues that _"[b]y making the nature of property ownership the
+criterion of workers' state"_ rather than _"workers' power and workers'
+democracy"_ Trotsky had _"committed an error that was seriously to disorient
+the Trotskyist movement in later years. For, unwittingly, Trotsky had broken
+from the most basic precepts of socialism from below."_ Yet what alternative
+did he have? After all, both workers' democracy and power had been eliminated
+when he held power alongside Lenin and he did not consider the first -- bar
+for a short period in 1936 -- as important enough to advocate and equated the
+second with party rule. So if McNally's criteria is taken seriously then we
+must conclude that the Bolshevik regime had not been a "workers' state" since
+mid-1918 nor did Trotsky aim for one during the 1920s and 1930s. Which raises
+the awkward question of why McNally thinks he had not broken _"from the most
+basic precepts of socialism from below"_ by defending Lenin's party
+dictatorship and Trotsky's attempts to recreate it? Does having the right
+people in power make _"workers' control of society"_ an optional extra for
+_"socialism from below"_?
+
+McNally then suggests that this breaking with _"the most basic precepts of
+socialism from below"_ by not recognising Stalinist Russia was _"a system of
+bureaucratic state capitalism in which capital is collectively controlled by
+the privileged bureaucracy that controls the state"_ was _"not readily
+apparent during Trotsky's lifetime."_ Far from it -- anarchists had recognised
+the grim reality of the new Bolshevik state from early 1918 and indicated that
+it had confirmed the fears raised by Bakunin in his polemics with Marx (see
+[section H.3.13](secH3.html#sech313)). It is worth indicating these arguments
+since we did not have to wait until the 1940s before drawing what to the
+uninitiated was an obvious conclusion -- that the Soviet Union was a state
+capitalist dictatorship run by and for a new ruling minority.
+
+A state, Bakunin argued, _"stands outside the people and above them"_ and so
+was _"the government of society from above downward"_ which resulted in the
+_"actual subordination of the sovereign people to the intellectual minority
+that governs them."_ It was the _"government of the masses from above
+downwards"_ by a minority _"which supposedly understands the real interests of
+the people better than the people themselves"_. However, _"power corrupts
+those invested with it just as much as those compelled to submit to it"_ and
+the _"government of the majority by a minority in the name of the presumed
+stupidity of the one and the presumed intelligence of the other"_ would have
+_"the direct and inevitable result of consolidating the political and economic
+privileges of the governing minority and the political and economic slavery of
+the masses"_. Bakunin recognised the elitism inherent in Trotsky's privileging
+of the party (the vanguard) and argued that while it was claimed _"those
+elected will be passionately committed as well as learned socialists"_ the
+reality would be that _"the pseudo-popular state will be nothing but the
+highly despotic government of the masses by a new and very small aristocracy
+of real or pretended scholars. The people are not learned, so they will be
+liberated in entirety form the cares of government and included in entirety in
+the governed herd. A fine liberation!"_ The new government would _"begin to
+look upon the whole workers’ world from the heights of the state. They will no
+longer represent the people but themselves and their own pretensions to govern
+the people."_ Rather than securing the freedom of the people _"no dictatorship
+can have any other objective than to perpetuate itself, and that it can
+engender only slavery in the people who endure it"_. [**Statism and Anarchy**,
+p. 136, p. 198, p. 13, p. 24, p. 136, p. 137, pp. 178-9, p. 178 and p. 179]
+
+Economically, the workers would remain oppressed and exploited as the Marxists
+would _"concentrate the reins of government in a strong hand, because the
+ignorant people require strong supervision. They will create a single state
+bank, concentrating in their own hands all commercial, industrial,
+agricultural, and even scientific, production, and will divide the people into
+two armies, one industrial and one agrarian, under the direct command of state
+engineers, who will form a new privileged scientific and political class."_
+The state bureaucracy would become the new ruling class, _"a new bureaucratic
+aristocracy"_ who are _"corrupted by state service"_, and as soon as _"they
+enter state service . . . the iron logic of their position, the force of
+circumstances inherent in certain hierarchical and profitable relationships,
+makes itself felt and . . . [they] become bureaucrats from head to toe . . .
+The demands of a certain position always prove stronger than sentiments,
+intentions, or good impulses . . . They have to become members of the
+bureaucratic class . . . they become enemies of the people, whether they want
+to or not"_. [**Op. Cit.**, p. 181 and p. 51]
+
+Clearly the Bolshevik experience confirmed Bakunin's critique of Marxism while
+the Makhnovist insurrectionary army in the Ukraine confirmed the validity of
+the anarchist alternative (see the appendix ["Why does the Makhnovist movement
+show there is an alternative to Bolshevism?"](append46.html) for details). As
+such, it is ironic to read McNally state that _"[t]hroughout the 1920s and
+until his death . . . Trotsky fought desperately to build a revolutionary
+socialist movement based on the principles of Marx and Lenin."_ Leaving Marx
+to one side for the moment, McNally's comments are correct simply because in
+his advocacy of party power and dictatorship (for a _"socialism from above,"_
+to use McNally's term) Trotsky was indeed following Lenin's principles and
+Bolshevik orthodoxy. As noted in the [last section](append31.html#app14),
+Lenin had been arguing from a "socialism" based on _"above"_ and _"below"_
+since at least 1905 (which, to show their Marxist orthodoxy, he linked to
+Engels and his arguments against Bakunin.) The reality of Bolshevik rule (as
+indicated in [section 8](append31.html#app8)) showed that pressure _"from
+above"_ by a "revolutionary" government easily crushes pressure "from below"
+in the name, as Trotsky constantly stressed throughout the 1920s and 1930s, of
+the advanced political ideas of the Bolshevik party leaders. Yet despite Lenin
+and Trotsky's dismissal of democracy, McNally argues that democracy is the
+core need of socialism:
> _ "A workers' state, according to Marx and Lenin, is a state based upon
workers' control of society. It depends upon the existence of democratic
@@ -2633,113 +6556,139 @@ was raised explicitly to combat the fact that the workers' could change their
minds and vote against the vanguard party. As such, the founding fathers of
the SWP/ISO political tradition explicitly argued that a workers' state had to
reject workers power and democracy in order to ensure the victory of the
-revolution. Clearly, according to McNally's own argument, Bolshevism cannot be
-considered as "socialism from below" as it explicitly argued that a workers'
-state did not "necessarily" mean workers' power or democracy.
+revolution. Clearly, according to McNally's own argument, his own politics
+cannot be considered as "socialism from below" as it explicitly argued that a
+workers' state did not "necessarily" mean workers' power or democracy.
As indicated above, for the period McNally **himself** selects (the 1920s and
1930s), Trotsky consistently argued that the Bolshevik tradition the SWP/ISO
-places itself was based on the "principle" of party dictatorship. For McNally
-to talk about Trotsky keeping _"socialism from below"_ alive is, therefore,
-truly amazing. It either indicates a lack of awareness of Trotsky's ideas or a
-desire to deceive.
+places itself was based on the _"Leninist principle"_ of party dictatorship.
+For McNally to talk about Trotsky keeping _"socialism from below"_ alive is,
+therefore, truly amazing. It either indicates a lack of awareness of Trotsky's
+ideas or a desire to deceive. To be fair to McNally, the notion that Trotsky's
+Opposition supported genuine workers' democracy seems to be a common fallacy
+in SWP circles. Thus Chris Harman asserted that the _"alternative to
+Stalinism"_ in the late 1920s was _"returning to genuine workers' democracy
+and consciously linking the fate of Russia to the fate of the world
+revolution"_ (while allowing _"a limited development of heavy industry"_) and
+it was the _"historical merit of the Left Opposition"_ that _"it framed a
+policy along these lines."_ [Chris Harman, **Bureaucracy and Revolution in
+Eastern Europe**, p. 19] Clearly McNally is not the only Leninist unable -- or
+unwilling -- to discover the grim truth about the Left Opposition or, for that
+matter, the reality of Bolshevik rule.
For anarchists, we stress, the Bolshevik substitution of party power for
workers power did not come as a surprise. The state is the delegation of
**power** \-- as such, it means that the idea of a "workers' state" expressing
-"workers' power" is a logical impossibility. If workers **are** running
-society then power rests in their hands. If a state exists then power rests in
-the hands of the handful of people at the top, **not** in the hands of all.
-The state was designed for minority rule. No state can be an organ of working
-class (i.e. majority) self-management due to its basic nature, structure and
-design.
+"workers' power" is a logical impossibility (see [section
+H.3.7](secH3.html#sech37)). If workers **are** running society then power
+rests in their hands. If a state exists then power rests in the hands of the
+handful of people at the top, **not** in the hands of all. The state was
+designed for minority rule. No state can be an organ of working class (i.e.
+majority) self-management due to its basic nature, structure and design.
For this reason anarchists from Bakunin onwards have argued for a bottom-up
federation of workers' councils as the agent of revolution and the means of
managing society after capitalism and the state have been abolished. If these
organs of workers' self-management are co-opted into a state structure (as
happened in Russia) then their power will be handed over to the **real** power
-in any state \-- the government (in this case, the Council of People's
+in any state -- the government (in this case, the Council of People's
Commissars). They will quickly become mere rubberstamps of the organisation
which holds the reigns of power, the vanguard party and its central committee.
McNally rewrites history by arguing that it was _"Stalin's counter-
revolution"_ which saw _"communist militants . . . executed, peasants
slaughtered, the last vestiges of democracy eliminated."_ The SWP/ISO usually
-date this "counter-revolution" to around 1927/8. However, by this date there
-was no _"vestiges"_ of meaningful democracy left -- as Trotsky himself made
-clear in his comments in favour of party dictatorship in 1921 and 1923.
-Indeed, Trotsky had supported the repression of the Kronstadt revolt which had
-called for soviet democracy (see the appendix on ["What was the Kronstadt
-Rebellion?"](append42.html) for details). He argues that Trotsky
+date this "counter-revolution" to 1928 (the defeat of the Left Opposition and
+the first Five Year Plan). However, long before this date there was no
+_"vestiges"_ of meaningful democracy left -- as Trotsky himself made clear in
+his comments in favour of party dictatorship between 1920 and 1923. Indeed,
+Trotsky had supported the repression of the Kronstadt revolt which had called
+for soviet democracy. McNally ignores this and instead argues that Trotsky
_"acknowledged that the soviets had been destroyed, that union democracy had
disappeared, that the Bolshevik party had been stripped of its revolutionary
-character"_ under Stalinism. Yet, as we noted in [section
-8](append31.html#app8), the Bolsheviks had already destroyed soviet democracy,
-undermined union democracy and repressed all revolutionary elements outside of
-the party (the anarchists being first in April 1918). Moreover, as we
-discussed in [section 13](append31.html#app13), Lenin had argued for the
-introduction of state capitalism in April 1918 and the appointment of "one-man
-management." Clearly, by the start of the Russian Civil War in late May 1918,
-the Bolsheviks had introduced much of which McNally denounces as "Stalinism."
-By 1921, the repression of the Kronstadt revolt and the major strike wave that
-inspired it had made Stalinism inevitable (see the appendix on ["What was the
-Kronstadt Rebellion?"](append42.html)). Clearly, to draw a sharp distinction
-between Stalinism and Bolshevism under Lenin is difficult, if not impossible,
-to make based on McNally's own criteria.
-
-During his analysis of the Trotskyist movements, McNally states that after the
-second world war _"the Trotskyist movement greeted"_ the various new Stalinist
-regimes in Eastern Europe and elsewhere _"as workers' states"_ in spite of
-being _"brutally undemocratic state capitalist tyrannies."_ Given that the
-SWP/ISO and a host of other Leninist groups still argue that Lenin's brutally
-undemocratic state capitalist tyranny was some kind of "workers' state"
-McNally's comments seem deeply ironic given the history of Leninism in power.
-As such, Trotsky's defence of Stalinism as a _"degenerated workers' state"_ is
-not as surprising as McNally tries to claim. If, as he argues, _"[t]o talk of
-a workers' state is necessarily to talk of workers' power and workers'
+character"_ under Stalinism. Yet, as we discusse in [section H.6](secH6.html),
+the Bolsheviks had already destroyed soviet democracy, undermined union
+democracy and repressed all revolutionary elements outside of the party,
+argued for the introduction of state capitalism and the appointment of "one-
+man management" as well as repressing peasants and striking and protesting
+workers long before the start of the Russian Civil War in late May 1918. In
+short, the Bolsheviks had introduced much of which McNally denounces as
+"Stalinism" before the war he uses to excuse them for all responsibility for
+its rise. As Maurice Brinton rightly states:
+
+> _"there is a clear-cut and incontrovertible link between what happened under
+Lenin and Trotsky and the later practices of Stalinism . . . The more one
+unearths about this period the more difficult it becomes to define -- or even
+to see -- the 'gulf' allegedly separating what happened in Lenin's time from
+what happened later. Real knowledge of the facts also makes it impossible to
+accept . . . that the whole course of events was 'historically inevitable' and
+'objectively determined'. Bolshevik ideology and practice were themselves
+important and sometimes decisive factors in the equation, at every critical
+stage of this critical period [between 1917 and 1921]"_ [_"The Bolsheviks and
+Workers' Control"_, **For Workers' Power**, p. 376]
+
+To draw a sharp distinction between Stalinism and Bolshevism is difficult, if
+not impossible, to make based on McNally's own criteria. That Stalinism was
+more brutal, more unequal, more despotic is true but that does not change the
+similarities in social relationships between the two -- both were dictatorial
+state capitalist regimes. That the repression did not extend to within the
+Bolshevik party is a weak hook to hang a theory on.
+
+During his analysis of the failure of orthodox Trotskyism, McNally states that
+after the second world war _"the Trotskyist movement greeted"_ the various new
+Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe and elsewhere _"as workers' states"_ in
+spite of being _"brutally undemocratic state capitalist tyrannies."_ Given
+that the SWP/ISO and a host of other Leninist groups still argue that Lenin's
+brutally undemocratic state capitalist tyranny was some kind of "workers'
+state" McNally's comments seem deeply ironic. As such, Trotsky's defence of
+Stalinism as a _"degenerated workers' state"_ is not as surprising nor as
+puzzling as McNally tries to claim. If, as he argues, _"[t]o talk of a
+workers' state is necessarily to talk of workers' power and workers'
democracy"_ then Lenin's regime had ceased to be a "workers' state" (if such a
thing could exist) by the spring of 1918 at the latest. For anarchists (and
libertarian Marxists) the similarities are all too clear between the regime
under Lenin and that under Stalin. That McNally cannot see the obvious
-similarities suggests a lack of objectivity.
+similarities suggests a lack of objectivity and a weak commitment to the
+principles of _"socialism from below"_
He sums up his account of the post-Second War World Trotskyists by arguing
-that "the movement Trotsky had created fell victim to the ideology of
-socialism from above." Unfortunately for his claims, this is not the case. As
+that _"the movement Trotsky had created fell victim to the ideology of
+socialism from above."_ Unfortunately for his claims, this is not the case. As
proven above, Trotsky had consistently argued for the dictatorship of the
-party for 20 years and so Trotskyism had always been based on _"the ideology
-of socialism from above."_ Trotsky had argued for party dictatorship simply
-because democratic mass organisations would allow the working class to express
-their _"wavering"_ and _"vacillations."_ Given that, according to those who
-follow Bolshevik ideas, the working class is meant to run the so-called
-"workers' state" Trotsky's arguments are extremely significant. He explicitly
-acknowledged that under Bolshevism the working class does **not** actually
-manage their own fates but rather the vanguard party does. This is cannot be
-anything **but** _"socialism from above."_ If, as McNally argues, Trotsky's
-_"fatal error"_ in not recognising that Stalinism was state capitalism came
-from _"violating the principles of socialism from below,"_ then this "fatal
-error" is at the heart of the Leninist tradition.
-
-As such, its roots can be traced further back than the rise of Stalin. Its
-real roots lie with the idea of a "workers' state" and so with the ideas of
-Marx and Engels. As Bakunin argued at the time (and anarchists have repeated
-since) the state is, by its nature, a centralised and top-down machine. By
-creating a "revolutionary" government, power is automatically transferred from
-the working class into the hands of a few people at the top. As they have the
-real, **de facto**, power in the state, it is inevitable that they will
-implement "socialism from above" as that is how the state is structured. As
-Bakunin argued, _"every state . . . are in essence only machines governing the
-masses from above"_ by a _"privileged minority, allegedly knowing the genuine
-interests of the people better than the people themselves."_ The idea of a
-state being run "from below" makes as much sense as "dry rain." Little wonder
-Bakunin argued for a _"federal organisation, from the bottom upward, of
-workers' associations, groups, city and village communes, and finally of
-regions and peoples"_ as _"the sole condition of a real and not fictitious
-liberty."_ In other words, _"[w]here all rule, there are no more ruled, and
-there is no State."_ [**The Political Philosophy of Bakunin**, p. 211, p. 210
-and p. 223] Only this, the destruction of every state and its replacement by a
-system of workers' councils, can ensure a real **_"socialism from below."_**
+party between 1920 and 1940 and so Trotskyism had always been based on _"the
+ideology of socialism from above."_ Trotsky had argued for party dictatorship
+simply because democratic mass organisations would allow the working class to
+express their _"wavering"_ and _"vacillations."_ Given that, according to
+those who follow Bolshevik ideas, the working class is meant to run the so-
+called "workers' state" Trotsky's arguments are extremely significant. He
+explicitly acknowledged that under Bolshevism the working class does **not**
+actually manage their own fates but rather the vanguard party does. This is
+cannot be anything **but** _"socialism from above."_ If, as McNally argues,
+Trotsky's _"fatal error"_ in not recognising that Stalinism was state
+capitalism came from _"violating the principles of socialism from below,"_
+then this _"fatal error"_ is at the heart of the Leninist tradition.
+
+As such, the roots of Trotsky's _"fatal error"_ can be traced further back
+than the rise of Stalin. Its real roots lie with the idea of a "workers'
+state" and so with the ideas of Marx and Engels. As Bakunin argued against
+Marx (and anarchists have repeated since) the state is, by its nature, a
+centralised and top-down machine. By creating a "revolutionary" government,
+power is automatically transferred from the working class into the hands of a
+few people at the top. As they have the real, **de facto**, power in the
+state, it is inevitable that they will implement "socialism from above" as
+that is how the state is structured. As Bakunin argued, all states _"are in
+essence only machines governing the masses from above"_ by a _"privileged
+minority, allegedly knowing the genuine interests of the people better than
+the people themselves."_ The idea of a state being run "from below" makes as
+much sense as "dry rain." Little wonder Bakunin argued for a _"federal
+organisation, from the bottom upward, of workers' associations, groups, city
+and village communes, and finally of regions and peoples"_ as _"the sole
+condition of a real and not fictitious liberty."_ In other words: _"Where all
+rule, there are no more ruled, and there is no State."_ [**The Political
+Philosophy of Bakunin**, p. 211, p. 210 and p. 223] Only this, the destruction
+of every state and its replacement by a free federation of workers' councils,
+can ensure a real _"socialism from below"_.
Therefore, rather than signifying the working class running society directly,
the "workers' state" actually signifies the opposite -- namely, that the
@@ -2747,15 +6696,19 @@ working class has delegated that power and responsibility to **others**,
namely the government. As Leninism supports the idea of a "workers' state"
then it is inevitably and logically tied to the idea of "socialism from
below." Given that Lenin himself argued that "only from below" was an
-anarchist principle (see [last section](append31.html#app14)), we can easily
-see what the "fatal error" of Trotsky **actually** was. By rejecting anarchism
-he automatically rejected **real** _**"socialism from below."**_
+anarchist principle, we can easily see what the _"fatal error"_ of Trotsky
+**actually** was. By rejecting anarchism he automatically rejected **real**
+_"socialism from below."_
Sadly for McNally, Trotsky did not, as he asserts, embrace the _"democratic
-essence"_ of socialism in the 1920s or 30s. Rather, as is clear from Trotsky's
+essence"_ of Leninism in the 1920s or 30s. Rather, as is clear from Trotsky's
writings, he embraced party dictatorship (i.e. _"socialism from above"_) and
considered this as quite compatible (indeed, an essential aspect) of his
Leninist ideology. That McNally fails to indicate this and, indeed, asserts
the exact opposite of the facts shows that it is not only anarchism he is
ignorant about.
+[‹ Appendix : Anarchism and Marxism](/afaq/append3.html "Go to previous page"
+) [up](/afaq/append3.html "Go to parent page" ) [Marxists and Spanish
+Anarchism ›](/afaq/append32.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/append32.md b/markdown/append32.md
index 35dfe67e41acedcb1c5da11d988a56d8e60d3f87..4b875264737bfbf50fb7e5b8bed9ccec1b754d9c 100644
--- a/markdown/append32.md
+++ b/markdown/append32.md
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ the roots of their racial heritage."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 5-6]
Hence the _"religious"_ nature of anarchism -- it was one of the ways an
uncomprehending member of the middle-class could explain working class
-discontent and rebellion. Unfortunately, this "explanation"_ has become common
+discontent and rebellion. Unfortunately, this "explanation" has become common
place in history books (partly reflected academics class interest too and lack
of understanding of working class interests, needs and hopes).
@@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ revolutionary elan, the anarchists developed a rational strategy of
revolution, channelling their energies into organising a trade union movement
that could be used as a vehicle for social and economic change. Moreover, as
well as a clear idea of how to change society they had a clear vision of what
-sort of society they desired \-- one built around collective ownership and
+sort of society they desired -- one built around collective ownership and
federations of workers' associations and communes.
Therefore the idea that anarchism can be explained in _"religious"_ terms is
@@ -332,11 +332,11 @@ progress toward mass parties and central authority. In short, he explains how
anarchosyndicalists were presumed to act rather than what actually took place,
and the uprising at Casa Viejas was used to prove an already established point
of view. Unfortunately, his evolutionary model misled him on virtually every
-point."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 271] We should also note his "model"_ is
-essentially Marxist ideology -- namely, Marx's assertion that his aim for mass
-political parties expressed the interests of the working class and all other
-visions were the products of sectarians. Mintz also points out that Hobsbawm
-does not live up to his own model:
+point."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 271] We should also note his "model" is essentially
+Marxist ideology -- namely, Marx's assertion that his aim for mass political
+parties expressed the interests of the working class and all other visions
+were the products of sectarians. Mintz also points out that Hobsbawm does not
+live up to his own model:
> _"While Hobsbawm's theoretical model is evolutionary, in his own treatment
anarchism is often regarded as unchanging from one decade to the other. In his
@@ -409,53 +409,54 @@ equally wrong. Mintz gives an excellent summary:
> _"Since kinship is a key feature in 'primitive' societies, according to
Hobsbawm, it was a major factor in the leadership of the sindicato [union] in
-Casas Viejas.
+Casas Viejas.
+> _
>
-> "There is no evidence that kinship had anything to do with leadership in the
-anarchist movement in Casa Viejas or anywhere else. The reverse would be
+> _"There is no evidence that kinship had anything to do with leadership in
+the anarchist movement in Casa Viejas or anywhere else. The reverse would be
closer to the truth. Since the anarchists expressed belief in universal
brotherhood, kinship ties were often undermined. In times of strike or in
carrying out any decision of the collective membership, obreros conscientes
sometimes had to act counter to their kinship demands in order to keep faith
-with the movement and with their companeros.
+with the movement and with their companeros. _
>
-> "Hobsbawm's specific examples are unfortunately based in part on errors of
-fact. . .
+> _"Hobsbawm's specific examples are unfortunately based in part on errors of
+fact. . . _
>
-> "Hobsbawm's model [also] requires a charismatic leader. Accordingly, the
+> _"Hobsbawm's model [also] requires a charismatic leader. Accordingly, the
inspired leader of the uprising is said to be 'old Curro Cruz ('Six Fingers')
-who issued the call for revolution . . . '
+who issued the call for revolution . . . ' _
>
-> [. . .]
+> _[. . .] _
>
-> "This celebration of Seisdedo's role ['Six Fingers'], however, ignores the
+> _"This celebration of Seisdedo's role ['Six Fingers'], however, ignores the
unanimous view of townspeople of every class and political persuasion, who
assert that the old man was apolitical and had nothing to do with the uprising
. . . every observer and participant in the uprising agrees that Seisdedos was
not the leader and was never anything other than a virtuous charcoal burner
-with but a slight interest in anarchosyndicalism.
+with but a slight interest in anarchosyndicalism. _
>
-> [. . .]
+> _[. . .] _
>
-> "Should the role of charismatic leader be given to someone else in the town?
-This was not a case of mistaken identity. No single person in Casas Viejas
-could lay clam to dominating the hearts and minds of the men. . .The sindicato
-was governed by a junta. Among the cast of characters there is no sign of
-charismatic leadership . . ."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 274-6]
+> _"Should the role of charismatic leader be given to someone else in the
+town? This was not a case of mistaken identity. No single person in Casas
+Viejas could lay clam to dominating the hearts and minds of the men. . .The
+sindicato was governed by a junta. Among the cast of characters there is no
+sign of charismatic leadership . . ."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 274-6
Mintz sums up by stating _"Hobsbawm's adherence to a model, and the
accumulation of misinformation, led him away from the essential conflicts
@@ -697,11 +698,11 @@ critics seem to recognise. It has no bureaucratic apparatus, no membership
cards or dues, and no headquarters with paid officials, secretaries, and
clerks. . . They jealously guarded the autonomy of their affinity groups from
the authority of higher organisational bodies -- a state of mind hardly
-conducive to the development of a tightly knit, vanguard organisation.
+conducive to the development of a tightly knit, vanguard organisation. _
>
-> "The FAI, moreover, was not a politically homogeneous organisation which
+> _"The FAI, moreover, was not a politically homogeneous organisation which
followed a fixed 'line' like the Communists and many Socialists. It had no
official program by which all **faistas** could mechanically guide their
actions."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 224]
@@ -715,7 +716,8 @@ national plenum of January-February 1936:
> _"The Regional Committee [of Aragon, Rioja, and Navarra] is completely
neglected by the majority of the militants because they are absorbed in the
-larger activities of the CNT"_
+larger activities of the CNT"
+> _
And:
@@ -781,7 +783,7 @@ Therefore, Morrow is re-cycling an argument which was produced by the
reformist wing of the CNT after it had lost influence in the union rank-and-
file. Perhaps he judges the FAI by his own standards? After all, the aim of
Leninists is for the vanguard party to control the labour unions in their
-countries. Anarchists reject such a vision and believe in union autonomy \--
+countries. Anarchists reject such a vision and believe in union autonomy --
influence of political parties and groups should only exist in as much as they
influence the rank-and-file who control the union. Rather than aim to control
the CNT, the FAI worked to influence its membership. In the words of Francisco
@@ -818,7 +820,7 @@ refutation of the usual Marxist and Liberal inventions of the activities and
nature of the FAI).
In addition, Morrow's picture of the FAI implicitly paints the CNT as a mere
-"transmission belt"_ for that organisation (and so a re-production of the
+"transmission belt" for that organisation (and so a re-production of the
Bolshevik position on the relationship of the labour unions and the
revolutionary party). Such a picture, however, ignores the CNT's character as
a non-hierarchical, democratic (self-managed) mass movement which had many
@@ -847,24 +849,24 @@ Partly it is the inability of the Communist Party and its Trotskyist off-
shoots to dominate the CNT which explains Morrow's comments. Seeing anarchism
as _"petty bourgeois"_ it is hard to combine this with the obvious truth that
a mass, revolutionary, workers' union could be so heavily influenced by
-anarchism rather than Marxism. Hence the need for FAI (or anarchist)
-"control"_ of the CNT. It allows Trotskyists ignore dangerous ideological
-questions. As J. Romero Maura notes, the question why anarchism influenced the
-CNT _"in fact raises the problem why the reformist social democratic, or
-alternatively the communist conceptions, did not impose themselves on the CNT
-as they managed to in most of the rest of Europe. This question . . . is based
-on the false assumption that the anarcho-syndicalist conception of the
-workers' struggle in pre-revolutionary society was completely at odds with
-what the **real** social process signified (hence the constant reference to
-religious', 'messianic', models as explanations)."_ He argues that the
-_"explanation of Spanish anarcho-syndicalist success in organising a mass
-movement with a sustained revolutionary **elan** should initially be sought in
-the very nature of the anarchist concept of society and of how to achieve
-revolution."_ [J. Romero Maura, _"The Spanish Case"_, in **Anarchism Today**,
-D. Apter and J. Joll (eds.), p. 78 and p. 65] Once we do that, we can see the
-weakness of Morrow's (and others) _"Myth of the FAI"_ \-- having dismissed the
-obvious reason for anarchist influence, namely its practicality and valid
-politics, there can only be "control by the FAI."
+anarchism rather than Marxism. Hence the need for FAI (or anarchist) "control"
+of the CNT. It allows Trotskyists ignore dangerous ideological questions. As
+J. Romero Maura notes, the question why anarchism influenced the CNT _"in fact
+raises the problem why the reformist social democratic, or alternatively the
+communist conceptions, did not impose themselves on the CNT as they managed to
+in most of the rest of Europe. This question . . . is based on the false
+assumption that the anarcho-syndicalist conception of the workers' struggle in
+pre-revolutionary society was completely at odds with what the **real** social
+process signified (hence the constant reference to religious', 'messianic',
+models as explanations)."_ He argues that the _"explanation of Spanish
+anarcho-syndicalist success in organising a mass movement with a sustained
+revolutionary **elan** should initially be sought in the very nature of the
+anarchist concept of society and of how to achieve revolution."_ [J. Romero
+Maura, _"The Spanish Case"_, in **Anarchism Today**, D. Apter and J. Joll
+(eds.), p. 78 and p. 65] Once we do that, we can see the weakness of Morrow's
+(and others) _"Myth of the FAI"_ \-- having dismissed the obvious reason for
+anarchist influence, namely its practicality and valid politics, there can
+only be "control by the FAI."
However, the question of affiliation of the CNT to the Comintern is worth
discussing as it indicates the differences between anarchists and Leninists.
@@ -999,12 +1001,12 @@ happened during this period. Rather than resort to _"fraction work"_ to
_"recapture"_ the CNT, the policies of the CNT in 1919 and 1922 were
identical. Moreover, the decision to disaffiliate from the Comintern was made
by a confederal meeting of mandated delegates representing the rank-and-file
-as was the original. The anarchists did not "capture"_ the CNT, rather they
+as was the original. The anarchists did not "capture" the CNT, rather they
continued to influence the membership of the organisation as they had always
-done. Lastly, the concept of "capture"_ displays no real understanding of how
+done. Lastly, the concept of "capture" displays no real understanding of how
the CNT worked -- each syndicate was autonomous and self-managed. There was no
real officialdom to take over, just administrative posts which were unpaid and
-conducted after working hours. To "capture"_ the CNT was impossible as each
+conducted after working hours. To "capture" the CNT was impossible as each
syndicate would ignore any unrepresentative minority which tried to do so.
However, Morrow's comments allow us to indicate some of the key differences
@@ -1053,23 +1055,24 @@ syndicate, which the CNT had established in 1918, was a constant challenge to
the Socialists' grip on the Madrid labour movement. Like the construction
workers' syndicate, it was a CNT enclave in a solidly UGT centre. Accordingly,
the government and the Socialist Party found no difficulty in forming a common
-front to break the strike and weaken CNT influence.
+front to break the strike and weaken CNT influence.
+> _
>
-> "The Ministry of Labour declared the strike illegal and the Ministry of the
+> _"The Ministry of Labour declared the strike illegal and the Ministry of the
Interior called out the Civil Guard to intimidate the strikers . . . Shedding
all pretence of labour solidarity, the UGT provided the **Compania
Telefonica** with scabs while **El Socialista**, the Socialist Party organ,
accused the CNT of being run by **pistoleros.** Those tactics were successful
in Madrid, where the defeated strikers were obliged to enrol in the UGT to
retain their jobs. So far as the Socialists were concerned, the CNT's appeals
-for solidarity had fallen on deaf ears. . .
+for solidarity had fallen on deaf ears. . . _
>
-> "In Seville, however, the strike began to take on very serious dimensions. .
-. on July 20, a general strike broke out in Seville and serious fighting
+> _"In Seville, however, the strike began to take on very serious dimensions.
+. . on July 20, a general strike broke out in Seville and serious fighting
erupted in the streets. This strike . . . stemmed from the walkout of the
telephone workers . . . pitched battles took place in the countryside around
the city between the Civil Guard and the agricultural workers. Maura, as
@@ -1169,9 +1172,9 @@ any prospect of collaboration between the two unions for years to come."_
Of course, such historical context would confuse readers with facts and so
goes unmentioned by Morrow.
-In addition, there was another reason for opposing the "workers' alliances"_
-\-- particularly an alliance between the UGT and CNT. Given the history of UGT
-and CNT pacts plus the actions of the UGT and socialists in the previous
+In addition, there was another reason for opposing the "workers' alliances" --
+particularly an alliance between the UGT and CNT. Given the history of UGT and
+CNT pacts plus the actions of the UGT and socialists in the previous
government it was completely sensible and politically principled. This reason
was political and flowed from the CNT's libertarian vision. As Durruti argued
in 1934:
@@ -1236,7 +1239,7 @@ of the organisations involved."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 27-8]
As can be seen, this closely follows Durruti's arguments. Bar the reference of
_"labour parties,"_ Morrow's _"indispensable instrument"_ is identical to
Durruti's and other anarchist's arguments against taking part in the "Workers'
-Alliances"_ created by the UGT and the creation of genuine alliances from the
+Alliances" created by the UGT and the creation of genuine alliances from the
bottom-up. Thus Morrow faults the CNT for trying to force the UGT to form a
**real** workers' alliance by not taking part in what Morrow himself admits
were _"little more than liaison committees between the leadership"_! Also,
@@ -1337,7 +1340,7 @@ workplace and community assembles were **not** formed.
Secondly, the CNT policy of "Unity, yes, but by the rank-and-file" was a valid
method of "from the bottom up solidarity." This can be seen from just two
-examples -- Aragon in 1934 and Madrid in 1936\. In Aragon, there was a
+examples -- Aragon in 1934 and Madrid in 1936. In Aragon, there was a
_"general strike that had totally paralysed the Aragonese capital throughout
April 1935, ending . . . on 10 May. . . the Zaragoza general strike had been a
powerful advertisement of the value of a united working-class front . . .
@@ -1370,7 +1373,7 @@ understand this allegation, you have to understand the background to October
1934, and the split in the workers' movement between the CNT and the UGT
(unions controlled by the reformist Socialist Party, the PSOE).
-Socialist conversion to "revolution"_ occurred only after the elections of
+Socialist conversion to "revolution" occurred only after the elections of
November 1933. In the face of massive and bloody repression (see [last
section](append32.html#app5)), the CNT-FAI had agitated for a mass abstention
at the polling booth. Faced with this campaign, the republicans and socialists
@@ -1407,7 +1410,7 @@ branches to take part in the alliances if they could guarantee Party control
Socialists, _"in spite of professions to the contrary, wished to keep
socialist domination of the **Alianza Obrera.**"_ [**Spain: 1808-1975**, pp.
634-5f] Only one month after the first alliance was set up, one of its founder
-members -- the Socialist Union of Catalonia \-- left in protest over PSOE
+members -- the Socialist Union of Catalonia -- left in protest over PSOE
domination.
During October the only real centre of resistance was in Asturias (on the
@@ -1531,7 +1534,7 @@ Trotskyism as a revolutionary theory quite well.
In Madrid, the revolt was slightly less farcical. Here the CNT joined the
general strike. However, the UGT gave the government 24 hours notice of the
-general strike, allowing the state to round up the Socialist "leaders,"_ seize
+general strike, allowing the state to round up the Socialist "leaders," seize
arm depots and repress the insurrection before it got started [Morrow, **Op.
Cit.**, p. 30]. As Bookchin argues, the _"massive strike in Madrid, which was
supported by the entire left, foundered for want of arms and a revolutionary
@@ -1594,7 +1597,7 @@ order for the uprising -- and the Socialist-controlled Provincial Committee
starved the CNT of arms. This despite the CNT having over 22 000 affiliates in
the area (to the UGT's 40 000). We discuss the activities of the CNT during
the revolt in Asturias later (in [section 20](append32.html#app20)) and so
-will do so here.
+will not do so here.
Morrow states that the _"backbone of the struggle was broken . . . when the
refusal of the CNT railroad workers to strike enabled the government to
@@ -1622,7 +1625,7 @@ on the use of troops from Africa . . . they shipped Moorish mercenaries to
Asturias."_ [**The Coming of the Spanish Civil War**, p. 177] Gabriel Jackson
argues that the government _"feared to send in the regular Army because of the
strong possibility that the Spanish conscripts would refuse to fire on the
-revolutionaries \-- or even desert to them. The War Minister . . . , acting on
+revolutionaries -- or even desert to them. The War Minister . . . , acting on
the advice of Generals Franco and Goded, sent in contingents of the Morrish
**regulares** and of the Foreign Legions."_ These troops arrived _"at the
ports of Aviles and Gijon."_ [**The Spanish Republic and the Civil War:
@@ -1665,11 +1668,12 @@ Heywood:
the state's task easier was the underlying attitude of the Socialists. For all
the talk of united action by the Left, the Socialists still wished to dominate
any combined moves. Unwilling to cede its traditional hegemony, the PSOE
-rendered the Alianze obrera necessarily ineffective . . .
+rendered the Alianze obrera necessarily ineffective . . .
+> _
>
-> "Thus, there was little genuine unity on the Spanish Left. Moreover, the
+> _"Thus, there was little genuine unity on the Spanish Left. Moreover, the
strike was very poorly planned. Differences within the PSOE meant that there
was no agreement even as to the programme of the strike. For the . . .
leftists, it represented the initiation of a full-scale Socialist revolution;
@@ -1691,7 +1695,7 @@ alternative explanation for the revolt's failure is possible.
However, even assuming Morrow's claims that the failure of the CNT rail
workers' union to continue striking in the face of a completely farcical
-"revolt"_ played a key role in its defeat were true, it does not explain many
+"revolt" played a key role in its defeat were true, it does not explain many
facts. Firstly, the government had declared martial law -- placing the railway
workers in a dangerous position. Secondly, as Jerome R. Mintz points out,
railway workers _"were represented by two competing unions -- the Sindicato
@@ -1756,13 +1760,13 @@ Its hard to work out where to start in this travesty of history. We will start
with the simple errors. The CNT **did** take part in the struggle in Madrid.
As Paul Preston notes, in Madrid the _"Socialists and Anarchists went on
strike"_ [**The Coming of the Spanish Civil War**, p. 174] In Catalonia, as
-indicated above, the "insurrectionary movement"_ in Catalonia was organised
-and lead by Catalan Fascists, who shot upon CNT members when they tried to
-open their union halls and who arrested CNT and FAI militants the night before
-the uprising. Moreover, the people organising the revolt had been repressing
-the CNT for months previously. Obviously attempts by Catalan Fascists to
-become a government should be supported by socialists, including Trotskyists.
-Moreover, the UGT and PSOE had worked with the quasi-fascist Primo do Rivera
+indicated above, the "insurrectionary movement" in Catalonia was organised and
+lead by Catalan Fascists, who shot upon CNT members when they tried to open
+their union halls and who arrested CNT and FAI militants the night before the
+uprising. Moreover, the people organising the revolt had been repressing the
+CNT for months previously. Obviously attempts by Catalan Fascists to become a
+government should be supported by socialists, including Trotskyists. Moreover,
+the UGT and PSOE had worked with the quasi-fascist Primo do Rivera
dictatorship during the 1920s. The hypocrisy is clear. So much for the CNT
standing _"to one side, arguing that this was a 'struggle between politicians'
and did not concern the workers even though this was a strike against a move
@@ -1783,26 +1787,26 @@ Morrow has a lot to answer for.
## 7\. Were the Friends of Durruti Marxists?
It is sometimes claimed that the **Friends of Durruti** Group which formed
-during the Spanish Revolution were Marxists or represented a "break"_ with
+during the Spanish Revolution were Marxists or represented a "break" with
anarchism and a move towards Marxism. Both these assertions are false. We
-discuss whether the Friends of Durruti (FoD) represented a "break"_ with
+discuss whether the Friends of Durruti (FoD) represented a "break" with
anarchism in the [following section](append32.html#app8). Here we indicate
that claims of the FoD being Marxists are false.
The Friends of Durruti were formed, in March 1937, by anarchist militants who
-had refused to submit to Communist-controlled "militarisation"_ of the
-workers' militias. During the Maydays -- the government attack against the
-revolution two months later -- the Friends of Durruti were notable for their
-calls to stand firm and crush the counter-revolution. During and after the May
-Days, the leaders of the CNT asserted that the FoD were Marxists (which was
-quite ironic as it was the CNT leaders who were acting as Marxists in Spain
-usually did by joining with bourgeois governments). This was a slander, pure
-and simple.
+had refused to submit to Communist-controlled "militarisation" of the workers'
+militias. During the Maydays -- the government attack against the revolution
+two months later -- the Friends of Durruti were notable for their calls to
+stand firm and crush the counter-revolution. During and after the May Days,
+the leaders of the CNT asserted that the FoD were Marxists (which was quite
+ironic as it was the CNT leaders who were acting as Marxists in Spain usually
+did by joining with bourgeois governments). This was a slander, pure and
+simple.
The best source to refute claims that the FoD were Marxists (or becoming
Marxist) or that they were influenced by, or moved towards, the Bolshevik-
Leninists is Agustin Guillamon's book **The Friends of Durruti Group:
-1937-1939**. Guillamon is a Marxist (of the "left-communist"_ kind) and no
+1937-1939**. Guillamon is a Marxist (of the "left-communist" kind) and no
anarchist (indeed he states that the _"Spanish Revolution was the tomb of
anarchism as a revolutionary theory of the proletariat."_ [p. 108]). That
indicates that his account can be considered objective and not anarchist
@@ -1831,7 +1835,7 @@ anti-fascist unity and the need to adapt to circumstances."_ [p. 107]
In other words, they wanted to return the CNT _"to its class struggle roots."_
[**Ibid.**] Indeed, Balius (a leading member of the group and writer of its
1938 pamphlet **Towards a Fresh Revolution**) was moved to challenge the
-charges of "marxist"_ levelled at him:
+charges of "marxist" levelled at him:
> _"I will not repay defamatory comment in kind. But what I cannot keep mum
about is that a legend of marxism has been woven about my person and I should
@@ -1840,7 +1844,7 @@ there is somebody who dares call me a Marxist when I could refute with
unanswerable arguments those who hang such an unjustified label on me. As one
who attends our union assemblies and specific gatherings, I might speak of the
loss of class sensibility which I have observed on a number of occasions. I
-have heard it said that we should be making politics \-- in as many words,
+have heard it said that we should be making politics -- in as many words,
comrades -- in an abstract sense, and virtually no one protested. And I, who
have been aghast at countless such instances, am dubbed a marxist just because
I feel, myself to be a one hundred percent revolutionary . . . On returning
@@ -1856,7 +1860,7 @@ call upon all the comrades who have used the press to hang this label upon me
to spell out what makes me a marxist."_ [**El Amigo del Pueblo**, no. 4, p. 3]
As can be seen, the FoD were not Marxists. Two more questions arise. Were they
-a "break"_ with anarchism (i.e. moving towards Marxism) and were they
+a "break" with anarchism (i.e. moving towards Marxism) and were they
influenced by the Spanish Trotskyists. We turn to these questions in the next
two sections.
@@ -1874,29 +1878,29 @@ Durruti (Morrow also includes the Libertarian Youth, the _"politically
awakened"_ CNT rank and file, local FAI groups, etc.) who remained true to
anarchism and stuck to their guns (often literally) -- represented a break
with anarchism and a move towards Marxism, the revolutionary vanguard party
-(no doubt part of the 4th International), and a fight for the "workers
-state."_ Those anarchists, on the other hand, who compromised for "anti-
-fascist unity"_ (but mainly to try and get weapons to fight Franco) are the
-real anarchists because _"class collaboration . . . lies concealed in the
-heart of anarchist philosophy."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 101]
+(no doubt part of the 4th International), and a fight for the "workers state."
+Those anarchists, on the other hand, who compromised for "anti-fascist unity"
+(but mainly to try and get weapons to fight Franco) are the real anarchists
+because _"class collaboration . . . lies concealed in the heart of anarchist
+philosophy."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 101]
Morrow, of course, would have had a fit if anarchists pointed to the example
of the Social Democrat's who crushed the German Revolution or Stalin's Russia
as examples that "rule by an elite lies concealed in the heart of Marxist
-philosophy."_ It does not spring into Morrow's mind that those anarchists he
+philosophy." It does not spring into Morrow's mind that those anarchists he
praises are the ones who show the revolutionary heart of anarchism. This can
best be seen from his comments on the Friends of Durruti, who we argue were
-not evolving towards "Marxism"_ but rather were trying to push the CNT and FAI
+not evolving towards "Marxism" but rather were trying to push the CNT and FAI
back to its pre-Civil War politics and strategy. Moreover, as we argue in
[section 12](append32.html#app12), anarchism has always argued for self-
managed working class organisations to carry out and defend a revolution. The
FoD were simply following in the tradition founded by Bakunin.
In other words, we will show that they did not _"break with"_ anarchism --
-rather they refused to compromise their anarchism in the face of "comrades"_
+rather they refused to compromise their anarchism in the face of "comrades"
who thought winning the war meant entering the government. This is clear from
their leaflets, paper and manifesto. Moreover, as will become obvious, their
-"break"_ with anarchism actually just restates pre-war CNT policy and
+"break" with anarchism actually just restates pre-war CNT policy and
organisation.
For example, their leaflets, in April 1937, called for the unions and
@@ -1911,68 +1915,69 @@ manifesto, in 1938, repeated this call (_"the state cannot be retained in the
face of the unions"_), and made three demands as part of their programme. It
is worth quoting these at length:
-> _"I - Establishment of a Revolutionary Junta or National Defence Council.
+> _"I - Establishment of a Revolutionary Junta or National Defence Council.
+> _
>
-> "This body will be organised as follows: members of the revolutionary Junta
+> _"This body will be organised as follows: members of the revolutionary Junta
will be elected by democratic vote in the union organisations. Account is to
be taken of the number of comrades away at the front . . . The Junta will
steer clear of economic affairs, which are the exclusive preserve of the
-unions.
+unions. _
>
-> "The functions of the revolutionary Junta are as follows:
+> _"The functions of the revolutionary Junta are as follows: _
>
-> "a) The management of the war
+> _ "a) The management of the war
> "b) The supervision of revolutionary order
> "c) International affairs
> "d) Revolutionary propaganda.
->
+> _
>
-> "Posts to come up regularly for re-allocation so as to prevent anyone
+> _"Posts to come up regularly for re-allocation so as to prevent anyone
growing attached to them. And the trade union assemblies will exercise control
-over the Junta's activities.
+over the Junta's activities. _
>
-> "II - All economic power to the syndicates.
+> _"II - All economic power to the syndicates. _
>
-> "Since July the unions have supplied evidence of the great capacity for
+> _"Since July the unions have supplied evidence of the great capacity for
constructive labour. . . It will be the unions that structure the proletarian
-economy.
+economy. _
>
-> "An Economic Council may also be set up, taking into consideration the
+> _"An Economic Council may also be set up, taking into consideration the
natures of the Industrial Unions and Industrial federations, to improve on the
-co-ordination of economic activities.
+co-ordination of economic activities. _
>
-> "III - Free municipality.
+> _"III - Free municipality. _
>
-> [...]
+> _[...] _
>
-> "The Municipality shall take charge of those functions of society that fall
+> _"The Municipality shall take charge of those functions of society that fall
outside the preserve of the unions. And since the society we are going to
build shall be composed exclusively of producers, it will be the unions, no
-less, that will provide sustenance for the municipalities. . .
+less, that will provide sustenance for the municipalities. . . _
>
-> "The Municipalities will be organised at the level of local, comarcal and
+> _"The Municipalities will be organised at the level of local, comarcal and
peninsula federations. Unions and municipalities will maintain liaison at
local, comarcal and national levels."_ [**Towards a Fresh Revolution**]
@@ -2047,7 +2052,7 @@ from **below up**, should construct the revolutionary social community."_
Camillo Berneri sums up the anarchist perspective clearly when he wrote:
-> _"The Marxists . . . foresee the natural disappearance of the State as a
+> _"The Marxists . . . foresee the natural disappearance of theState 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
@@ -2078,7 +2083,7 @@ Anarchists oppose **representative** organs of power as these are governments
and so based on minority power and subject to bureaucratic deformations which
ensure **un**-accountablity from below. Anarchists argue _"that, by its very
nature, political power could not be exercised except by a very restricted
-group of men at the centre. Therefore this power \-- the **real** power --
+group of men at the centre. Therefore this power -- the **real** power --
could not belong to the soviets. It would actually be in the hands of the
party."_ [Voline, **Op. Cit.**, p. 213]
@@ -2119,8 +2124,8 @@ it is the same program of a _"workers defence council"_ and _"union management
of the economy"_ that the CNT had advocated prior to the outbreak of the Civil
War. The only _"break"_ that **did** occur post 19th of July was that of the
CNT and FAI ignoring its politics and history in favour of "anti-fascist
-unity"_ and a UGT "Workers' Alliance"_ with all anti-fascist unions and
-parties (see [section 20](append32.html#app20)).
+unity" and a UGT "Workers' Alliance" with all anti-fascist unions and parties
+(see [section 20](append32.html#app20)).
Moreover, the CNT insurrection of December 1933 had been co-ordinated by a
National Revolutionary Committee [**No Gods, No Masters**, vol. 2, p. 235].
@@ -2205,7 +2210,7 @@ As can be seen, rather than calling for power to a party or looking to form a
government (i.e. being _"politically orientated"_) the FoD were calling for
_"all power to the unions."_ This meant, in the context of the CNT, all power
to the union assemblies in the workplace. Decision making would flow from the
-bottom upwards rather than being delegated to a "revolutionary"_ government as
+bottom upwards rather than being delegated to a "revolutionary" government as
in Trotskyism. To stress the point, the FoD did not represent a _"break"_ with
anarchism or the CNT tradition. To claim otherwise means to misunderstand
anarchist politics and CNT history.
@@ -2243,16 +2248,16 @@ as the FoD correctly argued had happened.
To state that they had introduced a variation into their anarchism makes sense
post-July 1936. The _"apolitical"_ line of the CNT-FAI had obviously failed
-and a new departure was required. While it is clear that the FoD's "new"_
+and a new departure was required. While it is clear that the FoD's "new"
position was nothing of the kind, it was elemental anarchist principles, it
-was "new"_ in respect to the policy the CNT ("anarchism"_) had conducted
-during the Civil War -- a policy they justified by selective use of anarchist
-theory and principles. In the face of this, the FoD could claim they were
-presenting a new variation in spite of its obvious similarities to pre-war CNT
-policies and anarchist theory. Thus the claim that the FoD saw their ideas as
-some sort of departure from traditional anarchism cannot be maintained, given
-the obvious links this "new"_ idea had with the past policies and structure of
-the CNT. As Guillamon makes it clear, the FoD made _"their stand within the
+was "new" in respect to the policy the CNT ("anarchism") had conducted during
+the Civil War -- a policy they justified by selective use of anarchist theory
+and principles. In the face of this, the FoD could claim they were presenting
+a new variation in spite of its obvious similarities to pre-war CNT policies
+and anarchist theory. Thus the claim that the FoD saw their ideas as some sort
+of departure from traditional anarchism cannot be maintained, given the
+obvious links this "new" idea had with the past policies and structure of the
+CNT. As Guillamon makes it clear, the FoD made _"their stand within the
organisation and upon anarcho-syndicalist ideology"_ and _"[a]t all times the
Group articulated an anarcho-syndicalist ideology, although it also voiced
radical criticism of the CNT and FAI leadership. But it is a huge leap from
@@ -2317,7 +2322,7 @@ Trotskyists activities during the May Days amounted to little more that
demanding that the workers' do what they were already doing (as can be seen
from the leaflet they produced -- as George Orwell noted, _"it merely demanded
what was happening already"_ [**Homage to Catalonia**, p. 221]). As usual, the
-"vanguard of the proletariat"_ were trying to catch up with the proletariat.
+"vanguard of the proletariat" were trying to catch up with the proletariat.
In theory and practice the FoD were miles ahead of the Bolshevik-Leninists --
as to be expected, as the FoD were anarchists.
@@ -2346,18 +2351,19 @@ article written in 1937, _"the proletariat can take power only through its
vanguard."_ The working classes' role is one of supporting the party:
> _"Without the confidence of the class in the vanguard, without support of
-the vanguard by the class, there can be no talk of the conquest of power.
+the vanguard by the class, there can be no talk of the conquest of power.
+> _
>
-> "In this sense the proletarian revolution and dictatorship are the work of
+> _"In this sense the proletarian revolution and dictatorship are the work of
the whole class, but only under the leadership of the vanguard."_
Thus, rather than the working class as a whole seizing power, it is the
_"vanguard"_ which takes power -- _"a revolutionary party, even after seizing
power . . . is still by no means the sovereign ruler of society."_
-[**Stalinism and Bolshevism**] So much for "workers' power"_ \-- unless you
-equate that with the "power"_ to give your power, your control over your own
+[**Stalinism and Bolshevism**] So much for "workers' power" -- unless you
+equate that with the "power" to give your power, your control over your own
affairs, to a minority who claim to represent you. Indeed, Trotsky even
attacks the idea that workers' can achieve power directly via organs of self-
management like workers' councils (or soviets):
@@ -2401,12 +2407,13 @@ order to found the federation of insurgent associations, communes and
provinces . . . Thus it is through the very act of extrapolation and
organisation of the Revolution with an eye to the mutual defences of insurgent
areas that the . . . Revolution, founded upon . . . the ruins of States, will
-emerge triumphant. . .
+emerge triumphant. . .
+> _
>
-> "Since it is the people which must make the revolution everywhere, and since
-the ultimate direction of it must at all times be vested in the people
+> _"Since it is the people which must make the revolution everywhere, and
+since the ultimate direction of it must at all times be vested in the people
organised into a free federation of agricultural and industrial organisations
. . . being organised from the bottom up through revolutionary delegation . .
."_ [**No God, No Masters**, vol. 1, pp. 155-6]
@@ -2451,11 +2458,12 @@ follows:
> _"The Stalinists early sought to set an 'example' by handing their militias
over to government control, helping to institute the salute, supremacy of
-officers behind the lines, etc. . .
+officers behind the lines, etc. . .
+> _
>
-> "The example was wasted on the CNT masses . . . The POUM reprinted for
+> _"The example was wasted on the CNT masses . . . The POUM reprinted for
distribution in the militias the original Red Army Manual of Trotsky,
providing for a democratic internal regime and political life in the army."_
[**Op. Cit.**, p. 126]
@@ -2640,8 +2648,8 @@ with these excuses they will seek to perpetuate their own power."_ [Errico
Malatesta, **Life and Ideas**, p. 52]
In addition, Trotsky's rationale refutes any claim that Bolshevism is somehow
-"fundamentally"_ democratic. The ramifications of it were felt everywhere in
-the soviet system as the Bolsheviks ignored the "wrong"_ democratic decisions
+"fundamentally" democratic. The ramifications of it were felt everywhere in
+the soviet system as the Bolsheviks ignored the "wrong" democratic decisions
made by the working masses and replaced their democratic organisations with
appointees from above. Indeed, Trotsky admits that the _"Red Army was built
from above, in accordance with the principles of the dictatorship of the
@@ -2699,8 +2707,8 @@ Secondly, how can a _"socialist consciousness"_ be encouraged, or continue to
exist, without socialist institutions to express it? Such a position is
idealistic nonsense, expressing the wishful notion that the social
relationships people experiences does not impact on those involved. In effect,
-Rees is arguing that as long as the leaders have the "right ideas"_ it does
-not matter how an organisation is structured. However, how people develop, the
+Rees is arguing that as long as the leaders have the "right ideas" it does not
+matter how an organisation is structured. However, how people develop, the
ideas they have in their heads, are influenced by the relations they create
with each other -- autocratic organisations do not encourage self-management
or socialism, they produce bureaucrats and subjects.
@@ -2754,7 +2762,7 @@ But, of course, such inequalities that existed in the Red Army are to be
expected in an autocratically run organisation. The inequality inherent in
hierarchy, the inequality in power between the order giver and order taker,
will, sooner or later, be reflected in material inequality. As happened in the
-Red Army (and all across the "workers' state"_). All Trotsky wanted was for
+Red Army (and all across the "workers' state"). All Trotsky wanted was for
those in power to be respectable in their privilege rather than showing it
off. The anarchist militias did not have this problem because being
libertarian, delegates were subject to recall and power rested with the rank
@@ -2823,13 +2831,13 @@ In other words, Lenin urged the creation of, and implemented, **bourgeois**
forms of workplace management based on the appointment of managers from above.
To indicate that this was not in contradiction with Soviet principles, he
points to the example of **bourgeois** revolutions! As if bourgeois methods do
-not reflect bourgeois interests and goals. In addition, these "dictators"_
-were given the same autocratic powers Trotsky claimed the demobilisation of
-the Red Army four years later had _"persistently introduced everywhere."_ Yes,
-_"on all sides the masses were pushed away gradually from actual participation
-in the leadership of the country"_ but the process had started immediately
-after the October Revolution and was urged and organised by Lenin and Trotsky
-before the Civil War had started.
+not reflect bourgeois interests and goals. In addition, these "dictators" were
+given the same autocratic powers Trotsky claimed the demobilisation of the Red
+Army four years later had _"persistently introduced everywhere."_ Yes, _"on
+all sides the masses were pushed away gradually from actual participation in
+the leadership of the country"_ but the process had started immediately after
+the October Revolution and was urged and organised by Lenin and Trotsky before
+the Civil War had started.
Lenin's support for appointment of (_"dictatorial"_) managers from above makes
Trotsky's 1922 comment that the _"Red Army was built from above, in accordance
@@ -2864,14 +2872,14 @@ saw it as a centralised, top-down system. Of course, being a democrat of sorts
he saw the Bolshevik Government as being elected by the mass of the population
(or, more correctly, he saw it being elected by the national congress of
soviets). However, his vision of centralisation of power provided the
-rationale for destroying functional democracy in the grass-roots \-- and
+rationale for destroying functional democracy in the grass-roots -- and
without healthy roots, any plant will wither and die. Little wonder, then,
that the Bolshevik experiment proved such a disaster -- yes, the civil war did
not help but the logic of Bolshevism has started to undermine working class
self-management **before** is started.
Thus Trotsky's argument that the democratic nature of a workers' army or
-militia is irrelevant because a "workers' state"_ exists is flawed on many
+militia is irrelevant because a "workers' state" exists is flawed on many
different levels. And the experience of Trotsky in power indicates well the
poverty of Trotskyism and Morrow's criticism of the CNT -- his suggestion for
a self-managed militia is pure anarchism with nothing to do with Leninism and
@@ -2963,9 +2971,9 @@ forward just repeats the ideas of anarchism. Any one familiar with anarchist
theory would not be surprised by this as they would know that we have seen a
free federation of workplace and communal associations as the basis of a
revolution and, therefore, a free society since the time of Proudhon. Thus
-Morrow's "Trotskyist"_ vision of a federation of workers' council actually
+Morrow's "Trotskyist" vision of a federation of workers' council actually
reproduces basic anarchist ideas, ideas which pre-date Lenin's support for
-soviets as the basis of his "workers' state"_ by over half a century (we will
+soviets as the basis of his "workers' state" by over half a century (we will
indicate the fundamental difference between the anarchist vision and the
Trotskyist in due course).
@@ -3072,20 +3080,21 @@ have power in society -- rather it is the minority in the executive committee
who have been delegated power. Rather than govern themselves and society
directly, workers are turned into voters implementing the decisions their
leaders have made on their behalf. If revolutionary bodies like workers'
-councils **did** create a "workers' state"_ (as Morrow recommends) then their
+councils **did** create a "workers' state" (as Morrow recommends) then their
power would be transferred and centralised into the hands of a so-called
-"revolutionary"_ government. In this, Morrow follows his guru Trotsky:
+"revolutionary" government. In this, Morrow follows his guru Trotsky:
> _"the proletariat can take power only through its vanguard. In itself the
necessity for state power arises from an insufficient cultural level of the
masses and their heterogeneity. In the revolutionary vanguard, organised in a
party, is crystallised the aspirations of the masses to obtain their freedom.
Without the confidence of the class in the vanguard, without support of the
-vanguard by the class, there can be no talk of the conquest of power.
+vanguard by the class, there can be no talk of the conquest of power.
+> _
>
-> "In this sense the proletarian revolution and dictatorship are the work of
+> _"In this sense the proletarian revolution and dictatorship are the work of
the whole class, but only under the leadership of the vanguard."_ [Trotsky,
**Stalinism and Bolshevism**]
@@ -3149,7 +3158,7 @@ councils and conferences.
Trotskyists, therefore, advocate workers councils because they see them as
**the** means the vanguard party can take power. Rather than seeing socialism
-or "workers' power"_ as a society in which everyone would directly control
+or "workers' power" as a society in which everyone would directly control
their own affairs, Trotskyists see it in terms of working class people
delegating their power into the hands of a government. Needless to say, the
two things are not identical and, in practice, the government soon turns from
@@ -3182,7 +3191,8 @@ clearly expressed at the time:
> _"They [the dissent Bolsheviks of the Workers' Opposition] have placed the
workers' right to elect representatives above the Party. As if the Party were
not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily
-clashed with the passing moods of the worker's democracy!"_
+clashed with the passing moods of the worker's democracy!"
+> _
He spoke of the _"revolutionary historic birthright of the Party"_ and that it
_"is obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . . regardless of temporary
@@ -3201,16 +3211,16 @@ but by the _"bourgeois intelligentsia"_). [**Essential Works of Lenin**, p. 82
and p. 74] To weaken or question the party means to weaken or question the
socialist nature of the revolution and so weaken the _"dictatorship of the
proletariat."_ Thus we have the paradoxical situation of the "proletarian
-dictatorship"_ repressing workers, eliminating democracy and maintaining
-itself against the _"passing moods"_ of the workers (which means rejecting
-what democracy is all about). Hence Lenin's comment at a conference of the
-Cheka (his political police) in 1920:
+dictatorship" repressing workers, eliminating democracy and maintaining itself
+against the _"passing moods"_ of the workers (which means rejecting what
+democracy is all about). Hence Lenin's comment at a conference of the Cheka
+(his political police) in 1920:
> _"Without revolutionary coercion directed against the avowed enemies of the
workers and peasants, it is impossible to break down the resistance of these
exploiters. On the other hand, revolutionary coercion is bound to be employed
towards the wavering and unstable elements among the masses themselves."_
-[**Collected Works**, vol. 24, p. 170]
+[**Collected Works**, vol. 42, p. 170]
Significantly, of the 17 000 camp detainees on whom statistical information
was available on 1 November 1920, peasants and workers constituted the largest
@@ -3301,7 +3311,8 @@ Comintern**, p. 35] In addition, we may quote Lenin's opinion that:
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 . . . [because] classes are usually . . . led by
-political parties. . . "_
+political parties. . . "
+> _
And:
@@ -3325,7 +3336,7 @@ in 1937:
> _"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
+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
@@ -3361,7 +3372,7 @@ governmental power, anarchists see workers' councils as the means by which
people can revolutionise society and themselves by practising self-management
in all aspects of their lives. The difference is important and its
ramifications signify why the Russian Revolution became the "dictatorship
-**over** the proletariat"_ Bakunin predicted. His words still ring true:
+**over** the proletariat" Bakunin predicted. His words still ring true:
> _"[b]y popular government they [the Marxists] mean government of the people
by a small under of representatives elected by the people. . . [That is,]
@@ -3476,7 +3487,7 @@ a Regional Congress of unions and invite the UGT, independent unions and
unorganised workplaces to send delegates to create the framework of this
system. This, we must stress, was **not** done. We will discuss why in
[section 20](append32.html#app20) and so will refrain from doing so here.
-However, **because** the CNT in effect "postponed"_ the political aspects of
+However, **because** the CNT in effect "postponed" the political aspects of
the social revolution (namely, to quote Kropotkin, to _"smash the State and
replace it with the Federation [of Communes]"_ [**No Gods, No Masters**, vol.
1, p. 259]) the natural result would be exactly as Morrow explains:
@@ -3521,12 +3532,12 @@ dictatorship' reveals the incredible confusion that filled the minds of the
Radical Papers**, pp. 86-7]
This perspective explains why anarchists do not see any fundamental difference
-between a so-called "workers' state"_ and the existing state. For anarchists,
+between a so-called "workers' state" and the existing state. For anarchists,
the state is based fundamentally on hierarchical power -- the delegation of
-power into the hands of a few, of a government, of an "executive"_ committee.
-Unlike Lenin, who stressed the "bodies of armed men"_ aspect of the state,
+power into the hands of a few, of a government, of an "executive" committee.
+Unlike Lenin, who stressed the "bodies of armed men" aspect of the state,
anarchists consider the real question as one of who will tell these "bodies of
-armed men"_ what to do. Will it be the people as a whole (as expressed through
+armed men" what to do. Will it be the people as a whole (as expressed through
their self-managed organisations) or will be it a government (perhaps elected
by representative organisations)?
@@ -3537,11 +3548,12 @@ defence then there would be no argument:
'dictatorship of the proletariat' to mean simply the revolutionary action of
the workers in taking possession of the land and the instruments of labour,
and trying to build a society and organise a way of life in which there will
-be no place for a class that exploits and oppresses the producers.
+be no place for a class that exploits and oppresses the producers.
+> _
>
-> "Thus constructed, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' would be the
+> _"Thus constructed, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' would be the
effective power of all workers trying to bring down capitalist society and
would thus turn into Anarchy as soon as resistance from reactionaries would
have ceased and no one can any longer seek to compel the masses by violence to
@@ -3549,11 +3561,11 @@ obey and work for him. In which case, the discrepancy between us would be
nothing more than a question of semantics. Dictatorship of the proletariat
would signify the dictatorship of everyone, which is to say, it would be a
dictatorship no longer, just as government by everybody is no longer a
-government in the authoritarian, historical and practical sense of the word.
+government in the authoritarian, historical and practical sense of the word. _
>
-> "But the real supporters of 'dictatorship of the proletariat' do not take
+> _"But the real supporters of 'dictatorship of the proletariat' do not take
that line, as they are making quite plain in Russia. Of course, the
proletariat has a hand in this, just as the people has a part to play in
democratic regimes, that is to say, to conceal the reality of things. In
@@ -3573,7 +3585,7 @@ that the vast majority of the working class at last realises its ability to
manage both production and society -- and organises to this end."_ [**The
Bolsheviks and Workers' Control**, p. xiv]
-The question is, therefore, one of **who** "seizes power" \-- will it be the
+The question is, therefore, one of **who** "seizes power" -- will it be the
mass of the population or will it be a party claiming to represent the mass of
the population. The difference is vital -- and anyone who confuses the issue
(like Lenin) does so either out of stupidity or vested interests.
@@ -3590,8 +3602,8 @@ anarchist sense of the word.
As we argued in [section 12](append32.html#app12), the Trotskyist vision of
revolution, while seeming in some ways similar to that of anarchists, differ
on this question. For Trotskyists, the **party** takes power, **not** the mass
-of the population directly. Only if you view "proletarian"_ seizure of power
-in terms of electing a political party to government could you see the
+of the population directly. Only if you view "proletarian" seizure of power in
+terms of electing a political party to government could you see the
elimination of functional democracy in the armed forces and the workplaces as
no threat to working class power. Given Trotsky's actual elimination of
democracy in the Red Army and Navy plus his comments on one-man management
@@ -3667,15 +3679,15 @@ second the soviets become simply ratification machines for the government and
not organs in which the working masses can run their own affairs. We must also
point out that the other promises made in Lenin's book went the same way as
his support for the combining administration and executive tasks in the Paris
-Commune \-- and, we stress, all **before** the Civil War started in May 1918
+Commune -- and, we stress, all **before** the Civil War started in May 1918
(the usual Trotskyist defence of such betrayals is blame the Civil War which
is hard to do as it had not started yet).
So it is unsurprising that Morrow does not explain why anarchists reject the
-"dictatorship of the proletariat"_ \-- to do so would be to show that
-Trotskyism is not the revolutionary movement for workers' liberty it likes to
-claim it is. Moreover, it would involve giving an objective account of
-anarchist theory and admitting that the CNT did not follow its teachings.
+"dictatorship of the proletariat" -- to do so would be to show that Trotskyism
+is not the revolutionary movement for workers' liberty it likes to claim it
+is. Moreover, it would involve giving an objective account of anarchist theory
+and admitting that the CNT did not follow its teachings.
## 14\. What is wrong with Morrow's _"fundamental tenet"_ of anarchism?
@@ -3688,7 +3700,8 @@ of the petty-bourgeois intellectuals' pre-occupation with lucrative
administrative posts. Anarchism calls upon workers to turn their backs on the
state and seek control of the factories as the real source of power. The
ultimate sources of power (property relations) being secured, the state power
-will collapse, never to be replaced."_
+will collapse, never to be replaced."
+> _
He then sums up by stating the Spanish anarchists _"thus failed to understand
that it was only the collapse of state power . . . which had enabled them to
@@ -3879,7 +3892,7 @@ it by the whole people or is it by a party representing that people.
Anarchists argue for the former, Trotskyists the latter. Needless to say, a
state structure (i.e. a centralised, hierarchical structure based on the
delegation of power) is required only when a revolution is seen as rule by a
-party -- little wonder anarchists reject the concept of a "workers' state"_ as
+party -- little wonder anarchists reject the concept of a "workers' state" as
a contradiction in terms.
The question of July 1936 however rears its head. If anarchism **does** stand
@@ -3900,7 +3913,7 @@ theory. To dismiss anarchist ideas because they were not applied seems
somewhat strange.
To finish this section we must indicate that Morrow's statement concerning
-anarchists "turning our backs"_ to the state and concentrating on property
+anarchists "turning our backs" to the state and concentrating on property
actually contradicts both Engels and Lenin.
As Lenin notes in **The State and Revolution**, _"Marx agreed with Proudhon on
@@ -3908,7 +3921,7 @@ the necessity of 'smashing' the present state machine. . . [there is]
similarity between Marxism and anarchism (Proudhon and Bakunin) . . . on this
point"_ and that anarchists advocate _"the destruction of the state machine."_
[**Essential Works of Lenin**, p. 310 and p. 358] You can hardly smash the
-state or destroy the state machine by "turning your back"_ to it. Similarly,
+state or destroy the state machine by "turning your back" to it. Similarly,
Engels argued (although distorting his thought somewhat) that Bakunin saw
_"the **state** as the main evil to be abolished . . . [and] maintains that it
is the **state** which has created capital, that the capitalist has his
@@ -3917,13 +3930,13 @@ state which must be done away with . . . organise, and when ALL workers are
won over . . . abolish the state and replace it with the organisation of the
International."_ [**The Marx-Engels Reader**, pp. 728-9] You cannot
_"abolish"_ and _"replace"_ the state by ignoring it ("turning your back to
-it"_). We must also stress that Engels comments disprove Lenin's assertion
-that anarchists _"have absolutely no clear idea of **what** the proletariat
-will put in its [the states] place."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 358] We have always
-been clear, namely a federation of workers' associations (this was the
-organisation of the First International). In other, more modern, words, a
-system of workers' councils -- a position Marxists only embraced six decades
-later when Lenin advocated them as the basis of his "workers' state."
+it"). We must also stress that Engels comments disprove Lenin's assertion that
+anarchists _"have absolutely no clear idea of **what** the proletariat will
+put in its [the states] place."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 358] We have always been
+clear, namely a federation of workers' associations (this was the organisation
+of the First International). In other, more modern, words, a system of
+workers' councils -- a position Marxists only embraced six decades later when
+Lenin advocated them as the basis of his "workers' state."
Thus Morrow's comments against anarchism are in contradiction to usual Marxist
claims against anarchism (namely, that we seek to smash the state but do not
@@ -3947,7 +3960,8 @@ comments by a Marxist-Leninist are typical:
> _"Spanish anarchists believed that a system of autonomous collectives, with
the weakest possible connections between them, was the alternative to
capitalism and also to the Marxist view of society running the entire economy
-as one whole."_
+as one whole."
+> _
And:
@@ -3964,12 +3978,13 @@ communist tendency (who should know better):
class and peasants was that each factory, area of land, etc., should be owned
collectively by its workers, and that these 'collectives' should be linked
with each other on a 'federal' basis - that is, without any superior central
-authority.
+authority.
+> _
>
-> "This basic idea had been propagated by anarchists in Spain for more than 50
-years. When the Civil War began, peasants and working class people in those
+> _"This basic idea had been propagated by anarchists in Spain for more than
+50 years. When the Civil War began, peasants and working class people in those
parts of the country which had not immediately fallen under fascist control
seized the opportunity to turn anarchist ideal into reality."_ [_"Anarchism
and the Spanish 'Revolution'"_, **Subversion** no. 18]
@@ -4157,8 +4172,8 @@ idea of converting the worker-managed workplaces into co-operatives, operating
in a market economy, had never been advocated by the Spanish anarchists before
the Civil War, but was now seen by some as a temporary stop-gap that would
solve the immediate question of what to do with the workplaces that had been
-seized by the workers. It was at this meeting that the term "collective"_ was
-first adopted to describe this solution. This concept of "collectivisation"_
+seized by the workers. It was at this meeting that the term "collective" was
+first adopted to describe this solution. This concept of "collectivisation"
was suggested by Joan Fabregas, a Catalan nationalist of middle class origin
who had joined the CNT after July of 1936. As one CNT militant recalled:
@@ -4243,7 +4258,7 @@ and acted to create them during it. These were the industrial federations and
federations of rural communities/collectives predicted in anarchist and CNT
theory and actually created, in part at least, during the revolution itself.
-Thus Green's "critique"_ of anarchism is, in fact, **exactly** what anarchist
+Thus Green's "critique" of anarchism is, in fact, **exactly** what anarchist
theory actually argues and what the Spanish anarchists themselves argued and
tried to implement in all industries. Of course, there are fundamental
differences between the anarchist vision of socialisation and the Leninist
@@ -4253,7 +4268,7 @@ of federations of workers' councils (as proven above). However, such
federation has two sources -- it is either imposed from above or agreed to
from below. Anarchists choose the former as the latter negates any claim that
a revolution is a popular, mass movement from below (and, incidentally, the
-Leninist claim that the "workers' state"_ is simply a tool of the workers to
+Leninist claim that the "workers' state" is simply a tool of the workers to
defeat capitalist oppression).
The actual process in Spain towards industrial federations and so
@@ -4272,7 +4287,7 @@ p. 220]
However, before Leninists like Green rush in and assert that this proves that
_"anarchist theory led to the ordinary anarchist considering each factory as
owned simply by the workers that laboured there"_ we should point out two
-things. Firstly, it was the "ordinary anarchists"_ who were trying to organise
+things. Firstly, it was the "ordinary anarchists" who were trying to organise
socialisation (i.e. CNT members and militants). Secondly, the Russian
Revolution also saw workers taking over their workplaces and treating them as
their own property. Leninists like Green would have a fit if we took these
@@ -4381,16 +4396,17 @@ living and vibrant, a thousands times better and more just than any existing
organisation. Moreover, this . . . organisation, being on the one hand open to
revolutionary propaganda . . . , and on the other, not petrified by the
intervention of the State . . . will develop and perfect itself through free
-experimentation as fully as one can reasonably expect in our times.
+experimentation as fully as one can reasonably expect in our times.
+> _
>
-> "With the abolition of the State, the spontaneous self-organisation of
+> _"With the abolition of the State, the spontaneous self-organisation of
popular life . . . will revert to the communes. The development of each
commune will take its point of departure the actual condition of its
civilisation . . ."_ [**Bakunin on Anarchism**, p. 207]
-To **impose** an "ideal"_ solution would destroy a revolution -- the actions
+To **impose** an "ideal" solution would destroy a revolution -- the actions
and decisions (**including what others may consider mistakes**) of a free
people are infinitely more productive and useful than the decisions and
decrees of the best central committee. Moreover, a centralised system by
@@ -4401,7 +4417,7 @@ of collectivism would then be the negation of humanity. In a free community,
collectivism can come about only through the pressure of circumstances, not by
imposition from above but by a free spontaneous movement from below."_ [**Op.
Cit.**, p. 200] Thus socialisation must proceed from below, reflecting the
-real development and desires of those involved. To "speed-up"_ the process via
+real development and desires of those involved. To "speed-up" the process via
centralisation can only result in replacing socialisation with nationalisation
and the elimination of workers' self-management with hierarchical management.
Workers' again would be reduced to the level of order-takers, with control
@@ -4419,7 +4435,7 @@ given industry . . . would be regional anarcho-syndicalism, and not
communism."_ [Marx, Engels and Lenin, **Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism**,
p. 292]
-We expect that Morrow would subscribe to this "solution"_ to the problems of a
+We expect that Morrow would subscribe to this "solution" to the problems of a
social revolution generates. However, such a system has its own problems.
First is the basic fallacy that the centre will not start to view the whole
@@ -4441,7 +4457,7 @@ to enforce its viewpoint against the rest of society is considerably
stronger).
Secondly, to eliminate the dangers of workers' self-management generating
-"propertarian"_ notions, the workers' have to have their control over their
+"propertarian" notions, the workers' have to have their control over their
workplace reduced, if not eliminated. This, by necessity, generates
**bourgeois** social relationships and, equally, appointment of managers from
above (which the Bolsheviks did embrace). Indeed, by 1920 Lenin was boasting
@@ -4477,7 +4493,7 @@ themselves. Socialism can only be created by workers' own actions and
organisations otherwise it will not be set up at all -- something else will
be, namely state capitalism.
-Thus, a close look at Lenin's "solution"_ indicates that Trotskyist claim that
+Thus, a close look at Lenin's "solution" indicates that Trotskyist claim that
their state is the _"tool of the majority in their fight against exploitation
by the few"_ (to use Joseph Green's words) is refuted by their assertion that
this state will also bring the economy under centralised control and by the
@@ -4485,12 +4501,12 @@ actions of the Bolsheviks themselves.
Why is this? Simply because **if** the mass of collectives are not interested
in equality and mutual aid in society as a whole then how can the government
-actually be the "tool"_ of the majority when it imposes such "mutual aid"_ and
-"equality"_ upon the collectives? In other words, the interests of the
+actually be the "tool" of the majority when it imposes such "mutual aid" and
+"equality" upon the collectives? In other words, the interests of the
government replace those of the majority. After all, if workers **did** favour
mutual aid and equality then they would federate themselves to achieve it.
(which the collectives were actually doing all across Spain, we must note). If
-they do not do this then how can the "workers' state"_ be said to be simply
+they do not do this then how can the "workers' state" be said to be simply
their tool when it has to **impose** the appropriate economic structure upon
them? The government is elected by the whole people, so it will be claimed,
and so must be their tool. This is obviously flawed -- _"if,"_ argued
@@ -4504,16 +4520,15 @@ most intelligent, most active and radical part of a society?"_ [Malatesta,
What does all this mean? Simply that Trotskyists recognise, implicitly at
least, that the workers' state is not, in fact, the simple tool of the
-workers. Rather, it is the means by which "socialism"_ will be imposed upon
-the workers by the party. If workers do not practice mutual aid and federation
-in their day-to-day running of their lives, then how can the state impose it
-if it is simply their tool? It suggests what is desired _"by all of the
-working people as a whole"_ (nearly always a euphemism for the party in
-Trotskyist ideology) is different that what they actually want (as expressed
-by their actions). In other words, a conflict exists between the workers' and
-the so-called "workers' state"_ \-- in Russia, the party imposed **its**
-concept of the interests of the working class, even against the working class
-itself.
+workers. Rather, it is the means by which "socialism" will be imposed upon the
+workers by the party. If workers do not practice mutual aid and federation in
+their day-to-day running of their lives, then how can the state impose it if
+it is simply their tool? It suggests what is desired _"by all of the working
+people as a whole"_ (nearly always a euphemism for the party in Trotskyist
+ideology) is different that what they actually want (as expressed by their
+actions). In other words, a conflict exists between the workers' and the so-
+called "workers' state" -- in Russia, the party imposed **its** concept of the
+interests of the working class, even against the working class itself.
Rather than indicate some kind of failure of anarchist theory, the experience
of workers' self-management in both Spain and Russia indicate the
@@ -4629,14 +4644,14 @@ Cit.**, pp. 205-6]
Of course it does nothing of the kind. Yes, anarchists are in favour of
autonomy -- including the autonomy of economic administration. We are also in
favour of federalism to co-ordinate join activity and promote co-operation on
-a wide-scale (what Morrow would, inaccuracy, call "centralism"_ or
-"centralisation"_). Rather than seeing such agreements of joint activity as
-the "abandonment"_ of autonomy, we see it as an **expression** of that
-autonomy. It would be a strange form of "freedom"_ that suggested making
-arrangements and agreements with others meant a restriction of your liberty.
-For example, no one would argue that to arrange to meet your friend at a
-certain place and time meant the elimination of your autonomy even though it
-obviously reduces your "liberty"_ to be somewhere else at the same time.
+a wide-scale (what Morrow would, inaccuracy, call "centralism" or
+"centralisation"). Rather than seeing such agreements of joint activity as the
+"abandonment" of autonomy, we see it as an **expression** of that autonomy. It
+would be a strange form of "freedom" that suggested making arrangements and
+agreements with others meant a restriction of your liberty. For example, no
+one would argue that to arrange to meet your friend at a certain place and
+time meant the elimination of your autonomy even though it obviously reduces
+your "liberty" to be somewhere else at the same time.
Similarly, when an individual joins a group and takes part in its collective
decisions and abides by their decisions, this does not represent the
@@ -4647,7 +4662,7 @@ autonomy"_ (of course some Marxists **do** make that claim, but such a
position indicates an essentially **negative** viewpoint of liberty, a
position they normally reject). In reality, of course, anarchists are aware
that freedom is impossible outside of association. Within an association
-absolute "autonomy"_ cannot exist, but such "autonomy"_ would restrict freedom
+absolute "autonomy" cannot exist, but such "autonomy" would restrict freedom
to such a degree that it would be so self-defeating as to make a mockery of
the concept of autonomy and no sane person would seek it.
@@ -4727,7 +4742,7 @@ organisation. The autonomy of the collective, of its mass assembly, was not
restricted by the federation nor did the federation interfere with the day to
day running of the collectives which made it up. The structure was a
federation of autonomous collectives. The role of the Council was to co-
-ordinate the decisions of the federation delegate meetings \-- in other words,
+ordinate the decisions of the federation delegate meetings -- in other words,
purely administrative implementation of collective agreements. To confuse this
with centralisation is a mistake common to Marxists, but it is still a
confusion.
@@ -4755,9 +4770,9 @@ happen . . . conditions varied greatly among the Spanish collectives, with
peasants at some agricultural collectives making three times that of peasants
at other collectives."_ [Joseph Green, **Op. Cit.**]
-Of course, Green fails to mention that in the presumably "centralised"_ system
+Of course, Green fails to mention that in the presumably "centralised" system
created by the Bolsheviks, the official rationing system had a differentiation
-of **eight to one** under the class ration of May 1918\. By 1921, this,
+of **eight to one** under the class ration of May 1918. By 1921, this,
apparently, had fallen to around four to one (which is still higher than the
rural collectives) but, in fact, remained at eight to one due to workers in
selected defence-industry factories getting the naval ration which was
@@ -4773,7 +4788,7 @@ government (all this long before, to use Green's words _"their party
degenerated into Stalinist revisionism"_).
So, if equality is important, then the decentralised rural collectives were
-far more successful in achieving it than the "centralised"_ system under Lenin
+far more successful in achieving it than the "centralised" system under Lenin
(as to be expected, as the rank-and-file were in control, not a few at the
top).
@@ -4783,7 +4798,8 @@ an academic (David Miller) on this:
> _"Such variations no doubt reflected historical inequalities of wealth, but
at the same time the redistributive impact of the [anarchist] federation had
-clearly been slight."_
+clearly been slight."
+> _
Note that Green implicitly acknowledges that the collectives **did** form a
federation. This makes a mockery of his claims that earlier claims that the
@@ -4803,7 +4819,7 @@ localities and with the national industrial federations."_ [Issac Puente,
**Libertarian Communism**, p. 26] Thus what Green asserts the CNT and FAI did
not see the need of, they in fact **did** see the need for and argued for
their creation before the Civil War and actually created during it! Green's
-comments indicate a certain amount of "doublethink"_ \-- he maintains that the
+comments indicate a certain amount of "doublethink" -- he maintains that the
anarchists rejected federations while acknowledging they did federate.
However, historical differences are the product of **centuries** and so it
@@ -5061,7 +5077,7 @@ or whether Leninist ideology played an important role in it. As Arshinov
argues, _"[w]hoever studies the Russian Revolution should learn it [Trotsky's
order no. 1824] by heart."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 123] Obviously the Bolsheviks
considered that soviet system was threatened if soviet conferences were called
-and the "dictatorship of the proletariat"_ was undermined if the proletariat
+and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was undermined if the proletariat
took part in such events.
In addition, the Makhnovists _"full applied the revolutionary principles of
@@ -5082,29 +5098,30 @@ movement). Arshinov proves a good summary:
> _"The Makhnovist insurrectionary army was organised according to three
fundamental principles: voluntary enlistment, the electoral principle, and
-self-discipline.
+self-discipline.
+> _
>
-> "**Voluntary enlistment** meant that the army was composed only of
-revolutionary fighters who entered it of their own free will.
+> _"**Voluntary enlistment** meant that the army was composed only of
+revolutionary fighters who entered it of their own free will. _
>
-> "**The electoral principle** meant that the commanders of all units of the
+> _"**The electoral principle** meant that the commanders of all units of the
army, including the staff, as well as all the men who held other positions in
the army, were either elected or accepted by the insurgents of the unit in
-question or by the whole army.
+question or by the whole army. _
>
-> "**Self-discipline** meant that all the rules of discipline were drawn up by
-commissions of insurgents, then approved by general assemblies of the various
-units; once approved, they were rigorously observed on the individual
+> _"**Self-discipline** meant that all the rules of discipline were drawn up
+by commissions of insurgents, then approved by general assemblies of the
+various units; once approved, they were rigorously observed on the individual
responsibility of each insurgent and each commander."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 96]
Thus the Makhnovists indicate the validity of anarchist theory. They organised
-the self-defence of their region, refused to form of a "revolutionary"_
+the self-defence of their region, refused to form of a "revolutionary"
government and so the life of the region, its social and revolutionary
development followed the path of self-activity of the working people who did
not allow any authorities to tell them what to do. They respected freedom of
@@ -5138,7 +5155,7 @@ influence of its own (the CNT had over 22 000 affiliates in the area and the
UGT had 40 000). The CNT had some miners in their union (the majority were in
the UGT) but most of their membership was above ground, particularly in the
towns of Aviles and Gijon. The regional federation of the CNT had joined the
-Socialist Party dominated "Alianza Obrera,"_ unlike the other regional
+Socialist Party dominated "Alianza Obrera," unlike the other regional
federations of the CNT.
When the revolt started, the workers organised attacks on barracks, town halls
@@ -5281,7 +5298,7 @@ of the CNT to "seize power":
revolutionary totalitarianism . . . by the anarchist and Confederal
dictatorship."_ [quoted by Stuart Christie, **We, the Anarchists!**, p. 105]
-In this statement Garcia Oliver describes the capitalist state as "democracy"_
+In this statement Garcia Oliver describes the capitalist state as "democracy"
and refers to the alternative of the directly democratic CNT unions taking
power as "totalitarianism" and "dictatorship." Marxists tend to think this
statement tells us something about the CNT's original program in the period
@@ -5380,7 +5397,7 @@ does not respect the "freedom" to be a capitalist, boss or politician.
Instead of this "collaboration" from the bottom up, the CNT and FAI committees
favoured "collaboration" from the top down. In this they followed the example
-of the UGT and its "Workers' Alliances"_ rather than their own activities
+of the UGT and its "Workers' Alliances" rather than their own activities
previous to the military revolt. Why? Why did the CNT and FAI in Catalonia
reject their previous political perspective and reject the basis ideas of
anarchism? As shown above, the CNT and FAI has successfully applied their
@@ -5409,11 +5426,12 @@ within the framework of the State and subordinating all else, including the
transformation of the economic and social structure of the country, to winning
the war. Secondly, that it was essential, and possible, to collaborate with
political parties -- that is politicians -- honestly and sincerely, and at a
-time when power was in the hands of the two workers organisations. . .
+time when power was in the hands of the two workers organisations. . .
+> _
>
-> "All the initiative . . . was in the hands of the workers. The politicians
+> _"All the initiative . . . was in the hands of the workers. The politicians
were like generals without armies floundering in a desert of futility.
Collaboration with them could not, by any stretch of the imagination,
strengthen resistance to Franco. On the contrary, it was clear that
@@ -5568,18 +5586,19 @@ sacrificed their anarchist principles and revolutionary objectives to bolster,
to become part of the bourgeois state . . . Faced with an imperfect state of
affairs and preferring defeat to a possibly Pyrrhic victory, Catalan anarchist
leadership renounced anarchism in the name of expediency and removed the
-social transformation of Spain from their agenda.
+social transformation of Spain from their agenda.
+> _
>
-> "But what the CNT-FAI leaders failed to grasp was that the decision whether
+> _"But what the CNT-FAI leaders failed to grasp was that the decision whether
or not to implement Libertarian Communism was not theirs to make. Anarchism
was not something which could be transformed from theory to practice by
-organisational decree. . .
+organisational decree. . . _
>
-> "What the CNT-FAI leadership had failed to take on board was the fact that
+> _"What the CNT-FAI leadership had failed to take on board was the fact that
the spontaneous defensive movement of 19 July had developed a political
direction of its own. On their own initiative, without any intervention by the
leadership of the unions or political parties, the rank and file militants of
@@ -5631,7 +5650,7 @@ to frustrate any attempts by the bourgeois capitalist state to reorganise
itself, which it would seek to do."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 43-6]
Their compromise in the name of anti-fascist unity contained the rest of their
-mistakes. Joining the "Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias"_ was the
+mistakes. Joining the "Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias" was the
second mistake as at no time could it be considered as the embryo of a new
workers' power. It was, rather, an organisation like the pre-war UGT "Workers'
Alliances" -- an attempt to create links between the top-level of other unions
@@ -5671,18 +5690,19 @@ length:
without laying hands upon property! As if there were any way of conquering the
foe while the great mass of the people is not directly interested in the
triumph of the revolution, by seeing that it will bring material, moral and
-intellectual well-being to everybody.
+intellectual well-being to everybody.
+> _
>
-> "The same thing happened with regard to the principle of government. By
+> _"The same thing happened with regard to the principle of government. By
proclaiming the free Commune, the people of Paris proclaimed an essential
-anarchist principle, which was the breakdown of the state.
+anarchist principle, which was the breakdown of the state. _
>
-> "And yet, if we admit that a central government to regulate the relations of
-communes between themselves is quite needless, why should we admit its
+> _"And yet, if we admit that a central government to regulate the relations
+of communes between themselves is quite needless, why should we admit its
necessity to regulate the mutual relations of the groups which make up each
commune? . . . There is no more reason for a government inside the commune
than for a government outside."_ [**The Commune of Paris**]
@@ -5711,7 +5731,7 @@ Days revolt of 1937. The CNT committees and leaders become increasingly
isolated from the people, they compromised again and again and, ultimately,
became an impotent force. Kropotkin was proved correct. Which means that far
from refuting anarchist politics or analysis, the experience of the CNT-FAI in
-the Spanish Revolution _**confirms_** it.
+the Spanish Revolution _**confirms**_ it.
In summary, therefore, the Spanish Revolution of 1936 indicates the failure of
anarchists rather than the failure of anarchism.
@@ -5735,3 +5755,8 @@ theory was used to justify the brutal one-party dictatorship of the
Bolsheviks, first under Lenin and the Stalin. That, we feel, sums up the
difference between anarchism and Leninism quite well.
+[‹ Reply to errors and distortions in David McNally's pamphlet "Socialism from
+Below"](/afaq/append31.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/append3.html
+"Go to parent page" ) [Reply to errors and distortions in Phil Mitchinson's
+"Marxism and direct action" ›](/afaq/append33.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/append33.md b/markdown/append33.md
index a6355175873798824c5b771c0d94461b58d387d7..472292558c6e30867f57061eb1320ee61cbd31fd 100644
--- a/markdown/append33.md
+++ b/markdown/append33.md
@@ -76,7 +76,8 @@ Now Mitchinson launches into his first strawman of his essay. He asserts:
> _"However, the idea of getting involved in a political organisation is a
turn off for many, who understandably want to do something, and do something
now. In reality, the attempt to juxtapose organisation, discussion, and debate
-with 'direct action' is pure sophistry."_
+with 'direct action' is pure sophistry."
+> _
We are not aware of any anarchist or direct action group which does not
discuss and debate their actions, the rationale of their actions and the aims
@@ -125,7 +126,8 @@ be taken, when and where? There can be no greater direct action than the
seizing of control over our own lives by the vast majority of society. In that
act lies the essence of revolution. Not just an aimless 'direct action' but
mass, democratic and conscious action, the struggle not just against
-capitalism, but for a new form of society, socialism."_
+capitalism, but for a new form of society, socialism."
+> _
Again Mitchinson presents us with the strawman of _"conscious"_ action verses
_"aimless"_ action. As noted above, the anti-capitalist demonstrations
@@ -147,11 +149,12 @@ secure changes, reforms apparently are a waste of time. No, simply by
participating in what they call the 'carnival' we become better people, and
eventually more and more people will participate, until a critical mass is
reached and we all ignore capitalism, don't pay our bills, until they go away.
-What an infantile flight of fancy!"_
+What an infantile flight of fancy!"
+> _
Yes, indeed, what an infantile flight of fancy! However, the flight is purely
Mitchinson's. No one in RTS (or any other anarchist) makes such a claim. Yes,
-RTS urged people to take part in a carnival \-- as they argue, _"[m]any of the
+RTS urged people to take part in a carnival -- as they argue, _"[m]any of the
great moments of revolutionary history were carnivalesque . . . But we are not
waiting for these moments of carnivalesque revolution, we are trying to merge
them into every moment of everyday life. We cannot live on one-off days, a
@@ -170,7 +173,7 @@ but pulsating with the celebration of renewal and fresh hope that returns with
the coming of summer. Mayday will always be a pivotal moment."_ [**Maybe**, p.
5]
-**Maybe** is clear -- we need to organise the daily struggle and enjoy ourselves while we are at it. Mitchinson' distortion of that message is pitiful.
+**Maybe** is clear -- we need to organise the daily struggle and enjoy ourselves while we are at it. Mitchinson' distortion of that message is pitiful.
## 4\. Do anarchists really think _"the bosses will do nothing to defend their
system"_?
@@ -182,7 +185,8 @@ However, the way to hell is paved with many such good intentions. Are we
really to believe that whilst we all 'place ourselves outside of capitalism',
the bosses will do nothing to defend their system? This ostrich like tactic of
burying our heads in the sand until they go away is not serious. Nor is it
-action. In reality, it is irresponsible, indirect inaction."_
+action. In reality, it is irresponsible, indirect inaction."
+> _
The comment about _"indirect inaction"_ is somewhat funny coming from a
political tendency which did not produce a movement of the importance of
@@ -223,8 +227,8 @@ enemies and expecting them not to point our your errors.
Mitchinson now moves onto the real enemy, anarchism. He asserts that:
> _"Anarchist organisations have always hidden behind a facade of 'self-
-organisation'. They claim to have no leaders, no policy etc. Yet who
-decides?"_
+organisation'. They claim to have no leaders, no policy etc. Yet who decides?"
+> _
Yes, anarchist groups claim to have no leaders but they do not claim to be
without policies. Anyone with any comprehension of anarchist theory and
@@ -244,7 +248,7 @@ he now asks how the vast majority of society can seize control over our own
lives without leaders to tell us what to do!
Anarchists reject the idea of leaders -- instead we argue for the
-_**"leadership of ideas."_** As we discuss this concept in [section
+_**"leadership of ideas."**_ As we discuss this concept in [section
J.3.6](secJ3.html#secj36) and so will not do so here. However, the key concept
is that anarchists seek to spread their ideas by discussing their politics
**as equals** in popular organisations and convincing the mass assemblies of
@@ -286,7 +290,8 @@ any kind. The recent demonstrations have been highly organised and co-
ordinated on an international scale. Good, so it should be. However, without
organisation and democracy no-one, except a clique at the top, has any say in
why, where and when. Such a movement will never bring international capital
-trembling to its knees."_
+trembling to its knees."
+> _
Firstly, we must point out that these demonstrations which have spread like
wild-fire across the world have, most definitely, made international capital
@@ -317,8 +322,9 @@ organisation:
save the game away in their spoof Mayday publication, 'Maybe'. Incidentally,
who wrote these articles, who decided what went in and what didn't, who edited
it, where did the money come from? Our intention here is not to accuse them of
-dodgy financing \- simply to point out that this 'no leaders' stuff is a self-
-organised myth."_
+dodgy financing - simply to point out that this 'no leaders' stuff is a self-
+organised myth."
+> _
It states who put together **MayDay** on page 5 of the paper. It was _"an
organic group of 'guerrilla gardeners'"_ \-- in other words, members of
@@ -340,11 +346,11 @@ He continues to attack what he cannot understand:
spontaneous and self-organised. We have no leaders, no committee, no board of
directors, no spokes people. There is no centralised unit for decision making,
strategic planning and production of ideology. There is no membership and no
-formalised commitment. There is no master plan and no pre-defined agenda.'
+formalised commitment. There is no master plan and no pre-defined agenda.' _
>
-> "There are two problems here. Firstly who is 'we', who made the above
+> _"There are two problems here. Firstly who is 'we', who made the above
statement, and who decided it. Secondly, if it were true, it would not be
something of which to be proud. Whether you like it or not, there is no way
the capitalist system will ever be overthrown by such a haphazard and slipshod
@@ -405,7 +411,8 @@ He then asserts:
> _"There is no theory, no coherent analysis of society, no alternative
programme. To brag of a lack of direction, a lack of purpose and a lack of
coherence, in the face of such a highly organised and brutal enemy as
-international capital, is surely the height of irresponsibility."_
+international capital, is surely the height of irresponsibility."
+> _
Firstly, anyone reading **Maybe** or other RTS publications will quickly see
there is theory, coherent analysis and an alternative vision. As Mitchinson
@@ -439,7 +446,8 @@ Greek word 'anarchos' meaning 'without government'. To anarchists the state -
the institutions of government, the army, police, courts etc. - is the root
cause of all that is wrong in the world. It must be destroyed and replaced not
with any new form of government, but the immediate introduction of a stateless
-society."_
+society."
+> _
Firstly, _"anarchos"_ actually means _"without authority,"_ or _"contrary to
authority"_ (as Kropotkin put it). It does **not** mean "without government"
@@ -489,7 +497,8 @@ After asserting the usual Marxist falsehoods about anarchism, he moves on:
> _"This opposition to the state and authority leads to a rejection of
participation in any form of parliamentary activity, belonging to a political
party or fighting for any reforms, that is political change through the
-state."_
+state."
+> _
Again Mitchinson smuggles in a falsehood into his "analysis." Anarchists do
not reject _"fighting for any reforms"_ \-- far from it. We do reject
@@ -547,7 +556,8 @@ obviously, during the revolution?
Mitchinson moves on to assert that:
> _"Since anarchism sees in the state the root of all problems, it therefore
-believes these problems will be resolved by the destruction of the state."_
+believes these problems will be resolved by the destruction of the state."
+> _
As noted above, anarchists do **not** see in the state the root of all
problems. We do urge the destruction of the state but that is because the
@@ -567,7 +577,8 @@ who own the means of producing wealth, and the majority of us whose labour is
the source of that wealth, as the crux of the matter. It is this class
division of society which gives rise to the state - because the minority need
a special force to maintain their rule over the majority - which has evolved
-over thousands of years into the complicated structures we see today."_
+over thousands of years into the complicated structures we see today."
+> _
Anarchists would agree, as far as this goes. Bakunin argued that the State
_"is authority, domination, and forced, organised by the property-owning and
@@ -682,7 +693,8 @@ barbarism"_ actually undermine his case?
Mitchinson continues:
> _"As Marx once explained the choice before us is not socialism or the status
-quo, but socialism or barbarism."_
+quo, but socialism or barbarism."
+> _
We should point out that it Rosa Luxemburg who is usually associated with this
quote. She made her famous comment during the First World War. The start of
@@ -856,7 +868,8 @@ Mitchinson continues:
experience of the Paris Commune of 1871 Marx and Engels concluded that it
would not be possible for the workers to simply use the old state apparatus,
they would instead have to replace it with an entirely new one, to serve the
-interests of the majority and lay the basis for a socialist society."_
+interests of the majority and lay the basis for a socialist society."
+> _
Needless to say, he forgets the **key** question -- **who** is to seize power.
Is it the majority, directly, or a minority (the leaders of a party) who claim
@@ -890,7 +903,8 @@ for the election of all officials who should be held accountable and subject
to recall, and paid no more than the wage of a skilled worker. All
bureaucratic tasks should be rotated. There should be no special armed force
standing apart from the people, and we would add, all political parties except
-fascists should be allowed to organise."_
+fascists should be allowed to organise."
+> _
This is what Lenin, essentially, said he desired in **The State and
Revolution** (Mitchinson misses out one key aspect, to which we will return
@@ -1088,18 +1102,18 @@ As Malatesta makes clear, this is pure sophistry:
> _"Whoever has power over things has power over men; whoever governs
production also governs the producers; who determines consumption is master
-over the consumer.
+over the consumer. _
>
-> "This is the question; either things are administered on the basis of free
+> _"This is the question; either things are administered on the basis of free
agreement of the interested parties, and this is anarchy; or they are
administered according to laws made by administrators and this is government,
-it is the State, and inevitably it turns out to be tyrannical.
+it is the State, and inevitably it turns out to be tyrannical. _
>
-> "It is not a question of the good intentions or the good will of this or
+> _"It is not a question of the good intentions or the good will of this or
that man, but of the inevitability of the situation, and of the tendencies
which man generally develops in given circumstances."_ [**Life and Ideas**, p.
145]
@@ -1113,11 +1127,11 @@ necessity for state power arises from an insufficient cultural level of the
masses and their heterogeneity. In the revolutionary vanguard, organised in a
party, is crystallised the aspirations of the masses to obtain their freedom.
Without the confidence of the class in the vanguard, without support of the
-vanguard by the class, there can be no talk of the conquest of power.
+vanguard by the class, there can be no talk of the conquest of power. _
>
-> "In this sense the proletarian revolution and dictatorship are the work of
+> _"In this sense the proletarian revolution and dictatorship are the work of
the whole class, but only under the leadership of the vanguard."_ [**Stalinism
and Bolshevism**]
@@ -1179,7 +1193,7 @@ in 1937) when he argued that:
> _"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."_ [Trotsky, **Op. Cit.**, p. 18]
+of the proletariat."_ [Trotsky, **Stalinism and Bolshevism**]
And, obviously, without party dictatorship the soviets would return to the
_"mud."_ In other words, the soviets are only important to attain party rule
@@ -1341,7 +1355,8 @@ only come into being through the spontaneous action of the proletariat
itself...no political organisation can be anything but the organisation of
rule in the interests of a class and to the detriment of the masses...the
proletariat, should it seize power, would become a ruling, and exploiting,
-class...'"_
+class...'"
+> _
To understand this passage it is necessary to place it in historical context.
In 1872, the proletariat was a **minority** class within all nations **bar**
@@ -1364,22 +1379,22 @@ entire proletariat head the government? The Germans number about 40 million.
Will all 40 million be members of the government? The entire nation will rule,
but no one would be ruled. Then there will be no government, there will be no
state; but if there is a state, there will also be those who are ruled, there
-will be slaves.
+will be slaves. _
>
-> "In the Marxists' theory this dilemma is resolved in a simple fashion. By
+> _"In the Marxists' theory this dilemma is resolved 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 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.
+sham popular will. _
>
-> "So . . . it always comes down to the same dismal result: government of the
+> _"So . . . it always comes down to the same dismal result: government of the
vast majority of the people by a privileged minority. But this minority, the
Marxists say, will consist of workers. Yes, perhaps, of **former** workers,
who, as soon as they become rulers or representatives of the people will cease
@@ -1423,10 +1438,11 @@ class. Dictatorship of a class cannot exist as such, for it ends up, in the
last analysis, as being the dictatorship of a given party which arrogates to
itself the right to speak for that class. Thus, the liberal bourgeoisie, in
their fight against despotism, used to speak in the name of the 'people'. . .
+_
>
-> "We already know that a revolution cannot be made with rosewater. And we
+> _"We already know that a revolution cannot be made with rosewater. And we
know, too, that the owning classes will never yield up their privileges
spontaneously. On the day of victorious revolution the workers will have to
impose their will on the present owners of the soil, of the subsoil and of the
@@ -1436,11 +1452,11 @@ above all, without their having demolished the authoritarian structure which
is, and will continue to be, the fortress keeping the masses of the people
under dominion. Such an action is, without doubt, an act of liberation; a
proclamation of social justice; the very essence of social revolution, which
-has nothing in common with the utterly bourgeois principle of dictatorship.
+has nothing in common with the utterly bourgeois principle of dictatorship. _
>
-> "The fact that a large number of socialist parties have rallied to the idea
+> _"The fact that a large number of socialist parties have rallied to the idea
of councils, which is the proper mark of libertarian socialist and
revolutionary syndicalists, is a confession, recognition that the tack they
have taken up until now has been the product of a falsification, a distortion,
@@ -1454,11 +1470,11 @@ a threat to the further development of the councils. These alien elements are
able only to conceive things from the dictatorial viewpoint. It must be our
task to face up to this risk and warn our class comrades against experiments
which cannot bring the dawn of social emancipation any nearer -- which indeed,
-to the contrary, positively postpone it.
+to the contrary, positively postpone it. _
>
-> "Consequently, our advice is as follows: Everything for the councils or
+> _"Consequently, our advice is as follows: Everything for the councils or
soviets! No power above them! A slogan which at the same time will be that of
the social revolutionary."_ [**Anarchism and Sovietism**]
@@ -1470,6 +1486,8 @@ words, a situation in which the working masses defend their freedom, their
control over their own lives, from those who seek to replace it with minority
rule.
+
+
## 15\. What caused the degeneration of the Russian Revolution?
Mitchinson argues that:
@@ -1630,30 +1648,32 @@ population. . . One of the reasons for the execution of Grigoriev by the
Makhnovists was his anti-Semitism and the immense pogrom he organised at
Elizabethgrad. . . We could cite a whole series of similar facts, but we do
not find it necessary . . . and will content ourselves with mentioning briefly
-the following essential facts:
+the following essential facts: _
>
-> "1. A fairly important part in the Makhnovist movement was played by
-revolutionists of Jewish origin.
+> _"1. A fairly important part in the Makhnovist movement was played by
+revolutionists of Jewish origin. _
>
-> "2. Several members of the Education and Propaganda Commission were Jewish.
+> _"2. Several members of the Education and Propaganda Commission were Jewish.
+_
>
-> "3. Besides many Jewish combatants in various units of the army, there was a
-battery composed entirely of Jewish artillery men and a Jewish infantry unit.
+> _"3. Besides many Jewish combatants in various units of the army, there was
+a battery composed entirely of Jewish artillery men and a Jewish infantry
+unit. _
>
-> "4. Jewish colonies in the Ukraine furnished many volunteers to the
-Insurrectionary Army.
+> _"4. Jewish colonies in the Ukraine furnished many volunteers to the
+Insurrectionary Army. _
>
-> "5. In general the Jewish population . . . took an active part in all the
+> _"5. In general the Jewish population . . . took an active part in all the
activities of the movement. The Jewish agricultural colonies . . .
participated in the regional assemblies of workers, peasants and partisans;
they sent their delegates to the regional Revolutionary Military Council. .
@@ -1687,7 +1707,8 @@ seriously.
Mitchinson continues by stating:
> _"The position of anarchism only serves to endorse the bourgeois slander
-that Stalinism was inherent in Bolshevism."_
+that Stalinism was inherent in Bolshevism."
+> _
This appeal against slander is ironic from someone who writes an article full
of it. But, of course, it is **bourgeois** slander that he objects too --
@@ -1738,6 +1759,8 @@ While it may be in the interests of the ruling elite and its apologists to
scream about _"bourgeois slanders"_, it hinders the process of working class
self-emancipation to do so. As intended, in all likelihood.
+
+
## 16\. Did anarchists reject _"the need for organisation in the shape of
trade unions"_?
@@ -1804,14 +1827,14 @@ social revolution . . . the International will give labour unrest in all
countries an **essentially economic** character, with the aim of reducing
working hours and increasing salary, by means of the **association of the
working masses** . . . It will [also] propagandise its principles . . . [**Op.
-Cit.**, p. 109]
+Cit.**, p. 109] _
>
-> "And indeed, as soon as a worker believes that the economic state of affairs
-can be radically transformed in the near future, he begins to fight, in
-association with his comrades, for the reduction of his working hours and for
-an increase in his salary. . . through practice and action . . . the
+> _"And indeed, as soon as a worker believes that the economic state of
+affairs can be radically transformed in the near future, he begins to fight,
+in association with his comrades, for the reduction of his working hours and
+for an increase in his salary. . . through practice and action . . . the
progressive expansion and development of the economic struggle will bring him
more and more to recognise his true enemies: the privileged classes, including
the clergy, the bourgeois, and the nobility; and the State, which exists only
@@ -1841,17 +1864,19 @@ So much for Bakunin or the libertarian wing of the First International being
against reforms or the struggle for reforms. Anarchists have not changed their
minds on this issue.
+
+
## 17\. Why do anarchists reject political activity?
After spreading falsehoods against Bakunin, Mitchinson states that:
> _"Marxism fights for the conquest of political power by the working class
and the building of a socialist society, under which the state will wither
-away.
+away. _
>
-> "Until then should workers refrain from political activity? Should they
+> _"Until then should workers refrain from political activity? Should they
reject all reforms that might improve their existence? Nothing would please
Blair or the bosses more."_
@@ -1947,6 +1972,8 @@ such ideas -- as Bakunin and other anarchists predicted. Mitchinson's politics
cannot explain why this occurs, which explains why Lenin was so surprised when
German Social Democracy supported its ruling class during the First World War.
+
+
## 18\. How do anarchists struggle for reforms under capitalism?
Mitchinson continues his distortion of anarchism by arguing:
@@ -2066,7 +2093,8 @@ Environment**, p. 103]
Mitchinson seems to agree:
> _"However, under pressure from below it is possible to introduce reforms
-through parliament that are in the interests of ordinary people."_
+through parliament that are in the interests of ordinary people."
+> _
Thus reforms **are** possible, but only if we rely on ourselves, organise
pressure from below and use direct action to force parliament to act (if that
@@ -2119,6 +2147,8 @@ only ends up turning radicals into supporters of the status quo. It makes as
much sense as arguing that any and every avenue must be used to cure a
disease, including those which give you a new disease in its place.
+
+
## 19\. How does Mitchinson distorts the use of the term _"Self-reliance"_?
Mitchinson argues that:
@@ -2189,13 +2219,16 @@ self-reliance is an evil thing which must be combated. Hence Mitchinson's
diatribe -- it is the cry of the would-be leader who is afraid his followers
will not respect his authority.
+
+
## 20\. Is anarchism an example of _"Philosophical idealism"_?
He turns to the May Day demonstration:
> _"Guerrilla gardening and its related varieties that have sprung up in
various places, is nothing more than an offshoot of the old utopian idea of
-changing society by example."_
+changing society by example."
+> _
Actually, it was a specific demonstration to encourage people to get involved
in collective action, to have a good time and challenge authority and the
@@ -2277,6 +2310,8 @@ ideas in the class struggle but we also realise that the ideas people have
change as a result of that struggle. To state otherwise is to misrepresent
anarchist thought.
+
+
## 21\. How is Mitchinson's critique self-contradictory?
He continues his distortion:
@@ -2319,6 +2354,8 @@ of anarchism is little more than an inconsistent collection of lies,
distortion and misrepresentation. Mitchinson not only contradicts his
ideological gurus, he even contradicts himself! That is truly impressive.
+
+
## 22\. How did Trotsky make the trains run on time?
Mitchinson asks:
@@ -2343,12 +2380,12 @@ workers' self-management. Anyone with even a basic understanding of anarchist
theory would know that. Moreover, the experience of workers' self-management
of the railways by the anarchist union the CNT during the Spanish Revolution
indicates that such anarchism can, and does, ensure that the trains run on
-time In contrast, the experience of Russia \-- when the Bolsheviks did create
-a _"central apparatus"_ \-- proved a total failure. It is quite appropriate
-that Mitchinson uses the _"trains running on time"_ example, after all it is
-what apologists for Italian fascism praised Mussolini for! This is because
-Trotsky (when he ran the railways) did so in a way that Mussolini would have
-been proud of -- he subjected the railway workers to military discipline:
+time In contrast, the experience of Russia -- when the Bolsheviks did create a
+_"central apparatus"_ \-- proved a total failure. It is quite appropriate that
+Mitchinson uses the _"trains running on time"_ example, after all it is what
+apologists for Italian fascism praised Mussolini for! This is because Trotsky
+(when he ran the railways) did so in a way that Mussolini would have been
+proud of -- he subjected the railway workers to military discipline:
> _"Due to the Civil War -- and to other factors less often mentioned, such as
the attitude of the railway workers to the 'new' regime -- the Russian
@@ -2371,20 +2408,20 @@ terms of necessary evils resulting from appalling objective conditions. Rather
he saw it as a matter of _"principle"_:
> _"The working class cannot be left wandering all over Russia. They must be
-thrown here and there, appointed, commanded, just like soldiers."
+thrown here and there, appointed, commanded, just like soldiers." _
>
-> "The very principle of compulsory labour is for the Communist quite
+> _"The very principle of compulsory labour is for the Communist quite
unquestionable . . . the only solution to economic difficulties from the point
of view of both principle and of practice is to treat the population of the
whole country as the reservoir of the necessary labour power . . . and to
introduce strict order into the work of its registration, mobilisation and
-utilisation."
+utilisation." _
>
-> "The introduction of compulsory labour service is unthinkable without the
+> _"The introduction of compulsory labour service is unthinkable without the
application . . . of the methods of militarisation of labour."_ [quoted by M.
Brinton, **Op. Cit.**, p. 61 and p. 66]
@@ -2399,6 +2436,8 @@ not handle the information a centralised distribution system required. Food
rotted in trains waiting for bureaucrats to _"channel"_ resources (and,
needless to say, the bureaucrats never went hungry).
+
+
## 23\. Can centralised planning meet the needs of the whole of society?
Our Marxist friend then quotes **Maybe**:
@@ -2408,7 +2447,8 @@ want to seize power but to dissolve it. They are dreaming up many autonomous
alternative forms of social organisation, forms that are directly linked to
the specific needs of locality. What might be an alternative to capitalism for
people living currently in a housing estate in Croydon is completely different
-to what might be suitable for the inhabitants of the slums of Delhi."_
+to what might be suitable for the inhabitants of the slums of Delhi."
+> _
He comments on these very sensible words:
@@ -2495,6 +2535,8 @@ clear, embrace it.
Needless to say, Mitchinson's comments about carrots is pure stupidity and an
insult to the intelligence of his audience.
+
+
## 24\. Is technology neutral?
Mitchinson goes on:
@@ -2559,7 +2601,8 @@ force of lightning, untamed and anarchic under the market, yet organised into
cables and wires electricity transforms our lives. Industry is not the enemy,
nor are machines. The state is, but it is a symptom not the disease. It is
capitalism and its ownership of the economy, its stewardship of society that
-we have to replace."_
+we have to replace."
+> _
However, unlike electricity, _"economic power"_ requires people to operate it.
The question is not whether _"machines"_ are the enemy (often they are, as
@@ -2574,6 +2617,8 @@ Given that one of the things capitalism and the state have in common is a
hierarchical, top-down structure, it is clear that any revolutionary movement
must fight both -- at the same time.
+
+
## 25\. Do anarchists ignore the _"strength of the working class"_?
Mitchinson argues that:
@@ -2627,6 +2672,8 @@ actually **are** changing the world rather than just interpreting it. That
they cannot produce an honest critique of anarchism indicates the uselessness
of their politics.
+
+
## 26\. What does Mitchinson's article tell about the nature of Trotskyism?
He finishes his diatribe as follows:
@@ -2690,3 +2737,8 @@ our comments above, we hope you agree with us. If you seek a **true**
socialist transformation of this planet rather than its degeneration into
centralised state capitalism, discover more about anarchism.
+[‹ Marxists and Spanish Anarchism](/afaq/append32.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/append3.html "Go to parent page" ) [Reply to errors and distortions
+in the SWP's "Marxism and Anarchism" ›](/afaq/append34.html "Go to next page"
+)
+
diff --git a/markdown/append34.md b/markdown/append34.md
index 2e76b51868508a7292da3efbf09153e20aed73c0..7646986b2a3a32c834e14549b61fae25593fab76 100644
--- a/markdown/append34.md
+++ b/markdown/append34.md
@@ -20,7 +20,8 @@ As they put it:
> _"The great revolt against capitalism in Seattle last year, and similar
demonstrations since, have attracted diverse groups of protesters. Anarchists,
-amongst others, have taken part in all of those protests."_
+amongst others, have taken part in all of those protests."
+> _
Yes, indeed, anarchists have been involved in these demonstrations from the
start, unlike "vanguard" parties like the SWP who only became aware of the
@@ -135,6 +136,8 @@ slanders against those, like anarchists, who are at the front of the struggle
unsurprising. They produced similar articles during the poll tax rebellion as
well, to counter anarchist influence by smearing our ideas.
+
+
## 2\. What does the SWP miss out in its definition of anarchism?
The SWP continue:
@@ -168,8 +171,8 @@ just series of slanders, which, of course, the SWP would hate to do.
So what is anarchism for?
-Anarchism derives from the Greek for _**"without authority"_** or _**"without
-rulers"_** and this informs anarchist theory and visions of a better world.
+Anarchism derives from the Greek for _**"without authority"**_ or _**"without
+rulers"**_ and this informs anarchist theory and visions of a better world.
This means that anarchism is against the _"domination of man by man"_ (and
woman by woman, woman by man, and so on). However, _"[a]s knowledge has
penetrated the governed masses . . . the people have revolted against the form
@@ -206,7 +209,7 @@ This would allow those affected by a decision to have a say in it, so allowing
them to manage their own affairs directly and without hierarchy. This, in
turn, would encourage the self-reliance, self-confidence and initiative of
those involved. As a necessary complement of our opposition to authority is
-support for _**"direct action."_** This means that people, rather than looking
+support for _**"direct action."**_ This means that people, rather than looking
to leaders or politicians to act for them, look to themselves and the own
individual and collective strength to solve their own problems. This also
encourages self-liberation, self-reliance and self-confidence as the
@@ -239,6 +242,8 @@ of authority anarchists oppose, the SWP ensure that these aspects of our ideas
are not mentioned in their article. For good reason as it puts Marxism in a
bad light.
+
+
## 3\. Why does mentioning the history of anarchism weaken the SWP's argument?
The SWP correctly argue that we _"live in a world of bullying line managers,
@@ -312,6 +317,8 @@ the hands of the Bolshevik party leadership and workers' self- management of
production was eliminated in favour of one-man management imposed from above
(see M. Brinton's **The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control** for details).
+
+
## 4\. How is the SWP wrong about centralisation?
The SWP continue by arguing that _"there are differences between revolutionary
@@ -352,11 +359,11 @@ After mentioning centralisation, the SWP make a massive jump of logic and
assert:
> _"But arguing with someone to join a struggle, and trying to put forward
-tactics and ideas that can take it forward are attempts to lead.
+tactics and ideas that can take it forward are attempts to lead. _
>
-> "It is no good people coming together in a struggle, discussing what to do
+> _"It is no good people coming together in a struggle, discussing what to do
and then doing just what they feel like as if no discussion had taken place.
We always need to take the best ideas and act on them in a united way."_
@@ -431,6 +438,8 @@ the statements by Bakunin in his _"Letters to a Frenchman."_ In other words,
Engels deliberately lied about Bakunin's political ideas. It appears that the
SWP is simply following the Marxist tradition in their article.
+
+
## 5\. Why does the SWP's _"picket line is 'authoritarian'"_ argument totally
miss the point?
@@ -495,6 +504,8 @@ fallacy of Marxism, namely that it claims to desire a society based on the
participation of everyone yet favours a form of organisation -- centralisation
-- that precludes that participation.
+
+
## 6\. Why are the SWP's examples of _"state functions"_ wrong?
The SWP continue their diatribe against anarchism:
@@ -533,11 +544,11 @@ 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.
+passively entrusting themselves to the authority of the supreme leaders. _
>
-> "Any governing body is an impediment to the real organisation of the broad
+> _"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,
@@ -581,6 +592,8 @@ and so do without the need for hierarchical authority.
The SWP, in other words, confuse two very different things.
+
+
## 7\. What is ironic about the SWP's comment that workers' councils must
_"break up"_ the capitalist state?
@@ -677,55 +690,56 @@ Federation (written in 1880):
> _"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.
+various manifestations. _
>
-> "The following measures strike us as essential to the welfare of the
-revolution, every bit as much as armed struggle against its enemies:
+> _"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,
+> _"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:
+gems and precious stones and manufactured products: _
>
-> "All political, administrative and judicial authorities are to be abolished.
+> _"All political, administrative and judicial authorities are to be
+abolished. _
>
-> ". . . What should the organisational measures of the revolution be?
+> _". . . What should the organisational measures of the revolution be? _
>
-> "Immediate and spontaneous establishment of trade bodies: provisional
+> _"Immediate and spontaneous establishment of trade bodies: provisional
assumption by those of . . . social capital . . .: local federation of a
-trades bodies and labour organisation:
+trades bodies and labour organisation: _
>
-> "Establishment of neighbourhood groups and federations of same . . .
+> _"Establishment of neighbourhood groups and federations of same . . . _
>
-> [. . .]
+> _[. . .] _
>
-> "[T]he federation of all the revolutionary forces of the insurgent Communes
+> _"[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.
+completely eradicated. _
>
-> [. . .]
+> _[. . .] _
>
-> "Once trade bodies have been have been established, the next step is to
+> _"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]
@@ -795,6 +809,8 @@ ideas as if their tradition had thought of them!
Little wonder the SWP fail to present an honest account of anarchism.
+
+
## 8\. How do the SWP re-write the history of the Russian Revolution?
Their history lesson continues:
@@ -862,11 +878,11 @@ words of Kropotkin:
controlling the economic and political life of the country is a great idea.
All the more so, since it is necessarily follows that these councils should be
composed of all who take part in the real production of national wealth by
-their own efforts.
+their own efforts. _
>
-> "But as long as the country is governed by a party dictatorship, the
+> _"But as long as the country is governed by a party dictatorship, the
workers' and peasants' councils evidently lose their entire significance. They
are reduced to the passive rule formerly played by the 'States General,' when
they were convoked by the king and had to combat an all-powerful royal
@@ -970,54 +986,56 @@ it**, p. 37]
As Peter Arshinov argued, a _"fundamental fact"_ of the Bolshevik revolution
was _"that the workers and the peasant labourers remained within the earlier
-situation of 'working classes' \-- producers managed by authority from
-above."_ He stressed that Bolshevik political and economic ideas may have
-_"remov[ed] the workers from the hands of individual capitalists"_ but they
-_"delivered them to the yet more rapacious hands of a single ever-present
-capitalist boss, the State. The relations between the workers and this new
-boss are the same as earlier relations between labour and capital . . . Wage
-labour has remained what it was before, expect that it has taken on the
-character of an obligation to the State. . . . It is clear that in all this we
-are dealing with a simple substitution of State capitalism for private
-capitalism."_ [**The History of the Makhnovist Movement**, p. 35 and p. 71]
-Therefore, looking at Bolshevism in power and in theory it is clear that it is
-not, in fact, "anti-capitalist" but rather in favour of state capitalism and
-any appropriation of popular slogans was always under the firm understanding
-that the Bolshevik interpretation of these ideas is what will be introduced.
+situation of 'working classes' -- producers managed by authority from above."_
+He stressed that Bolshevik political and economic ideas may have _"remov[ed]
+the workers from the hands of individual capitalists"_ but they _"delivered
+them to the yet more rapacious hands of a single ever-present capitalist boss,
+the State. The relations between the workers and this new boss are the same as
+earlier relations between labour and capital . . . Wage labour has remained
+what it was before, expect that it has taken on the character of an obligation
+to the State. . . . It is clear that in all this we are dealing with a simple
+substitution of State capitalism for private capitalism."_ [**The History of
+the Makhnovist Movement**, p. 35 and p. 71] Therefore, looking at Bolshevism
+in power and in theory it is clear that it is not, in fact, "anti-capitalist"
+but rather in favour of state capitalism and any appropriation of popular
+slogans was always under the firm understanding that the Bolshevik
+interpretation of these ideas is what will be introduced.
Therefore the SWP's attempt to re-write Russian History. The actual events of
the Russian Revolution indicate well the authoritarian and state-capitalist
nature of Leninist politics.
+
+
## 9\. How do the SWP re-write the history of the Spanish Revolution?
The SWP, after re-writing Russian history, move onto Spanish history:
> _"It did not happen in Spain in 1936. The C.N.T., a trade union heavily
influenced by anarchist ideas, led a workers' uprising in the city of
-Barcelona that year. Workers' councils effectively ran the city.
+Barcelona that year. Workers' councils effectively ran the city. _
>
-> "But the capitalist state machine did not simply disappear. The government
+> _"But the capitalist state machine did not simply disappear. The government
and its army, which was fighting against Franco's fascist forces, remained,
-although it had no authority in Barcelona.
+although it had no authority in Barcelona. _
>
-> "The government even offered to hand power over to the leaders of the C.N.T.
-But the C.N.T. believed that any form of state was wrong. It turned down the
-possibility of forming a workers' state, which could have broken the fascists'
-coup and the capitalist state.
+> _"The government even offered to hand power over to the leaders of the
+C.N.T. But the C.N.T. believed that any form of state was wrong. It turned
+down the possibility of forming a workers' state, which could have broken the
+fascists' coup and the capitalist state. _
>
-> "Worse, it accepted positions in a government that was dominated by pro-
-capitalist forces.
+> _"Worse, it accepted positions in a government that was dominated by pro-
+capitalist forces. _
>
-> "That government crushed workers' power in Barcelona, and in doing so
+> _"That government crushed workers' power in Barcelona, and in doing so
fatally undermined the fight against fascism."_
It is hard to know where to start with this distortion of history.
@@ -1139,29 +1157,31 @@ Spanish Anarchism."_](append32.html) [Section 20](append32.html#app20) of that
appendix discusses the C.N.T.'s decision to collaborate with the Republican
State against Franco as well as its implications for anarchism.
+
+
## 10\. Do anarchists ignore the fact that ideas change through struggle?
The SWP try and generalise from these experiences:
> _"In different ways, the lessons of Russia and Spain are the same. The
organisational questions thrown up in particular struggles are critical when
-it comes to the working class challenging capitalism.
+it comes to the working class challenging capitalism. _
>
-> "Workers face conflicting pressures. On the one hand, they are forced to
+> _"Workers face conflicting pressures. On the one hand, they are forced to
compete in the labour market. They feel powerless, as an individual, against
-the boss.
+the boss. _
>
-> "That is why workers can accept the bosses' view of the world. At the same
+> _"That is why workers can accept the bosses' view of the world. At the same
time constant attacks on workers' conditions create a need for workers to
-unite and fight back together.
+unite and fight back together. _
>
-> "These two pressures mean workers' ideas are uneven. Some see through the
+> _"These two pressures mean workers' ideas are uneven. Some see through the
bosses' lies. Others can be largely taken in. Most part accept and part reject
capitalist ideas. The overall consciousness of the working class is always
shifting. People become involved in struggles which lead them to break with
@@ -1200,17 +1220,19 @@ Therefore anarchists are well aware of the importance of struggle and
propaganda in winning people to anarchist ideas. No anarchist has ever argued
otherwise.
+
+
## 11\. Why do anarchists oppose the Leninist "revolutionary party"?
The SWP argue that:
> _"So there is always a battle of ideas within the working class. That is why
political organisation is crucial. Socialists seek to build a revolutionary
-party not only to try to spread the lessons from one struggle to another.
+party not only to try to spread the lessons from one struggle to another. _
>
-> "They also want to organise those people who most clearly reject capitalism
+> _"They also want to organise those people who most clearly reject capitalism
into a force that can fight for their ideas inside the working class as a
whole. Such a party is democratic because its members constantly debate what
is happening in today's struggles and the lessons that can be applied from
@@ -1325,7 +1347,7 @@ decision-making at the centre of the organisation, in the hands of leaders, in
the same way the police, army and bureaucratic trade unions do. Anarchists
reject this vision as non-socialist and instead argue for the fullest
participation in decision making by those subject to those decisions. Only in
-this way can government -- inequality in power \-- be eliminated from society.
+this way can government -- inequality in power -- be eliminated from society.
Just to stress the point, anarchists are not opposed to people making
decisions and everyone who took part in making the decision acting on them.
@@ -1340,11 +1362,11 @@ As Bakunin argued:
> _"Discipline, mutual trust as well as unity are all excellent qualities when
properly understood and practised, but disastrous when abused . . . [one use
of the word] discipline almost always signifies despotism on the one hand and
-blind automatic submission to authority on the other. . .
+blind automatic submission to authority on the other. . . _
>
-> "Hostile as I am to [this,] the authoritarian conception of discipline, I
+> _"Hostile as I am to [this,] the authoritarian conception of discipline, I
nevertheless recognise that a certain kind of discipline, not automatic but
voluntary and intelligently understood is, and will ever be, necessary
whenever a greater number of individuals undertake any kind of collective work
@@ -1352,11 +1374,11 @@ or action. Under these circumstances, discipline is simply the voluntary and
considered co-ordination of all individual efforts for a common purpose. At
the moment of revolution, in the midst of the struggle, there is a natural
division of functions according to the aptitude of each, assessed and judged
-by the collective whole. . .
+by the collective whole. . . _
>
-> "In such a system, power, properly speaking, no longer exists. Power is
+> _"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
@@ -1371,6 +1393,8 @@ the necessity of agreement with hierarchical power, of solidarity and
agreement from below with unity imposed from above as well as the need for
discipline with following orders.
+
+
## 12\. Why do the SWP make a polemical fetish of _"unity"_ and _"democracy"_
to the expense of common sense and freedom?
@@ -1456,11 +1480,11 @@ He stresses the point:
on the one hand by one group must be reciprocal, voluntary and must stem from
an awareness of need and of goodwill to prevent the running of social affairs
from being paralysed by obstinacy. It cannot be imposed as a principle and
-statutory norm. . .
+statutory norm. . . _
>
-> "So . . . anarchists deny the right of the majority to govern in human
+> _"So . . . anarchists deny the right of the majority to govern in human
society in general . . . how is it possible . . . to declare that anarchists
should submit to the decisions of the majority before they have even heard
what those might be?"_ [**The Anarchist Revolution**, pp. 100-1]
@@ -1494,6 +1518,8 @@ leadership of their own parties. As we argue in [section
14](append34.html#app14), such activities flow naturally from the vanguardist
politics of Leninism and should not come as a surprise.
+
+
## 13\. How does the Battle of Prague expose the SWP as hypocrites?
To evaluate the sincerity of the SWP's proclaimed commitment to _"democracy"_
@@ -1690,9 +1716,9 @@ respect the rights of minorities to act as they see fit, we also recognise the
importance of solidarity with our fellow workers and protestors. The SWP by
failing to consider the needs of the common struggle sabotaged the
demonstration and should be condemned not only as hypocrites but also as
-elitists \-- the party is not subject to the same rules as other
-demonstrators, whose wishes are irrelevant when they conflict with the party.
-The implications for the SWP's proclaimed support for democracy is clear.
+elitists -- the party is not subject to the same rules as other demonstrators,
+whose wishes are irrelevant when they conflict with the party. The
+implications for the SWP's proclaimed support for democracy is clear.
So it appears that minorities **can** and **should** ignore agreements -- as
long as the minority in question are the leaders of the SWP and its sister
@@ -1721,6 +1747,8 @@ section](append34.html#app14)). Little wonder Marxism-Leninism is dying -- the
difference between what they claim and what they do is becoming increasingly
well know.
+
+
## 14\. Is the Leninist tradition actually as democratic as the SWP like to
claim?
@@ -1871,6 +1899,8 @@ As can be seen from the experiences of Russia under Lenin, this perspective
did not fundamentally change -- given a conflict between the councils and the
party, the party always came first and soviets simply superfluous.
+
+
## 15\. Why is the SWP's support for centralisation anti-socialist?
The SWP continue:
@@ -1929,7 +1959,7 @@ co-ordinated activity. Anarchists disagree. Yes, there is a need for co-
ordination and joint activity, but that must be created from below, in new
ways that reflect the goals we are aiming for. During the Spanish Revolution
anarchists organised militias to fight the fascists. One was lead by anarchist
-militant Durruti. His military adviser, Prez Farras, a professional soldier,
+militant Durruti. His military adviser, Pérez Farras, a professional soldier,
was concerned about the application of libertarian principles to military
organisation. Durruti replied:
@@ -1937,20 +1967,21 @@ organisation. Durruti replied:
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.
+_
>
-> "I thought -- and what has happened confirms my belief -- that a
+> _"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.
+discipline as an autonomous act. _
>
-> "Necessity imposes a war on us, a struggle that differs from many of those
+> _"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
@@ -1958,11 +1989,11 @@ 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.
+those of the worker. _
>
-> "In the struggle he cannot act like a soldier under orders but like a man
+> _"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
@@ -1990,11 +2021,11 @@ are not merely sites of production, but also of reproduction -- the
reproduction of a certain structure of social relations based on the division
between those who give orders and those who take them, between those who
direct and those who execute . . . inscribed within their practice was a
-distinctive vision of socialism, central to which was workplace democracy.
+distinctive vision of socialism, central to which was workplace democracy. _
>
-> "Lenin believed that socialism could be built only on the basis of large-
+> _"Lenin believed that socialism could be built only on the basis of large-
scale industry as developed by capitalism, with its specific types of
productivity and social organisation of labour. Thus for him, capitalist
methods of labour-discipline or one-man management were not necessarily
@@ -2012,7 +2043,7 @@ had state power to enforce it) and the imposition of apparently "efficient"
capitalist methods of organisation. However, the net effect of using (or, more
correctly, imposing) capitalist organisations was, unsurprisingly, the re-
introduction of capitalist social relations. Little wonder the Russian
-Revolution quickly became just another form of capitalism -- _**state_**
+Revolution quickly became just another form of capitalism -- _**state**_
capitalism where the state appointed manager replaced the boss and the
workers' position remained identical. Lenin's attempts to centralise
production simply replaced workers' power at the point of production with that
@@ -2065,24 +2096,26 @@ reproduce the traits of the world we are fighting. To put out the fire of
class society, we need the water of a classless society and so we should
organise in a libertarian way, building the new world in the shell of the old.
+
+
## 16\. Why is the SWP wrong about the A16 Washington D.C. demo?
As an example of why Marxism is better than anarchism they give an example:
> _"Protesters put up several roadblocks during the major anti-capitalist
demonstration in Washington in April of this year. The police tried to clear
-them. The question arose of what the protesters should do.
+them. The question arose of what the protesters should do. _
>
-> "Some wanted to try to maintain the roadblocks. Others thought the best
+> _"Some wanted to try to maintain the roadblocks. Others thought the best
tactic was to reorganise the protests into one demonstration. Instead of
coming to a clear decision and acting on it, the key organiser of the whole
-event told people at each roadblock to do what they thought was right.
+event told people at each roadblock to do what they thought was right. _
>
-> "The resulting confusion weakened all the protests."_
+> _"The resulting confusion weakened all the protests."_
Firstly, we must point out that this argument is somewhat ironic coming from a
party that ignored the agreed plan during the Prague anti-WTO demonstration
@@ -2157,6 +2190,8 @@ all involved. Centralisation was not required, no centre imposed the decision.
Rather than weaken the protests, decentralisation strengthened it by involving
all in the decision making process. Little wonder the SWP re-wrote history.
+
+
## 17\. Why does the SWP's Washington example refute the SWP's own argument
and not anarchism?
@@ -2220,6 +2255,8 @@ argued, the Leninist _"has always had a grudging admiration and respect for
that most inhuman of all hierarchical institutions, the military."_ [**Toward
an Ecological Society**, p. 254f] The SWP prove him right.
+
+
## 18\. Why is a "revolutionary party" a contradiction in terms?
They continue by arguing that _"Anarchists say a revolutionary party is at
@@ -2258,11 +2295,11 @@ command, authority, manipulation . . . Its leaders . . . lose contact with the
living situation below. The local groups, which know their own immediate
situation better than any remote leaders, are obliged to subordinate their
insights to directives from above. The leadership, lacking any direct
-knowledge of local problems, responds sluggishly and prudently. . .
+knowledge of local problems, responds sluggishly and prudently. . . _
>
-> "The party becomes less efficient from a revolutionary point of view the
+> _"The party becomes less efficient from a revolutionary point of view the
more it seeks efficiency by means of hierarchy, cadres and centralisation.
Although everyone marches in step, the orders are usually wrong, especially
when events begin to move rapidly and take unexpected turns-as they do in all
@@ -2272,19 +2309,19 @@ bureaucracy, centralisation and the state. It fosters the bureaucracy,
centralisation and the state. It fosters the very social conditions which
justify this kind of society. Hence, instead of 'withering away,' the state
controlled by the 'glorious party' preserves the very conditions which
-'necessitate' the existence of a state -- and a party to 'guard' it.
+'necessitate' the existence of a state -- and a party to 'guard' it. _
>
-> "On the other hand, this kind of party is extremely vulnerable in periods of
-repression. The bourgeoisie has only to grab its leadership to destroy
+> _"On the other hand, this kind of party is extremely vulnerable in periods
+of repression. The bourgeoisie has only to grab its leadership to destroy
virtually the entire movement. With its leaders in prison or in hiding, the
party becomes paralysed; the obedient membership had no one to obey and tends
-to flounder . . .
+to flounder . . . _
>
-> "[T]he Bolshevik leadership was ordinarily extremely conservative, a trait
+> _"[T]he Bolshevik leadership was ordinarily extremely conservative, a trait
that Lenin had to fight throughout 1917 -- first in his efforts to reorient
the Central Committee against the provisional government (the famous conflict
over the 'April Theses'), later in driving the Central Committee toward
@@ -2309,6 +2346,8 @@ anarchist organisations are either unique and so cannot be generalised from
the SWP **ignore** the usual ways anarchists organise as anarchists and yet
try and draw conclusions about anarchism from their faulty examples.
+
+
## 19\. Do anarchists operate _"in secret"_?
They continue:
@@ -2353,6 +2392,8 @@ Similarly for the SWP's claims that _"all the major anarchist organisations in
history have been centralised."_ Such a claim is also a lie, as we shall prove
in the sections [20](append34.html#app20) and [22](append34.html#app22).
+
+
## 20\. Why is the SWP wrong about Bakunin's organisation?
As an example of a _"major anarchist organisation"_ the SWP point to Bakunin
@@ -2396,98 +2437,98 @@ sometimes altered according to circumstances"_):
> _"Equality among all members and the unconditional and absolute solidarity
-- one for all and all for one -- with the obligation for each and everyone to
-help each other, support and save each other. . .
+help each other, support and save each other. . . _
>
-> "Complete frankness among members and proscription of any Jesuitical methods
-in their relationships . . . When a member has to say anything against another
-member, this must be done at a general meeting and in his presence. **General
-fraternal control** of each other . . .
+> _"Complete frankness among members and proscription of any Jesuitical
+methods in their relationships . . . When a member has to say anything against
+another member, this must be done at a general meeting and in his presence.
+**General fraternal control** of each other . . . _
>
-> "Everyone's personal intelligence vanished like a river in the sea in the
+> _"Everyone's personal intelligence vanished like a river in the sea in the
collective intelligence and all members obey unconditionally the decisions of
-the latter.
+the latter. _
>
-> "All members are equal; they know all their comrades and discuss and decide
+> _"All members are equal; they know all their comrades and discuss and decide
with them all the most important and essential questions bearing on the
programme of the society and the progress of the cause. The decision of the
-general meeting is absolute law. . .
+general meeting is absolute law. . . _
>
-> "The society chooses an Executive Committee from among their number
+> _"The society chooses an Executive Committee from among their number
consisting of three or five members who should organise the branches of the
society and manage its activities in all the regions of the [Russian] Empire
on the basis of the programme and general plan of action adopted by the
-decision of the society as a whole. . .
+decision of the society as a whole. . . _
>
-> "This Committee is elected for an indefinite term. If the society . . . the
+> _"This Committee is elected for an indefinite term. If the society . . . the
People's Fraternity is satisfied with the actions of the Committee, it will be
left as such; and while it remains a Committee each member . . . and each
regional group have to obey it unconditionally, except in such cases where the
orders of the Committee contradict either the general programme of the
principle rules, or the general revolutionary plan of action, which are known
to everybody as all . . . have participated equally in the discussion of them.
-. .
+. . _
>
-> "In such a case members of the group must halt the execution of the
+> _"In such a case members of the group must halt the execution of the
Committee's orders and call the Committee to judgement before the general
meeting . . . If the general meeting is discontented with the Committee, it
-can always substitute another one for it. . .
+can always substitute another one for it. . . _
>
-> "Any member or any group is subject to judgement by the general meeting . .
-.
+> _"Any member or any group is subject to judgement by the general meeting . .
+. _
>
-> "No new Brother can be accepted without the consent of all or at the very
-least three-quarters of all the members. . .
+> _"No new Brother can be accepted without the consent of all or at the very
+least three-quarters of all the members. . . _
>
-> "The Committee divides the members . . . among the Regions and constitutes
+> _"The Committee divides the members . . . among the Regions and constitutes
Regional groups of leaderships from them . . . Regional leadership is charged
with organising the second tier of the society -- the **Regional Fraternity**,
on the basis of the same programme, the same rules, and the same revolutionary
-plan. . .
+plan. . . _
>
-> "All members of the **Regional Fraternity** know each other, but do not know
-of the existence of the **People's Fraternity.** They only know that there
-exists a **Central Committee** which hands down to them their orders for
+> _"All members of the **Regional Fraternity** know each other, but do not
+know of the existence of the **People's Fraternity.** They only know that
+there exists a **Central Committee** which hands down to them their orders for
execution through **Regional Committee** which has been set up by it, i.e. by
-the **Central Committee** . . .
+the **Central Committee** . . . _
>
-> "Each Regional Committee will set up **District** Committees from members of
-the **Regional Fraternity** and will appoint and replace them. . . .
+> _"Each Regional Committee will set up **District** Committees from members
+of the **Regional Fraternity** and will appoint and replace them. . . . _
>
-> "District Committees can, if necessary and only with the consent of the
+> _"District Committees can, if necessary and only with the consent of the
Regional Committee, set up a third tier of the organisation -- **District
Fraternity** with a programme and regulations as near as possible to the
general programme and regulations of the People's Fraternity. The programme
and regulations of the District Fraternity will not come into force until they
are discussed and passed by the general meeting of the Regional Fraternity and
-have been confirmed by the Regional Committee. . .
+have been confirmed by the Regional Committee. . . _
>
-> "Jesuitical control . . . are totally excluded from all three tiers of the
+> _"Jesuitical control . . . are totally excluded from all three tiers of the
secret organisation . . . The strength of the whole society, as well as the
morality, loyalty, energy and dedication of each member, is based exclusively
and totally on the shared truth, sincerity and trust, and on the open
@@ -2536,6 +2577,8 @@ equal force to their own party which is renown, like all Bolshevik-style
parties, as being undemocratic, top-down and authoritarian. We turn to this
issue in the [next section.](append34.html#app21)
+
+
## 21\. Why is the SWP's attack on Bakunin's organisation ironic?
That the SWP attack Bakunin's organisational schema (see [last
@@ -2659,25 +2702,25 @@ the hypocrisy of the SWP's attack on Bakunin:
leadership's control of the party is unchecked by the members. New
perspectives are initiated exclusively by the central committee (CC), who then
implement their perspective against all party opposition, implicit or
-explicit, legitimate or otherwise.
+explicit, legitimate or otherwise. _
>
-> "Once a new perspective is declared, a new cadre is selected from the top
+> _"Once a new perspective is declared, a new cadre is selected from the top
down. The CC select the organisers, who select the district and branch
committees -- any elections that take place are carried out on the basis of
'slates' so that it is virtually impossible for members to vote against the
slate proposed by the leadership. Any members who have doubts or disagreements
are written off as 'burnt out' and, depending on their reaction to this, may
-be marginalised within the party and even expelled.
+be marginalised within the party and even expelled. _
>
-> [. . .]
+> _[. . .] _
>
-> "The outcome is a party whose conferences have no democratic function, but
+> _"The outcome is a party whose conferences have no democratic function, but
serve only to orientate party activists to carry out perspectives drawn up
before the delegates even set out from their branches. At every level of the
party, strategy and tactics are presented from the top down, as pre-digested
@@ -2789,7 +2832,7 @@ The workers lack neither the potential for socialist aspirations nor their
actuality; they lack socialist thought."_ Thus the _"germs"_ of _"socialist
thought"_ are to _"be found in the instinct of every earnest worker. The goal
. . . is to make the worker fully aware of what he wants."_ The method? The
-class struggle itself \-- _"the International relies on the collective
+class struggle itself -- _"the International relies on the collective
experience he gains in its bosom, especially on the progress of the collective
struggle of the workers against the bosses."_ [**The Basic Bakunin**, p. 100
and pp. 101-3]
@@ -2821,11 +2864,11 @@ new orientation finally arose from the depths of the proletariat itself . . .
It proceeds directly to the abolition of all exploitation and all political or
juridical as well as governmental and bureaucratic oppression, in other words,
to the abolition of all classes . . . and the abolition of their last
-buttress, the state.
+buttress, the state. _
>
-> "That is the program of social revolution."_ [**Statism and Anarchy**, pp.
+> _"That is the program of social revolution."_ [**Statism and Anarchy**, pp.
48-9]
Therefore, for Bakunin, the revolutionary organisation did not play the same
@@ -2882,12 +2925,14 @@ a forefather of Bolshevism in spite of similar organisational suggestions. The
similarity in structure is due to a similarity in political conditions in
Russia and **not** similarities in political ideas. If we look at Bakunin's
ideas on social revolution and the workers' movement we see a fully
-libertarian perspective \-- of a movement from the bottom-up, based on the
+libertarian perspective -- of a movement from the bottom-up, based on the
principles of direct action, self-management and federalism. Anarchists since
his death have applied **these** ideas to the specific anarchist organisation
as well, rejecting the non-libertarian elements of Bakunin's ideas which the
SWP correctly (if somewhat hypocritically and dishonestly) denounce.
+
+
## 22\. Was the F.A.I. a _"centralised and secret"_ organisation that shunned
_"open debate and common struggle"_?
@@ -2909,7 +2954,8 @@ adherence to any hierarchical structure . . . This is what outside historians
ought to grasp once and for all: that neither Durruti, nor Ascaso, nor Garcia
Oliver -- to name only the great C.N.T. spokesmen -- issued any watchwords to
the 'masses,' let alone delivered any operational plan or conspiratorial
-scheme to the bulk of the C.N.T. membership."_
+scheme to the bulk of the C.N.T. membership."
+> _
He stresses that:
@@ -2927,11 +2973,11 @@ no membership cards or dues, and no headquarters with paid officials,
secretaries, and clerks. . . They jealously guarded the autonomy of their
affinity groups from the authority of higher organisational bodies-a state of
mind hardly conducive to the development of a tightly knit, vanguard
-organisation.
+organisation. _
>
-> "The F.A.I., moreover, was not a politically homogeneous organisation which
+> _"The F.A.I., moreover, was not a politically homogeneous organisation which
followed a fixed 'line' like the Communists and many Socialists. It had no
official program by which all faistas could mechanically guide their
actions."_ [**The Spanish Anarchists**, p. 224]
@@ -3069,14 +3115,15 @@ As can be seen, the F.A.I. (like all anarchists) influenced the class struggle
and revolution via their natural influence in winning debates with their
fellow workers in union assemblies. They did not seek power but rather
influence for their ideas. To claim otherwise, to claim that anarchists reject
-open debate with their fellow workers is false. Instead of seeking to power
-\-- and so limiting debates to during elections -- anarchists argue that
-people must control their own organisations (and so the revolution) directly
-and all the time. This means, as can be seen, we encourage open debate and
-discussion far more than those, like the SWP, who seek centralised political
-power for themselves. In such a system, the only people who debate regularly
-are the members of the government -- everyone else is just a voter and an
-order taker.
+open debate with their fellow workers is false. Instead of seeking to power --
+and so limiting debates to during elections -- anarchists argue that people
+must control their own organisations (and so the revolution) directly and all
+the time. This means, as can be seen, we encourage open debate and discussion
+far more than those, like the SWP, who seek centralised political power for
+themselves. In such a system, the only people who debate regularly are the
+members of the government -- everyone else is just a voter and an order taker.
+
+
## 23\. Do anarchists wait for _"spontaneous upsurges by workers"_?
@@ -3087,7 +3134,8 @@ struggle anarchists will declare themselves and urge the workers on. They hope
this will lead to the toppling of capitalism. History is full of mass
struggles which have been able to win significant gains, but which have not
had a clear leadership that can carry the struggle over to victory against
-capitalism."_
+capitalism."
+> _
Nothing could be further from the truth. Their own article exposes their lies.
They mention the C.N.T., which was organised in an anarchist way and in which
@@ -3112,19 +3160,19 @@ Indeed, he saw the labour movement as the means to create a socialist society:
> _"The masses are a force, or at least the essential elements of a force.
What do they lack? They lack two things which up till now constituted the
-power of all government: organisation and knowledge.
+power of all government: organisation and knowledge. _
>
-> "The organisation of the International [Workers' Association], having for
+> _"The organisation of the International [Workers' Association], having for
its objective not the creation of new despotisms but the uprooting of all
domination, will take on an essentially different character from the
organisation of the State. . . But what is the organisation of the masses? . .
-. It is the organisation by professions and trades . . .
+. It is the organisation by professions and trades . . . _
>
-> "The organisation of the trade sections and their representation in the
+> _"The organisation of the trade sections and their representation in the
Chambers of Labour . . . 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**,
@@ -3142,11 +3190,11 @@ Yourselves**, p. 119] Malatesta makes the same point:
> _"anarchists, convinced of the validity of our programme, must strive to
acquire overwhelming influence in order to draw the movement towards the
realisation of our ideas. But such influence must be won by doing more and
-better than others, and will only be useful if won in that way.
+better than others, and will only be useful if won in that way. _
>
-> "Today we must deepen, develop and propagate our ideas and co-ordinate our
+> _"Today we must deepen, develop and propagate our ideas and co-ordinate our
forces in a common action. We must act within the labour movement to prevent
it being limited to and corrupted by the exclusive pursuit of small
improvements compatible with the capitalist system; and we must act in such a
@@ -3226,6 +3274,8 @@ what to do. Instead of being the servants of the organisation, they become its
masters. For this reason anarchist organisations try to influence movements
from below, in the mass assemblies which make it up, rather than seek power.
+
+
## 24\. Do anarchists blame workers _"for being insufficiently
revolutionary"_?
@@ -3236,7 +3286,8 @@ from it:
tended to end up blaming workers for being insufficiently revolutionary. So
19th century French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon started off talking of
his 'love of the people' but ended up saying he 'despised' humanity because
-they had not overthrown capitalism."_
+they had not overthrown capitalism."
+> _
Strange that they picked Proudhon as he was not a revolutionary anarchist.
Rather he favoured the reform of capitalism via mutual credit and workers' co-
@@ -3280,6 +3331,8 @@ Suffice it to say, the leading theorists of "autonomism" such as Toni Negri
and Harry Cleaver do not express the opinions the SWP claim "autonomists"
have.
+
+
## 25\. Why does the history of centralised parties refute the SWP's
arguments?
@@ -3336,3 +3389,9 @@ role in the degeneration of the Russian Revolution -- the SWP invent a straw
man they call anarchism and beat him to death. Unfortunately for them,
anarchists are still around and can expose their lies for what they are.
+[‹ Reply to errors and distortions in Phil Mitchinson's "Marxism and direct
+action"](/afaq/append33.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/append3.html
+"Go to parent page" ) [Reply to errors and distortions in John Fisher's "Why
+we must further Marxism and not Anarchism" ›](/afaq/append35.html "Go to next
+page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/append35.md b/markdown/append35.md
index 4d2534792f416d2403b8c2727dfdeda9ae2d2632..098a3038db1e90759026e2b45f91259c46417906 100644
--- a/markdown/append35.md
+++ b/markdown/append35.md
@@ -323,11 +323,11 @@ I.2.3](secI2.html#seci23) for a further discussion of this issue).
Fisher continues his inaccurate attack:
> _ "What we as Marxists explain is what must replace the smashed bourgeois
-state machine.
+state machine. _
>
-> "Engels explains that the state is a 'special coercive force'. So what must
+> _"Engels explains that the state is a 'special coercive force'. So what must
come after the bourgeoisie is overthrown to keep it down? As Lenin explains in
the State and Revolution: the bourgeois state 'must be replaced by a "special
coercive force" for the suppression of the bourgeois by the proletariat (the
@@ -579,7 +579,7 @@ claims to represent. In the words of Lenin:
workers and peasants, it is impossible to break down the resistance of these
exploiters. On the other hand, revolutionary coercion is bound to be employed
towards the wavering and unstable elements among the masses themselves."_
-[**Collected Works**, vol. 42, p. 170]
+[**Collected Works**, vol. 24, p. 170]
And who exercises this _"revolutionary coercion"_? The majority? No, the
vanguard. As Lenin argued, _"the correct understanding of a Communist of his
@@ -696,7 +696,7 @@ revolution:
> _ "Commune will be organised by the standing federation of the Barricades. .
. [T]he federation of insurgent associations, communes and provinces . . .
-[would] organise a revolutionary force capable of defeating reaction . . . it
+[would] organise a revolutionary force capableof defeating reaction . . . it
is the very fact of the expansion and organisation of the revolution for the
purpose of self-defence among the insurgent areas that will bring about the
triumph of the revolution."_ [**Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings**, pp.
@@ -736,14 +736,14 @@ against counter-revolution at home. It must be remembered that a standing army
constitutes the greatest danger for the revolution, since its influence could
lead to dictatorship, which would necessarily kill off the revolution. . . _
-> _ "The people armed will be the best assurance against any attempt to
-restore the system destroyed from either within or without. . ._
+> _"The people armed will be the best assurance against any attempt to restore
+the system destroyed from either within or without. . ._
-> _ "Let each Commune have its weapons and means of defence . . . the people
+> _"Let each Commune have its weapons and means of defence . . . the people
will mobilise rapidly to stand up to the enemy, returning to their workplaces
as soon as they may have accomplished their mission of defence. . . . _
-> _ "1. The disarming of capitalism implies the surrender of weaponry to the
+> _"1. The disarming of capitalism implies the surrender of weaponry to the
communes which be responsible for ensuring defensive means are effectively
organised nationwide. _
@@ -765,7 +765,7 @@ working people themselves?
Fisher distorts the real issue and instead invents a straw man which has no
bearing at all on the real anarchist position (for further discussion, see
-sections [H.2.1](secH2.html#sech21) and [J.7.6](secJ7.html#secj76)).
+sections [I.5.14](secI5.html#seci514) and [J.7.6](secJ7.html#secj76)).
## 7\. Are Anarchists simply _"potential Marxists"_?
@@ -841,7 +841,7 @@ invention and slander.
Our Trotskyist decides to quote another Trotskyist, Ted Grant, on the dangers
of anarchism:
-> _ "However, the setting up of soviets and strike committees \-- important as
+> _ "However, the setting up of soviets and strike committees -- important as
it is -- does not solve the fundamental problem facing the Russian workers. In
and of themselves, soviets solve nothing. What is decisive is the party that
leads them. In February 1917, the workers and soldiers set up soviets -- a
@@ -1142,7 +1142,7 @@ The Bolshevik party was no better. It soon transformed itself for being the
masses servant to being its master (see [section 4](append35.html#app4)). It
justified its repression against the working class in terms of its "vanguard"
position. When it degenerated into Stalinism, Communist Parties across the
-world followed it \-- no matter how insane its policies became.
+world followed it -- no matter how insane its policies became.
This is unsurprising. As the anarchists of Trotwatch explain, such a
"revolutionary" party leaves much to be desired:
@@ -1354,3 +1354,8 @@ associations. That this was not done suggests that anarchist ideas were not
the dominant ones in the revolt and, therefore, it is hardly surprising that
the revolution failed.
+[‹ Reply to errors and distortions in the SWP's "Marxism and
+Anarchism"](/afaq/append34.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/append3.html "Go to parent page" ) [Appendix - The Russian
+Revolution ›](/afaq/append4.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/append4.md b/markdown/append4.md
index 9f19e2e478a298cf03ea7e62a83d1da070854880..dd6c88042d76abf2271dae7efda1891ed374cd23 100644
--- a/markdown/append4.md
+++ b/markdown/append4.md
@@ -26,25 +26,27 @@ libertarian ideas for anyone who wants to change the world.
##
-* [ What happened during the Russian Revolution?](append4.html#app41)
+ * [ What happened during the Russian Revolution?](append4.html#app41)
-* [What was the Kronstadt Rebellion?](append4.html#app42)
+ * [What was the Kronstadt Rebellion?](append4.html#app42)
-* [What caused the degeneration of the Russian Revolution?](append4.html#app43)
+ * [What caused the degeneration of the Russian Revolution?](append4.html#app43)
-* [How did Bolshevik ideology contribute to the failure of the Revolution?](append4.html#app44)
+ * [How did Bolshevik ideology contribute to the failure of the Revolution?](append4.html#app44)
-* [Were any of the Bolshevik oppositions a real alternative?](append4.html#app45)
+ * [Were any of the Bolshevik oppositions a real alternative?](append4.html#app45)
-* [Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism?](append4.html#app46)
+ * [Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism?](append4.html#app46)
* * *
+
+
##
-* [What happened during the Russian Revolution?](append41.html)
+ * [What happened during the Russian Revolution?](append41.html)
-### [1 Can you give a short summary of what happened in
+### [1 Can you give a short summary of what happened in
1917?](append41.html#app1)
[2 How did the Bolsheviks gain mass support?](append41.html#app2)
[3 Surely the Russian Revolution proves that vanguard parties
@@ -76,13 +78,17 @@ policies?](append41.html#app19)
[23 Was the repression of the socialist opposition
justified?](append41.html#app23)
[24 What did the anarchists do during the revolution?](append41.html#app24)
-[25 Did the Russian revolution refute anarchism? ](append41.html#app25)
+[25 Did the Russian revolution refute anarchism? ](append41.html#app25)
+
+
* * *
+
+
##
-* [What was the Kronstadt Rebellion?](append42.html)
+ * [What was the Kronstadt Rebellion?](append42.html)
### [1 Why is the Kronstadt rebellion important?](append42.html#app1)
[2 What was the context of the Kronstadt revolt?](append42.html#app2)
@@ -104,13 +110,15 @@ democracy?](append42.html#app12)
revolution"_?](append42.html#app13)
[14 How do modern day Trotskyists misrepresent
Kronstadt?](append42.html#app14)
-[15 What does Kronstadt tell us about Bolshevism?](append42.html#app15)
+[15 What does Kronstadt tell us about Bolshevism?](append42.html#app15)
* * *
+
+
##
-* [What caused the degeneration of the Russian Revolution?](append43.html)
+ * [What caused the degeneration of the Russian Revolution?](append43.html)
### [1 Do anarchists ignore the objective factors facing the Russian
revolution?](append43.html#app1)
@@ -125,9 +133,11 @@ actions?](append43.html#app6)
* * *
+
+
##
-* [How did Bolshevik ideology contribute to the failure of the Revolution?](append44.html)
+ * [How did Bolshevik ideology contribute to the failure of the Revolution?](append44.html)
### [1 How did the Marxist historical materialism affect
Bolshevism?](append44.html#app1)
@@ -147,9 +157,11 @@ revolution?](append44.html#app8)
* * *
+
+
##
-* [Were any of the Bolshevik oppositions a real alternative?](append45.html)
+ * [Were any of the Bolshevik oppositions a real alternative?](append45.html)
### [1 Were the "Left Communists" of 1918 an alternative?](append45.html#app1)
[2 What were the limitations of the "Workers' Opposition" of
@@ -160,9 +172,11 @@ Leninism?](append45.html#app4)
* * *
+
+
##
-* [Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism?](append46.html)
+ * [Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism?](append46.html)
### [1 Who was Nestor Makhno?](append46.html#app1)
[2 Why was the movement named after Makhno?](append46.html#app2)
@@ -183,5 +197,19 @@ movement?](append46.html#app13)
[14 How did the Makhnovists and Bolsheviks differ?](append46.html#app14)
[15 How do the modern followers of Bolshevism slander the
Makhnovists?](append46.html#app15)
-[16 What lessons can be learned from the Makhnovists?](append46.html#app16)
+[16 What lessons can be learned from the Makhnovists?](append46.html#app16)
+
+
+
+ * [What happened during the Russian Revolution?](/afaq/append41.html)
+ * [What was the Kronstadt Rebellion?](/afaq/append42.html)
+ * [What caused the degeneration of the Russian Revolution?](/afaq/append43.html)
+ * [How did Bolshevik ideology contribute to the failure of the Revolution?](/afaq/append44.html)
+ * [Were any of the Bolshevik oppositions a real alternative?](/afaq/append45.html)
+ * [Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism?](/afaq/append46.html)
+
+[‹ Reply to errors and distortions in John Fisher's "Why we must further
+Marxism and not Anarchism"](/afaq/append35.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/index.html "Go to parent page" ) [What happened during the Russian
+Revolution? ›](/afaq/append41.html "Go to next page" )
diff --git a/markdown/append41.md b/markdown/append41.md
index 885b990ece90263dfa79da59e8408474682c479d..9a6ccbaab8b20af6e32135c50d69ac94aa3cf56e 100644
--- a/markdown/append41.md
+++ b/markdown/append41.md
@@ -341,7 +341,7 @@ democracy? Far from it. Unless you picture revolution as simply the changing
of the party in power, you have to acknowledge that while the Bolshevik party
**did** take power in Russian in November 1917, the net effect of this was
**not** the stated goals that justified that action. Thus, if we take the term
-_"effective"_ to mean "an efficient means to achieve the desired goals"_ then
+_"effective"_ to mean "an efficient means to achieve the desired goals" then
vanguardism has not been proven to be effective, quite the reverse (assuming
that your desired goal is a socialist society, rather than party power).
Needless to say, Trotsky blames the failure of the Russian Revolution on
@@ -507,11 +507,11 @@ lower executive bodies that they should obey the behests of all higher bodies
in the organisational hierarchy. But town committees in practice had the
devil's own job in imposing firm leadership . . . Insubordination was the rule
of the day whenever lower party bodies thought questions of importance were at
-stake.
+stake. _
>
-> "Suburb committees too faced difficulties in imposing discipline. Many a
+> _"Suburb committees too faced difficulties in imposing discipline. Many a
party cell saw fit to thumb its nose at higher authority and to pursue
policies which it felt to be more suited to local circumstances or more
desirable in general. No great secret was made of this. In fact, it was openly
@@ -667,8 +667,8 @@ to play the revolutionary role they ought to have taken in theory. The masses
themselves made the revolution, with or even against the party -- this much at
least was clear to Trotsky the historian. But far from drawing the correct
conclusion, Trotsky the theorist continued to argue that the masses are
-incapable of making a revolution without a leader."_ [Daniel & Gabriel Cohn-
-Bendit, **Op. Cit.**, p. 188]
+incapable of making a revolution without a leader."_ [Daniel & Gabriel
+Cohn-Bendit, **Op. Cit.**, p. 188]
Looking at the development of the revolution from April onwards, we are struck
by the sluggishness of the party hierarchy. At every revolutionary upsurge,
@@ -1318,11 +1318,11 @@ revolutionary workers will have to work to uproot the remnants of bourgeois
society . . . But if the object of this struggle and this organisation is to
free the proletariat from exploitation and state rule, then the role of guide,
tutor or director cannot be entrusted to a new state, which would have an
-interest in pointing the revolution in a completely opposite direction. . .
+interest in pointing the revolution in a completely opposite direction. . . _
>
-> "The outcome would be that a new government - battening on the revolution
+> _"The outcome would be that a new government - battening on the revolution
and acting throughout the more or less extended period of its 'provisional'
powers - would lay down the bureaucratic, military and economic foundations of
a new and lasting state organisation, around which a compact network of
@@ -1331,37 +1331,37 @@ time what one would have would not be the state abolished, but a state
stronger and more energetic than its predecessor and which would come to
exercise those functions proper to it - the ones Marx recognised as being such
- 'keeping the great majority of producers under the yoke of a numerically
-small exploiting minority.'
+small exploiting minority.' _
>
-> "This is the lesson that the history of all revolutions teaches us, from the
-most ancient down to the most recent; and it is confirmed . . . by the day-to-
-day developments of the Russian revolution . . .
+> _"This is the lesson that the history of all revolutions teaches us, from
+the most ancient down to the most recent; and it is confirmed . . . by the
+day-to-day developments of the Russian revolution . . . _
>
-> "Certainly, [state violence] starts out being used against the old power . .
-. But as the new power goes on consolidating its position . . . ever more
+> _"Certainly, [state violence] starts out being used against the old power .
+. . But as the new power goes on consolidating its position . . . ever more
frequently and ever more severely, the mailed fist of dictatorship is turned
against the proletariat itself in whose name that dictatorship was set up and
is operated! . . . the actions of the present Russian government [of Lenin and
Trotsky] have shown that in real terms (and it could not be otherwise) the
'dictatorship of the proletariat' means police, military, political and
economic dictatorship exercised over the broad mass of the proletariat in city
-and country by the few leaders of the political party.
+and country by the few leaders of the political party. _
>
-> "The violence of the state always ends up being used AGAINST ITS SUBJECTS,
+> _"The violence of the state always ends up being used AGAINST ITS SUBJECTS,
of whom the vast majority are always proletarians . . . The new government
will be able to expropriate the old ruling class in whole or in part, but only
so as to establish a new ruling class that will hold the greater part of the
-proletariat in subjection.
+proletariat in subjection. _
>
-> "That will come to pass if those who make up the government and the
+> _"That will come to pass if those who make up the government and the
bureaucratic, military and police minority that upholds it end up becoming the
real owners of wealth when the property of everyone is made over exclusively
to the state. In the first place, the failure of the revolution will be self
@@ -1630,7 +1630,7 @@ Power to the Soviets"_ it does not mean they mean exactly the same thing by
it. In practice the Bolshevik vision simply replaced the power of the soviets
with a "soviet power" above them:
-> _ "The success of the Bolsheviks in the October Revolution \-- that is to
+> _ "The success of the Bolsheviks in the October Revolution -- that is to
say, the fact that they found themselves in power and from there subordinated
the whole Revolution to their Party is explained by their ability to
substitute the idea of a Soviet power for the social revolution and the social
@@ -1728,10 +1728,10 @@ society.
In December of that year Lenin went one further and noted that at the Sixth
Soviet Congress _"the Bolsheviks had 97 per cent"_ of delegates, i.e.
"practically all representatives of the workers and peasants of the whole of
-Russia."_ This was proof of _"how stupid and ridiculous is the bourgeois
-fairy-tale about the Bolsheviks only having minority support."_ [**Op. Cit.**,
-pp. 355-6] Given that the workers and peasants had no real choice in who to
-vote for, can this result be surprising? Of course not. While the Bolsheviks
+Russia." This was proof of _"how stupid and ridiculous is the bourgeois fairy-
+tale about the Bolsheviks only having minority support."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp.
+355-6] Given that the workers and peasants had no real choice in who to vote
+for, can this result be surprising? Of course not. While the Bolsheviks
**had** mass support a year previously, pointing to election results under a
dictatorship where all other parties and groups are subject to state
repression is hardly convincing evidence for current support. Needless to say,
@@ -1822,7 +1822,7 @@ augment this centralisation of power into the hands of the party. The VTsIK
Sovnarkom) was _"used not to control but rather extend the authority and
centralising fiat of the government. That was the work of Iakov Sverdlov, the
VTsIK chairman, who -- in close collaboration with Lenin as chairman of the
-Sovnarkom \-- ensured that the government decrees and ordinances were by the
+Sovnarkom -- ensured that the government decrees and ordinances were by the
VTsIK and that they were thus endowed with Soviet legitimacy when they were
sent to provincial soviet executive committees for transmission to all local
soviets . . . To achieve that, Sverdlov had to reduce the 'Soviet Parliament'
@@ -2392,7 +2392,7 @@ the support they claimed they had, then they would have won soviet elections
easily. They did not and so free soviet elections were not held.
This fact also explains the fate of the so-called _"non party"_ conferences
-favoured by the Bolsheviks in late 1920\. In spite of praising the soviets as
+favoured by the Bolsheviks in late 1920. In spite of praising the soviets as
_"more democratic"_ than anything in the _"best democratic republics of the
bourgeois world,"_ Lenin also argued that non-Party conferences were also
required _"to be able to watch the mood of the masses, to come closer to them,
@@ -2432,11 +2432,11 @@ do. As Kropotkin argued in 1920:
controlling the economic and political life of the country is a great idea.
All the more so, since it necessarily follows that these councils should be
composed of all who take part in the production of natural wealth by their own
-efforts.
+efforts. _
>
-> "But as long as the country is governed by a party dictatorship, the
+> _"But as long as the country is governed by a party dictatorship, the
workers' and peasants' councils evidently lose their entire significance. They
are reduced to . . . [a] passive role . . . A council of workers ceases to be
free and of any use when liberty of the press no longer exists . . . [and
@@ -2469,10 +2469,11 @@ class. Dictatorship of a class cannot exist as such, for it ends up, in the
last analysis, as being the dictatorship of a given party which arrogates to
itself the right to speak for that class. Thus, the liberal bourgeoisie, in
their fight against despotism, used to speak in the name of the 'people'. . .
+_
>
-> "We already know that a revolution cannot be made with rosewater. And we
+> _"We already know that a revolution cannot be made with rosewater. And we
know, too, that the owning classes will never yield up their privileges
spontaneously. On the day of victorious revolution the workers will have to
impose their will on the present owners of the soil, of the subsoil and of the
@@ -2482,11 +2483,11 @@ above all, without their having demolished the authoritarian structure which
is, and will continue to be, the fortress keeping the masses of the people
under dominion. Such an action is, without doubt, an act of liberation; a
proclamation of social justice; the very essence of social revolution, which
-has nothing in common with the utterly bourgeois principle of dictatorship.
+has nothing in common with the utterly bourgeois principle of dictatorship. _
>
-> "The fact that a large number of socialist parties have rallied to the idea
+> _"The fact that a large number of socialist parties have rallied to the idea
of councils, which is the proper mark of libertarian socialist and
revolutionary syndicalists, is a confession, recognition that the tack they
have taken up until now has been the product of a falsification, a distortion,
@@ -2500,11 +2501,11 @@ a threat to the further development of the councils. These alien elements are
able only to conceive things from the dictatorial viewpoint. It must be our
task to face up to this risk and warn our class comrades against experiments
which cannot bring the dawn of social emancipation any nearer -- which indeed,
-to the contrary, positively postpone it.
+to the contrary, positively postpone it. _
>
-> "Consequently, our advice is as follows: Everything for the councils or
+> _"Consequently, our advice is as follows: Everything for the councils or
soviets! No power above them! A slogan which at the same time will be that of
the social revolutionary."_ [**Anarchism and Sovietism**]
@@ -2620,3 +2621,9 @@ communism"?
## 25 Did the Russian revolution refute anarchism?
+
+
+[‹ Appendix - The Russian Revolution](/afaq/append4.html "Go to previous page"
+) [up](/afaq/append4.html "Go to parent page" ) [What was the Kronstadt
+Rebellion? ›](/afaq/append42.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/append42.md b/markdown/append42.md
index 3e010698cb727217cb5cf704bd760889b46686e3..409c1ba6ef5b07aa38b19703236be96bf0d4ee2c 100644
--- a/markdown/append42.md
+++ b/markdown/append42.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
# What was the Kronstadt Rebellion?
-The Kronstadt rebellion took place in the first weeks of March, 1921\.
+The Kronstadt rebellion took place in the first weeks of March, 1921.
Kronstadt was (and is) a naval fortress on an island in the Gulf of Finland.
Traditionally, it has served as the base of the Russian Baltic Fleet and to
guard the approaches to the city of St. Petersburg (which during the first
@@ -213,21 +213,21 @@ finally sent to forced labour camps in the Archangelsk, Vologda and Murmansk
regions. Eight thousand sailors, soldiers and civilians escaped over the ice
to Finland. The crews of the **_Petropavlovsk_** and **_Sevastopol_** fought
to the bitter end, as did the cadets of the mechanics school, the torpedo
-detachment and the communications unit. A statistical communiqu of the Special
-Section of the Extraordinary **Troikas** of 1st May stated that 6,528 rebels
-had been arrested, of whom 2,168 had been shot (33%), 1,955 had been sentenced
-to forced labour (of whom 1,486 received a five year sentence), and 1,272 were
-released. A statistical review of the revolt made in 1935-6 listed the number
-arrested as 10,026 and stated that it had "not been possible to establish
-accurately the number of the repressed." The families of the rebels were
-deported, with Siberia considered as _"undoubtedly the only suitable region"_
-for them. Significantly, one of the members of the **troika** judging the
-rebels complained that they had to rely exclusively on information provided by
-the Special Section of the **Vecheka** as _"neither commissars nor local
-Communists provided any material."_ [Israel Getzler, _"The Communist Leaders'
-Role in the Kronstadt Tragedy of 1921 in the Light of Recently Published
-Archival Documents"_, **Revolutionary Russia**, pp. 24-44, Vol. 15, No. 1,
-June 2002, pp. 35-7]
+detachment and the communications unit. A statistical communiqué of the
+Special Section of the Extraordinary **Troikas** of 1st May stated that 6,528
+rebels had been arrested, of whom 2,168 had been shot (33%), 1,955 had been
+sentenced to forced labour (of whom 1,486 received a five year sentence), and
+1,272 were released. A statistical review of the revolt made in 1935-6 listed
+the number arrested as 10,026 and stated that it had "not been possible to
+establish accurately the number of the repressed." The families of the rebels
+were deported, with Siberia considered as _"undoubtedly the only suitable
+region"_ for them. Significantly, one of the members of the **troika** judging
+the rebels complained that they had to rely exclusively on information
+provided by the Special Section of the **Vecheka** as _"neither commissars nor
+local Communists provided any material."_ [Israel Getzler, _"The Communist
+Leaders' Role in the Kronstadt Tragedy of 1921 in the Light of Recently
+Published Archival Documents"_, **Revolutionary Russia**, pp. 24-44, Vol. 15,
+No. 1, June 2002, pp. 35-7]
After the revolt had been put down, the Bolshevik government reorganised the
fortress. While it had attacked the revolt in the name of defending _"Soviet
@@ -971,84 +971,56 @@ we list the 15 demands.
The full list of demands are as follows:
-> _"1. Immediate new elections to the Soviets. The present Soviets no longer
+> _ "1. Immediate new elections to the Soviets. The present Soviets no longer
express the wishes of the workers and peasants. The new elections should be by
-secret ballot, and should be preceded by free electoral propaganda.
-
->
-
-> 2\. Freedom of speech and of the press for workers and peasants, for the
-Anarchists, and for the Left Socialist parties.
-
->
+secret ballot, and should be preceded by free electoral propaganda._
-> 3\. The right of assembly, and freedom for trade union and peasant
-organisations.
+> _ 2\. Freedom of speech and of the press for workers and peasants, for the
+Anarchists, and for the Left Socialist parties._
->
+> _ 3\. The right of assembly, and freedom for trade union and peasant
+organisations._
-> 4\. The organisation, at the latest on 10th March 1921, of a Conference of
+> _ 4\. The organisation, at the latest on 10th March 1921, of a Conference of
non-Party workers, solders and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt and the
-Petrograd District.
-
->
+Petrograd District._
-> 5\. The liberation of all political prisoners of the Socialist parties, and
-of all imprisoned workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors belonging to
-working class and peasant organisations.
+> _ 5\. The liberation of all political prisoners of the Socialist parties,
+and of all imprisoned workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors belonging to
+working class and peasant organisations._
->
-
-> 6\. The election of a commission to look into the dossiers of all those
-detained in prisons and concentration camps.
-
->
+> _ 6\. The election of a commission to look into the dossiers of all those
+detained in prisons and concentration camps._
-> 7\. The abolition of all political sections in the armed forces. No
+> _ 7\. The abolition of all political sections in the armed forces. No
political party should have privileges for the propagation of its ideas, or
receive State subsidies to this end. In the place of the political sections
-various cultural groups should be set up, deriving resources from the State.
+various cultural groups should be set up, deriving resources from the State._
->
-
-> 8\. The immediate abolition of the militia detachments set up between towns
-and countryside.
-
->
+> _ 8\. The immediate abolition of the militia detachments set up between
+towns and countryside._
-> 9\. The equalisation of rations for all workers, except those engaged in
-dangerous or unhealthy jobs.
+> _ 9\. The equalisation of rations for all workers, except those engaged in
+dangerous or unhealthy jobs._
->
-
-> 10\. The abolition of Party combat detachments in all military groups. The
+> _ 10\. The abolition of Party combat detachments in all military groups. The
abolition of Party guards in factories and enterprises. If guards are
required, they should be nominated, taking into account the views of the
-workers.
+workers._
->
-
-> 11\. The granting to the peasants of freedom of action on their own soil,
+> _ 11\. The granting to the peasants of freedom of action on their own soil,
and of the right to own cattle, provided they look after them themselves and
-do not employ hired labour.
-
->
+do not employ hired labour._
-> 12\. We request that all military units and officer trainee groups associate
-themselves with this resolution.
+> _ 12\. We request that all military units and officer trainee groups
+associate themselves with this resolution. _
->
-
-> 13\. We demand that the Press give proper publicity to this resolution.
+> _ 13\. We demand that the Press give proper publicity to this resolution._
->
+> _ 14\. We demand the institution of mobile workers' control groups._
-> 14\. We demand the institution of mobile workers' control groups.
-
->
-
-> 15\. We demand that handicraft production be authorised provided it does not
-utilise wage labour."_ [quoted by Ida Mett, **The Kronstadt Revolt**, pp.
+> _ 15\. We demand that handicraft production be authorised provided it does
+not utilise wage labour."_ [quoted by Ida Mett, **The Kronstadt Revolt**, pp.
37-8]
This is the program described by the Soviet government as a _"SR-Black
@@ -1494,7 +1466,7 @@ soviets). The fact that the Kronstadt sailors not only _"venture[d] upon an
insurrection under an abstract political slogan of 'free soviets'"_ but
actually **created** one (the conference of delegates) goes unmentioned.
Moreover, as we prove in [section 8](append42.html#app8), the majority of
-sailors in 1921 had been there in 1917\. This was due to the fact that the
+sailors in 1921 had been there in 1917. This was due to the fact that the
sailors could not be quickly or easily replaced due to the technology required
to operate Kronstadt's defences and battleships.
@@ -1686,11 +1658,11 @@ this in terms of their reluctance to resort to bloodshed. Later, other
officers of the garrison were also to accuse the sailors of military
incompetence, and of complete lack of confidence in their technical advisers.
Kozlovsky was the only general to have been present at Kronstadt. This was
-enough for the Government to make use of his name.
+enough for the Government to make use of his name. _
>
-> "The men of Kronstadt did, up to a point, make use of the military know how
+> _"The men of Kronstadt did, up to a point, make use of the military know how
of certain officers in the fortress at the time. Some of these officers may
have given the men advice out of sheer hostility to the Bolsheviks. But in
their attack on Kronstadt, the Government forces were also making use of ex
@@ -1975,11 +1947,11 @@ sailors would have waited a few weeks longer for the ice to melt . . . The
rebels, moreover, allowed Kalinin [a leading Communist] to return to
Petrograd, though he would have made a valuable hostage. Further, no attempt
was made to take the offensive . . . Significant too, is the large number of
-Communists who took part in the movement. . .
+Communists who took part in the movement. . . _
>
-> "The Sailors needed no outside encouragement to raise the banner of
+> _"The Sailors needed no outside encouragement to raise the banner of
insurrection. . . Kronstadt was clearly ripe for a rebellion. What set it off
were not the machinations of emigre conspirators and foreign intelligence
agents but the wave of peasant risings throughout the country and the labour
@@ -2067,39 +2039,39 @@ Communists' hands and have taken over the helm . . . Comrades, keep a close
eye upon the vicinity of the tiller: enemies are even now trying to creep
closer. A single lapse and they will wrest the tiller from you, and the soviet
ship may go down to the triumphant laughter from tsarist lackeys and henchmen
-of the bourgeoisie.
+of the bourgeoisie. _
>
-> "Comrades, right now you are rejoicing in the great, peaceful victory over
-the Communists' dictatorship. Now, your enemies are celebrating too.
+> _"Comrades, right now you are rejoicing in the great, peaceful victory over
+the Communists' dictatorship. Now, your enemies are celebrating too. _
>
-> "Your grounds for such joy, and theirs, are quite contradictory.
+> _"Your grounds for such joy, and theirs, are quite contradictory. _
>
-> "You are driven by a burning desire to restore the authentic power of the
+> _"You are driven by a burning desire to restore the authentic power of the
soviets, by a noble hope of seeing the worker engage in free labour and the
peasant enjoy the right to dispose, on his land, of the produce of his
labours. **They** dream of bringing back the tsarist knout and the privileges
-of the generals.
+of the generals. _
>
-> "Your interests are different. They are not fellow travellers with you.
+> _"Your interests are different. They are not fellow travellers with you. _
>
-> "You needed to get rid of the Communists' power over you in order to set
+> _"You needed to get rid of the Communists' power over you in order to set
about creative work and peaceable construction. Whereas they want to overthrow
-that power to make the workers and peasants their slaves again.
+that power to make the workers and peasants their slaves again. _
>
-> "You are in search of freedom. They want to shackle you as it suits them. Be
-vigilant! Don't let the wolves in sheep's clothing get near the tiller."_
+> _"You are in search of freedom. They want to shackle you as it suits them.
+Be vigilant! Don't let the wolves in sheep's clothing get near the tiller."_
[**No Gods, No Masters**, vol. 2, pp. 187-8]
Of course, this is not enough for the followers of Lenin and Trotsky. John
@@ -2303,6 +2275,8 @@ the Bolsheviks had crushed the revolt cannot be used to discredit the revolt
itself. The real relationship of the revolt to the Whites is clear. It was one
of hatred and opposition.
+
+
## 8 Did the rebellion involve new sailors?
The most common Trotskyist assertion to justify the repression of the
@@ -2649,15 +2623,15 @@ clear-cut contingent, and were then pointed out as among the great heroes who
had saved the Revolution from Kerensky, and Petrograd from Yudenich. During
the anniversary of October the sailors were again in the front ranks, and
their re-enactment of the taking of the Winter Palace was wildly acclaimed by
-a packed mass.
+a packed mass. _
>
-> "Is it possible that the leading members of the party, save Leon Trotsky,
+> _"Is it possible that the leading members of the party, save Leon Trotsky,
were unaware of the corruption and the demoralisation of Kronstadt, claimed by
him? I do not think so. Moreover, I doubt whether Trotsky himself held this
-view of the Kronstadt sailors until March, 1921\. His story must, therefore,
-be an afterthought, or is it a rationalisation to justify the senseless
+view of the Kronstadt sailors until March, 1921. His story must, therefore, be
+an afterthought, or is it a rationalisation to justify the senseless
'liquidation' of Kronstadt?"_ [**Trotsky Protests Too Much**]
Ante Ciliga quoted the testimony regarding Kronstadt of a fellow political
@@ -2718,11 +2692,11 @@ control and far from constant in their support for the government. It was for
this reason so many of them . . . had found themselves transferred to new
posts remote from the centres of Bolshevik powers. Of those who remained, many
hankered for the freedoms they had won in 1917 before the new regime began to
-establish its one-party dictatorship throughout the country.
+establish its one-party dictatorship throughout the country. _
>
-> "Actually, there was little to distinguish the old-timers from the recent
+> _"Actually, there was little to distinguish the old-timers from the recent
recruits in their midst. Both groups were largely of peasant background . . .
Not unexpectedly, when the rebellion finally erupted, it was the older seamen,
veterans of many years of service (dating in some cases before the First World
@@ -2732,11 +2706,11 @@ only natural that these seasoned bluejackets should be thrust into the
forefront of the uprising . . . The proximity of Petrograd, moreover, with its
intense intellectual and political life, had contributed towards sharpening
their political awareness, and a good many had engaged in revolutionary
-activity during 1917 and after. . .
+activity during 1917 and after. . . _
>
-> "As late as the autumn of 1920, Emma Goldman recalled, the sailors were
+> _"As late as the autumn of 1920, Emma Goldman recalled, the sailors were
still held up by the Communists themselves as a glowing example of valour and
unflinching courage; on November 7, the third anniversary of the Bolshevik
seizure of power, they were in the front ranks of the celebrations . . . No
@@ -2860,7 +2834,7 @@ smokescreen to draw attention away from the weakness of his own case.
Moreover, as evidence of **changing** class composition these figures are not
very useful. This is because they do not compare the composition of the
-Kronstadt Bolsheviks in 1917 to those in 1921\. Given that the Kronstadt base
+Kronstadt Bolsheviks in 1917 to those in 1921. Given that the Kronstadt base
always had a high percentage of peasants in its ranks, it follows that in 1917
the percentage of Bolsheviks of peasant origin could have been higher than
normal as well. If this was the case, then Rees argument falls. Simply put, he
@@ -2956,6 +2930,8 @@ As we show in the [next section](append42.html#app9), the political
composition of the Kronstadt rebels, like their class composition, was
basically unchanged in 1921 when compared to that which pre-dominated in 1917.
+
+
## 9 Was Kronstadt different politically?
As we proved in the [last section](append42.html#app8), the Kronstadt garrison
@@ -3072,28 +3048,28 @@ Let us quote a _"representative"_ of the _"city petty bourgeoisie"_:
> _"I am an anarchist because contemporary society is divided into two
opposing classes: the impoverished and dispossessed workers and peasants . . .
-and the rich men, kings and presidents . . .
+and the rich men, kings and presidents . . . _
>
-> "I am an anarchist because I scorn and detest all authority, since all
+> _"I am an anarchist because I scorn and detest all authority, since all
authority is founded on injustice, exploitation and compulsion over the human
-personality. Authority dehumanises the individual and makes him a slave.
+personality. Authority dehumanises the individual and makes him a slave. _
>
-> "I am an opponent of private property when it is held by individual
-capitalist parasites, for private property is theft. . .
+> _"I am an opponent of private property when it is held by individual
+capitalist parasites, for private property is theft. . . _
>
-> "I am an anarchist because I believe only in the creative powers and
+> _"I am an anarchist because I believe only in the creative powers and
independence of a united proletariat and not of the leaders of political
-parties of various kinds.
+parties of various kinds. _
>
-> "I am an anarchist because I believe that the present struggle between the
+> _"I am an anarchist because I believe that the present struggle between the
classes will end only when the toiling masses, organised as a class, gain
their true interests and conquer, by means of a violent social revolution, all
the riches of the earth . . . having abolished all institutions of government
@@ -3216,7 +3192,7 @@ White speculates, _"the younger element among the seamen"_ would _"easily
ships"_ and of the _"large number of old-ex-sea men, employed in the
industrial enterprises of Kronstadt."_ He notes that _"a good many"_ of the
rebels _"had had ample experience in organisational and political work since
-1917\. A number had long-standing associations with Anarchists and the
+1917. A number had long-standing associations with Anarchists and the
Socialist Revolutionaries of the Left."_ Thus the _"survival of the
libertarian pattern of 1917 . . . made it possible for the bluejackets not
only to formulate, but carry out a plan of action, no doubt under a certain
@@ -3253,6 +3229,8 @@ and aspirations of those active in 1917. It were these politics which had made
Kronstadt the _"pride and glory"_ of the revolution in 1917 and, four years
later, made it so dangerous to the Bolsheviks.
+
+
## 10 Why did the Petrograd workers not support Kronstadt?
For Trotskyists, the inaction of the Petrograd workers during the revolt is a
@@ -3345,11 +3323,11 @@ Bolshevik functionaries. The proclamations posted on the street bulletin
boards ordered the immediate return of all strikers to the factories,
prohibited suspension of work, and warned the people against congregating on
the streets. 'In such cases', the order read, 'the soldiery will resort to
-arms. In case of resistance, shooting on the spot.'
+arms. In case of resistance, shooting on the spot.' _
>
-> "The committee of defence took up the systematic 'cleaning of the city.'
+> _"The committee of defence took up the systematic 'cleaning of the city.'
Numerous workers, soldiers and sailors suspected of sympathising with
Kronstadt, placed under arrest. All Petrograd sailors and several Army
regiments thought to be 'politically untrustworthy' were ordered to distant
@@ -3427,11 +3405,11 @@ showed how the wave of strikes had started in Petrograd and how Kronstadt had
followed suit. It was against the strikers of Petrograd that the Government
had to organise a special General Staff: the Committee of Defence. The
repression was first directed against the Petrograd workers and against their
-demonstrations, by the despatch of armed detachments of Koursantys.
+demonstrations, by the despatch of armed detachments of Koursantys. _
>
-> "But the workers of Petrograd had no weapons. They could not defend
+> _"But the workers of Petrograd had no weapons. They could not defend
themselves as could the Kronstadt sailors. The military repression directed
against Kronstadt certainly intimidated the Petrograd workers. The demarcation
did not take place 'along class lines' but according to the respective
@@ -3467,11 +3445,11 @@ continued by arguing:
party that expresses the interests of historical development? Destroying or
driving underground the other parties, you have thereby prevented their
political competition with you, and consequently you have deprived yourselves
-of the possibility of testing your line of action.
+of the possibility of testing your line of action. _
>
-> "This idea is dictated by a purely liberal conception of the course of the
+> _"This idea is dictated by a purely liberal conception of the course of the
revolution. In a period in which all antagonisms assume an open character, and
the political struggle swiftly passes into a civil war, the ruling party has
sufficient material standard by which to test its line of action, without the
@@ -3500,11 +3478,11 @@ Kronstadt and comes to the following conclusion"_:
> _"For many intellectuals and workers, moreover, the Bolsheviks, with all
their faults, were still the most effective barrier to a White resurgence and
-the downfall of the revolution.
+the downfall of the revolution. _
>
-> "For these reasons, the strikes in Petrograd were fated to lead a brief
+> _"For these reasons, the strikes in Petrograd were fated to lead a brief
existence. Indeed, they ended almost as suddenly as they had begun, never
having reached the point of armed revolt against the regime."_ [Lenin and
Trotsky, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 24-35]
@@ -3522,28 +3500,28 @@ indispensable in restoring order. Particularly impressive in this regard was
the discipline shown by the local party organisation. Setting aside their
internal disputes, the Petrograd Bolsheviks swiftly closed ranks and proceeded
to carry out the unpleasant task of repression with efficiency and dispatch .
-. .
+. . _
>
-> "Then, too, the collapse of the movement would not have come so soon but for
-the utter demoralisation of Petrograd's inhabitants. The workers were simply
-too exhausted to keep up any sustained political activity . . . What is more,
-they lacked effective leadership and a coherent program of action. In the past
-these had been supplied by the radical intelligentsia . . . [but they] were
-themselves in no condition to lend the workers any meaningful support, let
-alone active guidance . . . they now felt too weary and terrorised . . . to
-raise their voices in opposition. With most of their comrades in prison or
-exile, and some already executed, few of the survivors were willing to risk
-the same fate, especially when the odds against them were so overwhelming and
-when the slightest protest might deprive their families of their rations. For
-many intellectuals and workers, moreover, the Bolsheviks, with all their
-faults, were still the most effective barrier to a White resurgence and the
-downfall of the revolution.
+> _"Then, too, the collapse of the movement would not have come so soon but
+for the utter demoralisation of Petrograd's inhabitants. The workers were
+simply too exhausted to keep up any sustained political activity . . . What is
+more, they lacked effective leadership and a coherent program of action. In
+the past these had been supplied by the radical intelligentsia . . . [but
+they] were themselves in no condition to lend the workers any meaningful
+support, let alone active guidance . . . they now felt too weary and
+terrorised . . . to raise their voices in opposition. With most of their
+comrades in prison or exile, and some already executed, few of the survivors
+were willing to risk the same fate, especially when the odds against them were
+so overwhelming and when the slightest protest might deprive their families of
+their rations. For many intellectuals and workers, moreover, the Bolsheviks,
+with all their faults, were still the most effective barrier to a White
+resurgence and the downfall of the revolution. _
>
-> "For these reasons, the strikes in Petrograd were fated to lead a brief
+> _"For these reasons, the strikes in Petrograd were fated to lead a brief
existence. Indeed, they ended almost as suddenly as they had begun, never
having reached the point of armed revolt against the regime."_ [Paul Avrich,
**Kronstadt**, pp. 49-51]
@@ -3594,6 +3572,8 @@ all the relevant facts of the situation. This can go so far as to selectively
quote from academic accounts to present a radically false conclusion to that
of the misused author's.
+
+
## 11 Were the Whites a threat during the Kronstadt revolt?
The lack of foreign intervention during the Kronstadt revolt suggests more
@@ -3610,7 +3590,7 @@ According to John Rees, a substantial amount:
still not finished -- as the emigre response to the Kronstadt rising shows . .
. They had predicted a rising at Kronstadt and the White National Centre
abroad raised a total of nearly 1 million French Francs, 2 million Finnish
-marks, 5000, $25,000 and 900 tons of flour in just two weeks; Indeed, the
+marks, £5000, $25,000 and 900 tons of flour in just two weeks; Indeed, the
National Centre was already making plans for the forces of the French navy and
those of General Wrangel, who still commanded 70,000 men in Turkey, to land in
Kronstadt if the revolt were to succeed."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 63-4]
@@ -3758,6 +3738,8 @@ regime within some kind of limits. Thus this argument is flawed as it
seriously suggests that dictatorship and bureaucracy can reform itself (we
discuss this in more detail in [section 13](append42.html#app13)).
+
+
## 12 Was the country too exhausted to allow soviet democracy?
Trotskyists have, in general, two main lines of attack with regards the
@@ -3785,11 +3767,11 @@ as the 1921 Kronstadt rising against the Bolshevik government in Russia can
become a rallying cry. The revolutionary Victor Serge was not uncritical of
the Bolshevik handling of the rising, but he poured scorn on anarchist claims
for it when he wrote, 'The third revolution it was called by certain
-anarchists whose heads were stuffed by infantile delusions.'
+anarchists whose heads were stuffed by infantile delusions.' _
>
-> "This third revolution, it was argued, would follow the first one in
+> _"This third revolution, it was argued, would follow the first one in
February 1917 and the second in October. The second had swept away the
attempts to create capitalist power, had given land to the peasants and had
extracted Russia from the horrible imperialist carnage of the First World War.
@@ -3798,11 +3780,11 @@ abortion rights, introduced divorce and accepted the rights of the various
Russian republics to self determination. It had done so, however, against a
background of a bloody and horrendous civil war where the old order tried to
regain power. Sixteen imperialist powers sent armies against the regime, and
-trade embargoes were enforced.
+trade embargoes were enforced. _
>
-> "The reality of such actions caused huge suffering throughout Russia. The
+> _"The reality of such actions caused huge suffering throughout Russia. The
regime was deprived of raw materials and fuel, transportation networks were
destroyed, and the cities began running out of food. By 1919 the regime only
had 10 percent of the fuel that was available in 1917, and the production of
@@ -3810,12 +3792,12 @@ iron ore in the same year stood at 1.6 percent of that in 1914. By 1921
Petrograd had lost 57 percent of its population and Moscow 44.5 percent.
Workers were either dead, on the frontline of the civil war, or were fleeing
the starvation of the city. The force that had made the revolution possible
-was being decimated. . .
+was being decimated. . . _
>
-> "The choice facing the regime in Russia was either to crush the uprising and
-save the revolution, or surrender to the rising and allow the forces of
+> _"The choice facing the regime in Russia was either to crush the uprising
+and save the revolution, or surrender to the rising and allow the forces of
reaction to march in on their back. There was no material basis for a third
way. A destroyed economy and infrastructure, a population faced with
starvation and bloody war, and a hostile outside world were not circumstances
@@ -3898,11 +3880,11 @@ Continuing party dictatorship would never do this:
> _"by its very essence a dictatorship destroys the creative capacities of a
people. . . The revolutionary conquest could only be deepened through a
genuine participation of the masses. Any attempt to substitute an 'elite' for
-those masses could only be profoundly reactionary.
+those masses could only be profoundly reactionary. _
>
-> "In 1921 the Russian Revolution stood at the cross roads. The democratic or
+> _"In 1921 the Russian Revolution stood at the cross roads. The democratic or
the dictatorial way, that was the question. By lumping together bourgeois and
proletarian democracy the Bolsheviks were in fact condemning both. They sought
to build socialism from above, through skilful manoeuvres of the Revolutionary
@@ -3952,13 +3934,13 @@ We all know that the housing problem cannot be solved in a few months, even
years, and that due to our poverty, its solution is faced with serious
difficulties. But the facts of ever-growing inequality between the privileged
groups of the population in Soviet Russia and the rank and file workers, 'the
-frame-work of the dictatorship', breed and nourish the dissatisfaction.
+frame-work of the dictatorship', breed and nourish the dissatisfaction. _
>
-> "The rank and file worker sees how the Soviet official and the practical man
-lives and how he lives . . . [It will be objected that] 'We could not attend
-to that; pray, there was the military front.' And yet whenever it was
+> _"The rank and file worker sees how the Soviet official and the practical
+man lives and how he lives . . . [It will be objected that] 'We could not
+attend to that; pray, there was the military front.' And yet whenever it was
necessary to make repairs to any of the houses occupied by the Soviet
institutions, they were able to find both the materials and the labour."_
[Alexandra Kollontai, **The Workers' Opposition**, p. 10]
@@ -4287,6 +4269,8 @@ Stack's and Rees' argument, in other words, represents the bankruptcy of
Bolshevik ideology rather than a serious argument against the Kronstadt
revolt.
+
+
## 13 Was there a real alternative to Kronstadt's _"third revolution"_?
Another Trotskyist argument against Kronstadt and in favour of the Bolshevik
@@ -4299,11 +4283,11 @@ there was no reserves of any kind, not even reserves of stamina in the hearts
of the masses. The working-class **elite** that had been moulded in the
struggle against the old regime was literally decimated. The Party, swollen by
the influx of power-seekers, inspired little confidence . . . Soviet democracy
-lacked leadership, institutions and inspiration . . .
+lacked leadership, institutions and inspiration . . . _
>
-> "The popular counter-revolution translated the demand for freely-elected
+> _"The popular counter-revolution translated the demand for freely-elected
soviets into one for 'Soviets without Communists.' If the Bolshevik
dictatorship fell, it was only a short step to chaos, and through chaos to a
peasant rising, the massacre of the Communists, the return of the emigres, and
@@ -4439,11 +4423,11 @@ represent an enormous danger to the revolution."_ This was because:
> _"Nobody who sincerely defends the line of Lenin can entertain the idea of
'two parties' or play with the suggestion of a split. Only those who desire to
replace Lenin's course with some other can advocate a split or a movement
-along the two-party road.
+along the two-party road. _
>
-> "We will fight with all our power against the idea of two parties, because
+> _"We will fight with all our power against the idea of two parties, because
the dictatorship of the proletariat demands as its very core a single
proletarian party. It demands a single party. It demands a proletarian party
-- that is, a party whose policy is determined by the interests of the
@@ -4583,11 +4567,11 @@ the working class as a whole, to the solders and to the sailors. Heated local
criticism acted as a general catalyst. The proletariat had reasoned quite
logically: if discussion and criticism were permitted to Party members, why
should they not be permitted to the masses themselves who had endured all the
-hardships of the Civil War?
+hardships of the Civil War? _
>
-> "In his speech to the Tenth Congress -- published in the Congress
+> _"In his speech to the Tenth Congress -- published in the Congress
Proceedings -- Lenin voiced his regret at having 'permitted' such a
discussion. 'We have certainly committed an error,' he said, 'in having
authorised this debate. Such a discussion was harmful just before the Spring
@@ -4637,6 +4621,8 @@ never be reformed from within by the very logic of its _"Leninist principle"_
of _"the dictatorship of the party."_ The rise of Stalinism was inevitable
after the crushing of Kronstadt.
+
+
## 14 How do modern day Trotskyists misrepresent Kronstadt?
We have discussed how Trotskyists have followed their heroes Lenin and Trotsky
@@ -4895,6 +4881,8 @@ Altogether, Bakan's article shows how deeply the supporters of Leninism will
sink to when attempting to discuss the Kronstadt rebellion. Sadly, as we have
indicated many, many times, this is not an isolated occurrence.
+
+
## 15 What does Kronstadt tell us about Bolshevism?
The rationales used by Lenin, Trotsky and their followers are significant aids
@@ -4939,7 +4927,7 @@ stage in a "proletarian" revolution):
> _"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
+imposed upon us by the social realities -- the class struggle, the
heterogeneity oof 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
@@ -5014,11 +5002,11 @@ the will to freedom of a large section of the population. The authoritarian .
economic and political system has be replaced by a dictatorship of the
proletariat [as expressed by the dictatorship of the party, according to
Trotsky] which, as the awareness and sense of responsibility of the people
-grows, will wither away and the free society emerge.
+grows, will wither away and the free society emerge. _
>
-> "There can be no common ground between such approaches. For the
+> _"There can be no common ground between such approaches. For the
authoritarian argues that the libertarian approach is noble but 'utopian' and
doomed to failure from the start, while the libertarian argues on the evidence
of history, that the authoritarian **methods** will simply replace one
@@ -5392,20 +5380,20 @@ revolutionary (even if they are workers). Thus:
often provide deep insight into the political thinking of contemporary
revolutionaries. They may in fact provide a deeper insight into their
conscious or unconscious aims than many a learned discussion about economics,
-or philosophy or about other episodes of revolutionary history.
+or philosophy or about other episodes of revolutionary history. _
>
-> "It is a question of one's basic attitude as to what socialism is all about.
-what are epitomised in the Kronstadt events are some of the most difficult
-problems of revolutionary strategy and revolutionary ethics: the problems of
-ends and means, of the relations between Party and masses, in fact whether a
-Party is necessary at all. Can the working class by itself only develop a
-trade union consciousness? . . .
+> _"It is a question of one's basic attitude as to what socialism is all
+about. what are epitomised in the Kronstadt events are some of the most
+difficult problems of revolutionary strategy and revolutionary ethics: the
+problems of ends and means, of the relations between Party and masses, in fact
+whether a Party is necessary at all. Can the working class by itself only
+develop a trade union consciousness? . . . _
>
-> "Or can the working class develop a deeper consciousness and understanding
+> _"Or can the working class develop a deeper consciousness and understanding
of its interests than can any organisations allegedly acting on its behalf?
When Stalinists or Trotskyists speak of Kronstadt as 'an essential action
against the class enemy' when some more 'sophisticated' revolutionaries refer
@@ -5458,32 +5446,26 @@ entire proletariat head the government? The Germans number about 40 million.
Will all 40 million be members of the government? The entire nation will rule,
but no one would be ruled. Then there will be no government, there will be no
state; but if there is a state, there will also be those who are ruled, there
-will be slaves.
+will be slaves._
->
-
-> "In the Marxists' theory this dilemma is resolved in a simple fashion. By
+> _ "In the Marxists' theory this dilemma is resolved 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 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.
-
->
+sham popular will._
-> "So . . . it always comes down to the same dismal result: government of the
-vast majority of the people by a privileged minority. But this minority, the
-Marxists say, will consist of workers. Yes, perhaps, of **former** workers,
-who, as soon as they become rulers or representatives of the people will cease
-to be workers and will begin to look upon the whole workers' world from the
-heights of the state. They will no longer represent the people but themselves
-and their own pretensions to govern the people. . .
+> _ "So . . . it always comes down to the same dismal result: government of
+the vast majority of the people by a privileged minority. But this minority,
+the Marxists say, will consist of workers. Yes, perhaps, of **former**
+workers, who, as soon as they become rulers or representatives of the people
+will cease to be workers and will begin to look upon the whole workers' world
+from the heights of the state. They will no longer represent the people but
+themselves and their own pretensions to govern the people. . . _
->
-
-> "They say that this state yoke, this dictatorship, is a necessary
+> _ "They say that this state yoke, this dictatorship, is a necessary
transitional device for achieving the total liberation of the people: anarchy,
or freedom, is the goal, and the state, or dictatorship, the means. Thus, for
the masses to be liberated they must first be enslaved. . . . They claim that
@@ -5494,3 +5476,8 @@ Liberty can only be created by liberty, by an insurrection of all the people
and the voluntary organisation of the workers from below upward."_ [**Statism
and Anarchy**, pp. 178-9]
+[‹ What happened during the Russian Revolution?](/afaq/append41.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/append4.html "Go to parent page" ) [What caused
+the degeneration of the Russian Revolution? ›](/afaq/append43.html "Go to next
+page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/append43.md b/markdown/append43.md
index 07ac3394ffc271527cb0f745464e376af4997233..9107a3d272dafaa3a6f3b3d199a6a4d6cb7d3c0d 100644
--- a/markdown/append43.md
+++ b/markdown/append43.md
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ Life**, vol. 2, p. 969]
Given that Leninists claim that the Russian revolution was a success (at least
initially) and so proves the validity of their ideology, anarchists have a
special duty to analysis and understand what went wrong. Simply put, if the
-Russian Revolution was a "success," Leninism does not need "failures"_!
+Russian Revolution was a "success," Leninism does not need "failures"!
This section of the FAQ will discuss these explanations for the failure of
Bolshevism. Simply put, anarchists are not convinced by Leninist explanations
@@ -49,14 +49,14 @@ years a state capitalist party dictatorship. As Noam Chomsky put it:
> _ "In the stages leading up to the Bolshevik coup in October 1917, there
**were** incipient socialist institutions developing in Russia -- workers'
councils, collectives, things like that. And they survived to an extent once
-the Bolsheviks took over \-- but not for very long; Lenin and Trotsky pretty
+the Bolsheviks took over -- but not for very long; Lenin and Trotsky pretty
much eliminated them as they consolidated their power. I mean, you can argue
about the **justification** for eliminating them, but the fact is that the
-socialist initiatives were pretty quickly eliminated.
+socialist initiatives were pretty quickly eliminated. _
>
-> "Now, people who want to justify it say, 'The Bolsheviks had to do it' --
+> _"Now, people who want to justify it say, 'The Bolsheviks had to do it' --
that's the standard justification: Lenin and Trotsky had to do it, because of
the contingencies of the civil war, for survival, there wouldn't have been
food otherwise, this and that. Well, obviously the question is, was that true.
@@ -168,15 +168,15 @@ will say you are deceiving them. In doing this you will be overcoming the
difficulties with which history has confronted us only in your minds, by your
wishes . . . You are staking everything on this card! If the revolution breaks
out, everything is saved . . . But if it does not turn out as we desire, if it
-does not achieve victory tomorrow \-- what then? Then the masses will say to
+does not achieve victory tomorrow -- what then? Then the masses will say to
you, you acted like gamblers -- you staked everything on a fortunate turn of
events that did not take place . . ."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 27, p. 102]
Anarchists have always recognised that a revolution would face problems and
difficult "objective factors" and has developed our ideas accordingly. We
-argue that to blame "objective factors"_ on the failure of the Russian
+argue that to blame "objective factors" on the failure of the Russian
Revolution simply shows that believing in fairy-tales is sadly far too common
-on the "serious"_ Leninist "revolutionary" left. And as we discuss in the
+on the "serious" Leninist "revolutionary" left. And as we discuss in the
appendix on ["How did Bolshevik ideology contribute to the failure of the
Revolution?"](append44.html), the impact of Bolshevik ideology on the failure
of the revolution was important and decisive. Even **if** the next revolution
@@ -311,11 +311,11 @@ validity of Bakunin's critique of Marxism. As he put it:
> _ "Nor can we comprehend talk of freedom of the proletariat or true
deliverance of the masses within the State and by the State. State signifies
domination, and all domination implies subjection of the masses, and as a
-result, their exploitation to the advantage of some governing minority.
+result, their exploitation to the advantage of some governing minority. _
>
-> "Not even as revolutionary transition will we countenance national
+> _"Not even as revolutionary transition will we countenance national
Conventions, nor Constituent Assemblies, nor provisional governments, nor so
called revolutionary dictatorships: because we are persuaded that revolution
is sincere, honest and real only among the masses and that, whenever it is
@@ -452,40 +452,40 @@ Capital will conceal itself, and hundreds of capitalists will prefer to
abandon their undertakings and go to watering-places rather than abandon their
unfixed capital in industrial production. And we know how a restriction of
production in any one branch of industry affects many others, and these in
-turn spread wider and wider the area of depression.
+turn spread wider and wider the area of depression. _
>
-> "Already, at this moment, millions of those who have created all riches
+> _"Already, at this moment, millions of those who have created all riches
suffer from want of what must be considered **necessaries** for the life of a
civilised man. . . Let the slightest commotion be felt in the industrial
world, and it will take the shape of a general stoppage of work. Let the first
attempt at expropriation be made, and the capitalist production of our days
will at once come to a stop, and millions and millions of 'unemployed' will
-join the ranks of those who are already unemployed now.
+join the ranks of those who are already unemployed now. _
>
-> "More than that . . . The very first advance towards a Socialist society
+> _"More than that . . . The very first advance towards a Socialist society
will imply a thorough reorganisation of industry as **to what we have to
produce.** Socialism implies . . . a transformation of industry so that it may
be adapted to the needs of the customer, not those of the profit-maker. Many a
branch of industry must disappear, or limits its production; many a new one
must develop. We are now producing a great deal for export. But the export
trade will be the first to be reduced as soon as attempts at Social Revolution
-are made anywhere in Europe . . .
+are made anywhere in Europe . . . _
>
-> "All that **can** be, and **will** be reorganised in time -- not by the
+> _"All that **can** be, and **will** be reorganised in time -- not by the
State, of course (why, then, not say by Providence?), but by the workers
themselves. But, in the meantime, the worker . . . cannot wait for the gradual
-reorganisation of industry. . .
+reorganisation of industry. . . _
>
-> "The great problem of how to supply the wants of millions will thus start up
-at once in all its immensity. And the necessity of finding an **immediate
+> _"The great problem of how to supply the wants of millions will thus start
+up at once in all its immensity. And the necessity of finding an **immediate
solution** for it is the reason we consider that a step in the direction of
[libertarian] Communism will be imposed on the revolted society -- not in the
future, but as soon as it applies its crowbar to the first stones of the
@@ -749,7 +749,7 @@ in _"times of peace."_ Rather, he stressed that they were for the
_"exceptional circumstance"_ of revolution and the civil war he considered its
inevitable consequence. As such, we must note that Trotsky's followers do not
apply this critique to their own politics, which are also a form of the
-"exceptional circumstances"_ excuse. Given how quickly Bolshevik "principles"_
+"exceptional circumstances" excuse. Given how quickly Bolshevik "principles"
(as expressed in **The State and Revolution**) were dropped, we can only
assume that Bolshevik ideas are also suitable purely for _"times of peace"_ as
well. As such, we must note the irony of Leninist claims that _"objective
@@ -759,7 +759,7 @@ Saying that, we should not that Trotsky was not above using such arguments
himself (making later-day Trotskyists at least ideologically consistent in
their hypocrisy). In the same essay, for example, he justifies the prohibition
of other Soviet parties in terms of a "measure of defence of the dictatorship
-in a backward and devastated country, surrounded by enemies on all sides."_ In
+in a backward and devastated country, surrounded by enemies on all sides." In
other words, an appeal to the exceptional circumstances facing the Bolsheviks!
Perhaps unsurprisingly, his followers have tended to stress this
(contradictory) aspect of his argument rather than his comments that those
@@ -1034,7 +1034,7 @@ expound these _"explanations"_ are meant to know that civil war, imperialist
invasion and blockade, economic disruption, and a host of other _"extremely
difficult circumstances"_ are part and parcel of a revolution. They seem to be
saying, "if only the ruling class had not acted as our political ideology
-predicts they would then the Bolshevik revolution would have been fine"_! As
+predicts they would then the Bolshevik revolution would have been fine"! As
Bertrand Russell argued after his trip to Soviet Russia, while since October
1917 _"the Soviet Government has been at war with almost all the world, and
has at the same time to face civil war at home"_ this was _"not to be regarded
@@ -1047,26 +1047,23 @@ factors"_ can explain the failure of the Russian Revolution. After all,
according to Lenin and Trotsky these factors were to be expected in **any**
revolution -- civil war and invasion, economic collapse and so forth were not
restricted to the Russian revolution. That is why they say they want a
-"dictatorship of the proletariat,"_ to defend against counter-revolution (see
+"dictatorship of the proletariat," to defend against counter-revolution (see
[section H.3.8](secH3.html#sech38) on how, once in power, Lenin and Trotsky
revised this position). Now, if Bolshevism cannot handle what it says is
inevitable, then it should be avoided. To use an analogy:
> **Bolshevik: _"Join with us, we have a great umbrella which will keep us
-dry."_
+dry."_ **
>
-> Anarchist: _"Last time it was used, it did not work. We all got soaked!"_
+> **Anarchist: _"Last time it was used, it did not work. We all got soaked!"_
+**
>
-> Bolshevik: _"But what our anarchist friend fails to mention is that it was
-raining at the time!"_
-
->
-
-> **
+> **Bolshevik: _"But what our anarchist friend fails to mention is that it was
+raining at the time!"_ **
Not very convincing! Yet, sadly, this is the logic of the common Leninist
justification of Bolshevik authoritarianism during the Russian Revolution.
@@ -1217,13 +1214,13 @@ elected or appointed by Soviet institutions, vested with dictatorial powers."_
support for a new form of wage slavery involved granting state appointed
_"individual executives dictatorial powers (or 'unlimited' powers)."_ Large-
scale industry (_"the foundation of socialism"_) required _"thousands
-subordinating their will to the will of one,"_ and so the revolution
-"demands"_ that _"the people **unquestioningly** obey the single will of the
-leaders of labour."_ Lenin's _"superior forms of labour discipline"_ were
-simply hyper-developed capitalist forms. The role of workers in production was
-the same, but with a novel twist, namely _"unquestioning obedience to the
-orders of individual representatives of the Soviet government during the
-work."_ [Lenin, **Selected Writings**, vol. 2, p. 610, p. 611, p. 612]
+subordinating their will to the will of one,"_ and so the revolution "demands"
+that _"the people **unquestioningly** obey the single will of the leaders of
+labour."_ Lenin's _"superior forms of labour discipline"_ were simply hyper-
+developed capitalist forms. The role of workers in production was the same,
+but with a novel twist, namely _"unquestioning obedience to the orders of
+individual representatives of the Soviet government during the work."_ [Lenin,
+**Selected Writings**, vol. 2, p. 610, p. 611, p. 612]
This simply replaced private capitalism with **state** capitalism. _"In the
shops where one-man management (Lenin's own preference) replaced collegial
@@ -1263,11 +1260,11 @@ different to those of the factory committees. This is not all, as Lenin always
placed his ideas in a statist context -- rather than base socialist
reconstruction on working class self-organisation from below, the Bolsheviks
started _"to build, from the top, its 'unified administration'"_ based on
-central bodies created by the Tsarist government in 1915 and 1916\. [Maurice
+central bodies created by the Tsarist government in 1915 and 1916. [Maurice
Brinton, **The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control**, p. 36] The institutional
framework of capitalism would be utilised as the principal (almost exclusive)
instruments of "socialist" transformation. Lenin's support for _"one-man
-management"_ must be seen in this context, namely his vision of "socialism."_
+management"_ must be seen in this context, namely his vision of "socialism."
Bolshevik advocating and implementing of _"one-man management"_ was not
limited to the workplace. On March 30th Trotsky, as Commissar of Military
@@ -1387,7 +1384,7 @@ meant. In the case of the Makhnovists in the Ukraine, the Bolsheviks started
that conflict by betraying them once Wrangel had been defeated. As such, any
resistance to Bolshevik rule by the working class and peasantry of Russia
indicated the lack of democracy within the country rather than some sort of
-"counter-revolutionary"_ conflict.
+"counter-revolutionary" conflict.
So even the end of the Civil War causes problems for this defence of the
Bolsheviks. Simply put, with the defeat of the Whites it would be expected
@@ -1592,10 +1589,9 @@ production had dropped by nearly 40%). In 1919, it fell again to 37, rising to
an all-time low"_ and it _"took until the late 1920s for [food] production to
recover its 1912 level . . . In 1921 grain production was still . . . some 30
per cent below the 1912 figure."_ Coal production was 69.1% of its 1913 level
-in 1920, falling to 32.8% in 1923\. Iron production was 33.1% in 1920 and
-25.6% in 1923. Steel production likewise fell to 48.5% in 1920 and fell again
-to 36% in 1923. [V. R. Berghahn, **Op. Cit.**, p. 258, pp. 67-8, p. 71 and p.
-259]
+in 1920, falling to 32.8% in 1923. Iron production was 33.1% in 1920 and 25.6%
+in 1923. Steel production likewise fell to 48.5% in 1920 and fell again to 36%
+in 1923. [V. R. Berghahn, **Op. Cit.**, p. 258, pp. 67-8, p. 71 and p. 259]
Significantly, one of the first acts of the Bolshevik government towards the
new German government was to _"the offer by the Soviet authorities of two
@@ -1961,19 +1957,19 @@ in an inchoate way it retained a vision of socialism which was not identified
entirely with Bolshevik power . . . Lenin's arguments on the declassing of the
proletariat was more a way of avoiding this unpleasant truth than a real
reflection of what remained, in Moscow at least, a substantial physical and
-ideological force."_ [Richard Sakwa, ** Soviet Communists in Power**, p. 261]
-In the words of Diane Koenker, _"[i]f Lenin's perceptions of the situation
-were at all representative, it appears that the Bolshevik party made
-deurbanisation and declassing the scapegoat for its political difficulties,
-when the party's own policies and its unwillingness to accept changing
-proletarian attitudes were also to blame."_ Ironically, this was not the first
-time that the Bolsheviks had blamed its problems on the lack of a _"true"_
-proletariat and its replacement by "petty-bourgeois" elements, _"[t]his was
-the same argument used to explain the Bolsheviks' lack of success in the early
-months of 1917 -- that the cadres of conscious proletarians were diluted by
-non-proletarian elements."_ [_"Urbanisation and Deurbanisation in the Russian
-Revolution and Civil War,"_ pp. 424-450, **The Journal of Modern History**,
-vol. 57, no. 3, p. 449 and p. 428]
+ideological force."_ [Richard Sakwa, Soviet Communists in Power, p. 261] In
+the words of Diane Koenker, _"[i]f Lenin's perceptions of the situation were
+at all representative, it appears that the Bolshevik party made deurbanisation
+and declassing the scapegoat for its political difficulties, when the party's
+own policies and its unwillingness to accept changing proletarian attitudes
+were also to blame."_ Ironically, this was not the first time that the
+Bolsheviks had blamed its problems on the lack of a _"true"_ proletariat and
+its replacement by "petty-bourgeois" elements, _"[t]his was the same argument
+used to explain the Bolsheviks' lack of success in the early months of 1917 --
+that the cadres of conscious proletarians were diluted by non-proletarian
+elements."_ [_"Urbanisation and Deurbanisation in the Russian Revolution and
+Civil War,"_ pp. 424-450, **The Journal of Modern History**, vol. 57, no. 3,
+p. 449 and p. 428]
It should be noted that the _"declassing"_ argument does have a superficial
validity if you accept the logic of vanguardism. After all, if you accept the
@@ -2081,7 +2077,7 @@ govern can only be answered by looking at the class struggle in Russia during
this period, by looking at the strikes, demonstrations and protests that
occurred. Something Leninists rarely do. Needless to say, certain strike waves
just cannot be ignored. The most obvious case is in Petrograd just before the
-Kronstadt revolt in early 1921\. After all, the strikes (and subsequent
+Kronstadt revolt in early 1921. After all, the strikes (and subsequent
Bolshevik repression) inspired the sailors to revolt in solidarity with them.
Faced with such events, the scale of the protest and Bolshevik repression is
understated and the subject quickly changed. As we noted in [section
@@ -2096,7 +2092,7 @@ and what they meant in terms of the revolution and his own argument.
Similarly, we find Victor Serge arguing that the _"working class often fretted
and cursed; sometimes it lent an ear to the Menshevik agitators, as in the
-great strikes at Petrograd in the spring of 1919\. But once the choice was
+great strikes at Petrograd in the spring of 1919. But once the choice was
posed as that between the dictatorship of the White Generals and the
dictatorship of its own party -- and there was not and could not be any other
choice -- every fit man . . . came to stand . . . before the windows of the
@@ -2402,22 +2398,22 @@ Strikes affected the largest industries . . . Workers' demands reflected their
grievances . . . The greatest diversity was in workers' explicitly political
demands or expression of political opinion . . . all workers' resolutions
demanded free and fair elections to the soviets . . . some workers . . .
-demanded the Constituent Assembly . . .
+demanded the Constituent Assembly . . . _
>
-> "The strikes of 1919 . . . fill an important gap in the development of the
+> _"The strikes of 1919 . . . fill an important gap in the development of the
popular movement between October 1917 and February 1921. On the one hand, they
should be seen as antecedents of similar strikes in February 1921, which
forced the Communists to abandon war communism. In the capitals, workers, just
as the Kronstadt sailors had, still wanted fairly elected soviets and not a
party dictatorship. On the other hand, the strikes continued the protests that
had began in the summer of 1918. The variety of behavioural patterns displayed
-during the strikes points to a profound continuity. . .
+during the strikes points to a profound continuity. . . _
>
-> "In all known cases the Bolsheviks' initial response to strikes was to ban
+> _"In all known cases the Bolsheviks' initial response to strikes was to ban
public meetings and rallies . . . In several cities . . . the authorities
confiscated strikers' food rations in order to suppress the strike. In at
least five cities . . . the Bolsheviks occupied the striking plant and
@@ -2493,7 +2489,7 @@ nation-wide wave of discontent . . . General strikes, or very widespread
unrest, hit Petrograd, Moscow, Saratov and Ekaterinoslavl."_ Only one major
industrial region was unaffected. As noted above, the Bolsheviks refused to
call this movement a strike wave, preferring the term **volynka** (which means
-"go-slow"_), yet _"the continued use of the term can be justified not to hide
+"go-slow"), yet _"the continued use of the term can be justified not to hide
its significance but to show that workers' protest consisted not just of
strikes but also of factory occupations, 'Italian strikes,' demonstrations,
mass meetings, the beating up of communists and so on."_ [Aves, **Op. Cit.**,
@@ -2659,12 +2655,12 @@ in early 1921:
> _"The population was drifting away from the capital. All who had relatives
in the country had rejoined them. The authentic proletariat remained till the
-end, having the most slender connections with the countryside.
+end, having the most slender connections with the countryside. _
>
-> "This fact must be emphasised, in order to nail the official lies seeking to
-attribute the Petrograd strikes that were soon to break out to peasant
+> _"This fact must be emphasised, in order to nail the official lies seeking
+to attribute the Petrograd strikes that were soon to break out to peasant
elements, 'insufficiently steeled in proletarian ideas.' The real situation
was the very opposite. A few workers were seeking refuge in the countryside.
The bulk remained. There was certainly no exodus of peasants into the starving
@@ -2738,16 +2734,16 @@ minority finds more or less support, or at least friendly neutrality, on the
part of the majority."_ So what happens if the majority expresses opposition
to the party? Unfortunately Trotsky does not raise this question, but he does
answer it indirectly. As we discuss in [section 15](append42.html#app15) of
-the appendix on ["What was the Kronstadt Rebellion?"](append42.html"), Trotsky
-argues that _"to free the soviets from the leadership [sic!] of the Bolsheviks
-would have meant within a short time to demolish the soviets themselves. The
-experience of the Russian soviets during the period of Menshevik and SR
-domination and, even more clearly, the experience of the German and Austrian
-soviets under the domination of the Social Democrats, proved this. Social
-Revolutionary-anarchist soviets could only serve as a bridge from the
-proletarian dictatorship. They could play no other role, regardless of the
-'ideas' of their participants."_ [Lenin and Trotsky, **Kronstadt**, p. 85 and
-p. 90]
+the appendix on ["What was the Kronstadt Rebellion?"](append42.html%22),
+Trotsky argues that _"to free the soviets from the leadership [sic!] of the
+Bolsheviks would have meant within a short time to demolish the soviets
+themselves. The experience of the Russian soviets during the period of
+Menshevik and SR domination and, even more clearly, the experience of the
+German and Austrian soviets under the domination of the Social Democrats,
+proved this. Social Revolutionary-anarchist soviets could only serve as a
+bridge from the proletarian dictatorship. They could play no other role,
+regardless of the 'ideas' of their participants."_ [Lenin and Trotsky,
+**Kronstadt**, p. 85 and p. 90]
Thus to let the working masses (the _"majority"_) have free soviet elections
and reject the vanguard (the _"minority"_) would mean the end of soviet power.
@@ -2883,6 +2879,8 @@ of power by the Bolshevik party. As such, rather than _"atomisation"_ or
_"declassing"_ being the cause for Bolshevik power and repression, it was, in
fact, one of **results** of them.
+
+
## 6 Did the Bolsheviks blame _"objective factors"_ for their actions?
In a word, no. At the time of the revolution and for some period afterwards,
@@ -3059,7 +3057,7 @@ true for backward Russia"_ but _"utterly without application to advanced
lands."_ The _"wave of Fascist or militarised police dictatorships"_ in the
1920s and 1930s was the reason. It seems ironic that Trotsky's self-proclaimed
followers are now repeating the arguments of what he termed "incurable
-Fabians."_ [**Terrorism and Communism**, p. xix, p. xxxv, p. xlvii and p.
+Fabians." [**Terrorism and Communism**, p. xix, p. xxxv, p. xlvii and p.
xxxix]
Rather than distance himself from the authoritarian and state capitalist
@@ -3071,7 +3069,7 @@ factors"_ would face **every** revolution. As it is, he argues that it was
only the _"slow development of the revolution in the West"_ which stopped _"a
direct passage from military Communism to a Socialistic system of
production."_ Rather than admit to _"illusions"_ caused by the "iron
-necessity"_ of willing the civil war, he talks about _"those economic hopes
+necessity" of willing the civil war, he talks about _"those economic hopes
which were bound up with the development of the world revolution."_ He even
links Bolshevik practice with Stalinism, noting that the _"idea of five-year
plans was not only formulated in that period [1918-1920], but in some economic
@@ -3215,3 +3213,8 @@ caused the failure of the revolution was not used until the late 1920s and
even then not used to explain the party dictatorship but rather the usurpation
of **its** power by the bureaucracy.
+[‹ What was the Kronstadt Rebellion?](/afaq/append42.html "Go to previous
+page" ) [up](/afaq/append4.html "Go to parent page" ) [How did Bolshevik
+ideology contribute to the failure of the Revolution? ›](/afaq/append44.html
+"Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/append44.md b/markdown/append44.md
index 41225007390e8c15fbb330f46f997fd75ebb1cdf..fbadda301a3509b0ee665ca576447d0c1b7fb491 100644
--- a/markdown/append44.md
+++ b/markdown/append44.md
@@ -210,10 +210,9 @@ communists; they have not broken sufficiently with Second International
orthodoxy, with the assumption that socialism is basically state capitalism
(_"The idea of the State as Capitalist, to which the Social-Democratic
fraction of the great Socialist Party is now trying to reduce Socialism."_
-[Peter Kropotkin, **The Great French Revolution**, vol. 1, p. 31]). Just as
-one cannot abolish alienation with alienated means, so we cannot attack
-Leninist _"means"_ also without distinguishing our libertarian _"ends"_ from
-theirs.
+[Peter Kropotkin, The Great French Revolution, vol. 1, p. 31]). Just as one
+cannot abolish alienation with alienated means, so we cannot attack Leninist
+_"means"_ also without distinguishing our libertarian _"ends"_ from theirs.
This means that both Leninist means and ends are flawed. Both will fail to
produce a socialist society. As Kropotkin said at the time, the Bolsheviks
@@ -263,7 +262,7 @@ equality and solidarity that inspired it? For, after all, as we indicated in
visions of socialism and how to get there **are** different. Can we be
surprised if Marxist means cannot achieve anarchist (i.e. authentic socialist)
ends? To his credit, Shachtman acknowledges that post-civil war salvation
-"required full democratic rights"_ for all workers, and that this was
+"required full democratic rights" for all workers, and that this was
_"precisely what the Bolsheviks . . . were determined not to permit."_ Sadly
he failed to wonder **why** the democratic principles of the _"original
program"_ were only _"honoured in the breach"_ and why _"Lenin and Trotsky did
@@ -273,15 +272,15 @@ Trotsky's **Terrorism and Communism**, p. xv]
Equally, there is a tendency of pro-Leninists to concentrate on the period
between the two revolutions of 1917 when specifying what Bolshevism "really"
-stood for, particularly Lenin's book **State and Revolution**. To use an
-analogy, when Leninists do this they are like politicians who, when faced with
-people questioning the results of their policies, ask them to look at their
-election manifesto rather than what they have done when in power. As we
-discuss in [section 4](append41.html#app4) of the appendix ["What happened
-during the Russian Revolution?"](append41.html) Lenin's book was never applied
-in practice. From the very first day, the Bolsheviks ignored it. After 6
-months **none** of its keys ideas had been applied. Indeed, in all cases the
-exact opposite had been imposed. As such, to blame (say) the civil war for the
+stood for, particularly Lenin's book State and Revolution. To use an analogy,
+when Leninists do this they are like politicians who, when faced with people
+questioning the results of their policies, ask them to look at their election
+manifesto rather than what they have done when in power. As we discuss in
+[section 4](append41.html#app4) of the appendix ["What happened during the
+Russian Revolution?"](append41.html) Lenin's book was never applied in
+practice. From the very first day, the Bolsheviks ignored it. After 6 months
+**none** of its keys ideas had been applied. Indeed, in all cases the exact
+opposite had been imposed. As such, to blame (say) the civil war for the
reality of "Bolshevik in power" (as Leninists do) seems without substance.
Simply put, **State and Revolution** is no guide to what Bolshevism "really"
stood for. Neither is their position **before** seizing power if the realities
@@ -320,6 +319,8 @@ _"centralised"_ economic decision making based on nationalised property. In a
nutshell, the only way Bolshevism could result in a genuine socialist society
is if it stopped being Bolshevik!
+
+
## 1 How did the Marxist historical materialism affect Bolshevism?
As is well known, Marx argued that history progressed through distinct stages.
@@ -391,7 +392,7 @@ This is no abstract metaphysical or ideological/theoretical point. The impact
of this issue can be seen from the practice of Bolshevism in power. For Lenin
and Trotsky, **any** and **all** means could and were used in pursuit of their
ends. They simply could not see how the means used shaped the ends reached.
-Ultimately, there was only two possibilities \-- socialism (by definition
+Ultimately, there was only two possibilities -- socialism (by definition
classless) or a return to capitalism.
Once we see that because of their flawed perspective on what comes after
@@ -448,13 +449,15 @@ had something to do with socialism. Little wonder Trotsky had such
difficulties understanding the obvious truth that Stalinism has **nothing** to
do with socialism.
+
+
## 2 Why did the Marxist theory of the state undermine working class power?
As discussed in [section H.3.7](secH3.html#sech37), anarchists and Marxists
have fundamentally different definitions of what constitutes a state. These
different definitions resulted, in practice, to the Bolsheviks undermining
**real** working class power during the Russian Revolution in favour of an
-abstract "power"_ which served as little more than a fig-leaf for Bolshevik
+abstract "power" which served as little more than a fig-leaf for Bolshevik
power.
For anarchists, the state is marked by centralised power in the hands of a
@@ -565,8 +568,8 @@ gradual 'withering away' of all bureaucracy."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 306 and p.
Yet why expect a "new" bureaucracy to be as easy to control as the old one?
Regular election to posts does not undermine the institutional links,
-pressures and powers a centralised "officialdom"_ will generate around itself,
-even a so-called "proletarian"_ one. Significantly, Lenin justified this
+pressures and powers a centralised "officialdom" will generate around itself,
+even a so-called "proletarian" one. Significantly, Lenin justified this
defence of temporary state bureaucracy by the kind of straw man argument
against anarchism _"State and Revolution"_ is riddled with. _"We are not
utopians,"_ asserted Lenin, _"we do not indulge in 'dreams' of dispensing **at
@@ -609,10 +612,10 @@ participation by the population but, in fact, on giving power to a few
representatives. It is **not** identical with _"society,"_ i.e. the armed,
self-organised people. Rather than look to the popular assemblies of the
French revolution, Lenin, like the bourgeoisie, looked to representative
-structures \-- structures designed to combat working class power and
-influence. (at one point Lenin states that _"for a certain time not only
-bourgeois right, but even the bourgeois state remains under communism, without
-the bourgeoisie!"_ This was because _"bourgeois right in regard to the
+structures -- structures designed to combat working class power and influence.
+(at one point Lenin states that _"for a certain time not only bourgeois right,
+but even the bourgeois state remains under communism, without the
+bourgeoisie!"_ This was because _"bourgeois right in regard to the
distribution of articles of **consumption** inevitably presupposes the
existence of the **bourgeois state,** for right is nothing without an
apparatus capable of **enforcing** the observance of the standards of right."_
@@ -709,7 +712,7 @@ into the term _"state"_ had its negative impact from the start. Firstly, the
Bolsheviks constantly equated rule by the Bolshevik party (in practice, its
central committee) with the working class as a whole. Rather than rule by all
the masses, the Bolsheviks substituted rule by a handful of leaders. Thus we
-find Lenin talking about _"the power of the Bolsheviks \-- that is, the power
+find Lenin talking about _"the power of the Bolsheviks -- that is, the power
of the proletariat"_ as if these things were the same. Thus it was a case of
_"the Bolsheviks"_ having _"to take the whole governmental power into their
own hands,"_ of _"the complete assumption of power by the Bolsheviks alone,"_
@@ -776,7 +779,7 @@ can be a _"ruling"_ class. Blinded by the notion that a state could not be
anything **but** an instrument of class rule, the Bolsheviks simply were able
to justify any limitation of working class democracy and freedom and argue
that it had no impact on whether the Bolshevik regime was really a
-"dictatorship of the proletariat"_ or not. This can be seen from Lenin's
+"dictatorship of the proletariat" or not. This can be seen from Lenin's
polemic with German Social-Democrat Karl Kautsky, where he glibly stated that
_"**[t]he form of government,** has absolutely nothing to so with it."_
[**Collected Works**, vol. 28, p. 238]
@@ -872,6 +875,8 @@ first step. Sadly, Marxist theory confuses popular self-government with a
state so ensuring the substitution of rule by a few party leaders for the
popular participation required to ensure a successful revolution.
+
+
## 3 How did Engels' essay _"On Authority"_ affect the revolution?
We have discussed Engels' infamous diatribe against anarchism already (see
@@ -1078,14 +1083,14 @@ of production -- implying as it does the total domination of the producer over
the productive process -- is not for us a marginal matter. It is the core of
our politics. It is the only means whereby authoritarian (order-giving, order-
taking) relations in production can be transcended and a free, communist or
-anarchist, society introduced.
+anarchist, society introduced. _
>
-> "We also hold that the means of production may change hands (passing for
+> _"We also hold that the means of production may change hands (passing for
instance from private hands into those of a bureaucracy, collectively owning
them) with out this revolutionising the relations of production. Under such
-circumstances -- and whatever the formal status of property \-- the society is
+circumstances -- and whatever the formal status of property -- the society is
still a class society for production is still managed by an agency other than
the producers themselves. Property relations, in other words, do not
necessarily reflect the: relations of production. They may serve to mask them
@@ -1159,13 +1164,13 @@ inherently, be _"authoritarian"_ and so what mattered, therefore, was who
owned property, **not** how the workplace was run. Perhaps, then, _"On
Authority"_ was a self-fulfilling prophecy -- by seeing any form of
organisation and any form of advanced technology as needing hierarchy,
-discipline and obedience, as being "authoritarian,"_ it ensured that
-mainstream Marxism became blinded to the key question of **how** society was
-organised. After all, if _"despotism"_ was a fact of life within industry
-regardless of how the wider society was organised, then it does not matter if
-_"one-man management"_ replaces workers' self-management. Little wonder then
-that the continued alienation of the worker was widespread long before Stalin
-took power and, more importantly, before the civil war started.
+discipline and obedience, as being "authoritarian," it ensured that mainstream
+Marxism became blinded to the key question of **how** society was organised.
+After all, if _"despotism"_ was a fact of life within industry regardless of
+how the wider society was organised, then it does not matter if _"one-man
+management"_ replaces workers' self-management. Little wonder then that the
+continued alienation of the worker was widespread long before Stalin took
+power and, more importantly, before the civil war started.
As such, the dubious inheritance of classical Marxism had started to push the
Bolshevik revolution down an authoritarian path and create economic structures
@@ -1269,6 +1274,8 @@ federalism and workers' autonomy, for participation, for self-management,
became the basis for re-imposing **capitalist** relations of production in
revolutionary Russia.
+
+
## 4 How did the Bolshevik vision of "democracy" affect the revolution?
As discussed in [section H.3.2](secH3.html#sech32), Marx and Engels had left
@@ -1278,7 +1285,7 @@ libertarian ideas pointed to a participatory democracy run from below. On the
other, Marx's comments during the German Revolution in 1850 that the workers
must _"strive for . . . the most determined centralisation of power in the
hands of the state authority"_ because _"the path of revolutionary activity"_
-can "proceed only from the centre"_ suggests a top-down approach. He stressed
+can "proceed only from the centre" suggests a top-down approach. He stressed
that centralisation of power was essential to overcome local autonomy, which
would allow _"every village, every town and every province"_ to put _"a new
obstacle in the path"_ the revolution due to _"local and provincial
@@ -1462,10 +1469,10 @@ to be Done?**. This suggests that his 1917 arguments were the aberration and
against the true essence of Leninism, not his and Trotsky's policies once they
were in power (as Leninists like to argue).
-Forgetting that he had argued against _"primitive democracy"_ in **What is to
-Be Done?**, Lenin had lambasted the opportunists and "present Kautskyists"_
-for _"repeat[ing] the vulgar bourgeois jeers at 'primitive' democracy."_ Now,
-in 1917, it was a case that _"the transition from capitalism to socialism is
+Forgetting that he had argued against _"primitive democracy"_ in What is to Be
+Done?, Lenin had lambasted the opportunists and "present Kautskyists" for
+_"repeat[ing] the vulgar bourgeois jeers at 'primitive' democracy."_ Now, in
+1917, it was a case that _"the transition from capitalism to socialism is
**impossible** without some 'reversion' to 'primitive' democracy (how else can
the majority, even the whole population, proceed to discharge state
functions?)"_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 302] Very true. As Leninism in power showed,
@@ -1592,6 +1599,8 @@ reality of Bolshevik power and its long standing top-down vision of
degeneration into a party dictatorship presiding over a state capitalist
economy.
+
+
## 5 What was the effect of the Bolshevik vision of "socialism"?
As we discussed in [section H.3.1](secH3.html#sech31), anarchists and most
@@ -1644,7 +1653,7 @@ by the higher ones (and as we will discuss, these higher ones were not
directly elected by the lower ones). The problems with this vision are many
fold.
-Firstly, to impose an "ideal" solution would destroy a revolution \-- the
+Firstly, to impose an "ideal" solution would destroy a revolution -- the
actions and decisions (**including what others may consider mistakes**) of a
free people are infinitely more productive and useful than the decisions and
decrees of the best central committee. Moreover, a centralised system by
@@ -1824,13 +1833,13 @@ only by higher workers' control bodies."_ [quoted by Cliff, **Op. Cit.**, p.
> _ "there [was] . . . a firm hierarchy of control organs . . . each Committee
was to be responsible to a 'Regional Council of Workers' Control',
subordinated in turn to an 'All-Russian Council of Workers' Control'. The
-composition of these higher organs was decided by the Party.
+composition of these higher organs was decided by the Party. _
>
-> "The trade unions were massively represented in the middle and higher strata
-of this new pyramid of 'institutionalised workers' control.' For instance the
-All-Russian Council of Workers' Control was to consist of 21
+> _"The trade unions were massively represented in the middle and higher
+strata of this new pyramid of 'institutionalised workers' control.' For
+instance the All-Russian Council of Workers' Control was to consist of 21
'representatives': 5 from the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the
Soviets, 5 from the Executive of the All-Russian Council of Trade Unions, 5
from the Association of Engineers and Technicians, 2 from the Association of
@@ -1866,6 +1875,8 @@ forced upon him or the Bolsheviks. And, by re-introducing wage slavery (this
time, to the state) the Bolshevik vision of socialism helped undermine the
revolution, workers' power and, sadly, build the foundations of Stalinism.
+
+
## 6 How did Bolshevik preference for nationalisation affect the revolution?
As noted in the [last section](append44.html#app5), unlike anarchism, for
@@ -1990,20 +2001,20 @@ nor could the consolidation of an irremovable bureaucracy ruling over all
sectors of social life be halted. The process may have been accelerated or
magnified by the entry of non-proletarian elements into the Party, as they
rushed to jump on the bandwagon. But this was a consequence, and not a cause,
-of the Party's orientation . . .
+of the Party's orientation . . . _
>
-> "Who is to manage production . . .? . . . the correct answer [is] the
+> _"Who is to manage production . . .? . . . the correct answer [is] the
collective organs of labouring people. What the party leadership wanted, what
it had already imposed -- and on this point there was no difference between
-Lenin and Trotsky \-- was a hierarchy directed from above. We know that this
+Lenin and Trotsky -- was a hierarchy directed from above. We know that this
was the conception that triumphed. We know, too, where this 'victory' led . .
-.
+. _
>
-> "In all Lenin's speeches and writings of this period, what recurs again and
+> _"In all Lenin's speeches and writings of this period, what recurs again and
again like an obsession is the idea that Russia ought to learn from the
advanced capitalist countries; that there are not a hundred and one different
ways of developing production and labour productivity if one wants to emerge
@@ -2011,23 +2022,23 @@ from backwardness and chaos; that one must adopt capitalist methods of
'rationalisation' and management as well as capitalist forms of work
'incentives.' All these, for Lenin, are just 'means' that apparently could
freely be placed in the service of a radically different historical end, the
-building of socialism.
+building of socialism. _
>
-> "Thus Trotsky, when discussing the merits of militarism, came to separate
+> _"Thus Trotsky, when discussing the merits of militarism, came to separate
the army itself, its structure and its methods, from the social system it
serves. What is criticisable in bourgeois militarism and in the bourgeois
army, Trotsky says in substance, is that they are in the service of the
bourgeoisie. Except for that, there is nothing in them to be criticised. The
sole difference, he says, lies in this: '**Who is in power**?' Likewise, the
dictatorship of the proletariat is not expressed by the 'form in which
-individual economic enterprises are administered.'
+individual economic enterprises are administered.' _
>
-> "The idea that like means cannot be placed indifferently into the service of
-different ends; that there is an intrinsic relationship between the
+> _"The idea that like means cannot be placed indifferently into the service
+of different ends; that there is an intrinsic relationship between the
instruments used and the result obtained; that, especially, neither the army
nor the factory are simple 'means' or 'instruments,' but social structures in
which are organised two fundamental aspects of human relations (production and
@@ -2037,11 +2048,11 @@ perfectly obvious and banal for Marxists, was totally 'forgotten.' It was just
a matter of developing production, using proven methods and structures. That
among these 'proofs' the principal one was the development of capitalism as a
social system and that a factory produces not so much cloth or steel but
-proletariat and capital were facts that were utterly ignored.
+proletariat and capital were facts that were utterly ignored. _
>
-> "Obviously, behind this 'forgetfulness' is hidden something else. At the
+> _"Obviously, behind this 'forgetfulness' is hidden something else. At the
time, of course, there was the desperate concern to revive production as soon
as possible and to put a collapsing economy back on its feet. This
preoccupation, however, does not fatally dictate the choice of 'means.' If it
@@ -2051,27 +2062,27 @@ capitalism was the only effective and rational system of production. Faithful
in this respect to Marx, they wanted to abolish private property and market
anarchy, but not the type of organisation capitalism had achieved at the point
of production. They wanted to modify the **economy,** not the relations
-between people at work or the nature of labour itself.
+between people at work or the nature of labour itself. _
>
-> "At a deeper level still, their philosophy was to develop the forces of
+> _"At a deeper level still, their philosophy was to develop the forces of
production. Here too they were the faithful inheritors of Marx -- or at least
one side of Marx, which became the predominant one in his mature writings. The
development of the forces of production was, if not the ultimate goal, at any
rate the essential means, in the sense that everything else would follow as a
-by-product and that everything else had to be subordinated to it. . .
+by-product and that everything else had to be subordinated to it. . . _
>
-> "To manage the work of others -- this is the beginning and the end of the
+> _"To manage the work of others -- this is the beginning and the end of the
whole cycle of exploitation. The 'need' for a specific social category to
manage the work of others in production (and the activity of others in
politics and in society), the 'need' for a separate business management and
for a Party to rule the State -- this is what Bolshevism proclaimed as soon as
it seized power, and this is what it zealously laboured to impose. We know
that it achieved its ends. Insofar as ideas play a role in the development of
-history \-- and, **in the final analysis**, they play an enormous role -- the
+history -- and, **in the final analysis**, they play an enormous role -- the
Bolshevik ideology (and with it, the Marxist ideology lying behind it) was a
decisive factor in the birth of the Russian bureaucracy."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp.
100-4]
@@ -2130,6 +2141,8 @@ circumstances as his followers suggest, the Bolshevik state capitalist
economic system was at the heart of their vision of what socialism was. The
civil war simply brought the underlying logic of vision into the fore.
+
+
## 7 How did Bolshevik preference for centralism affect the revolution?
The next issue we will discuss is centralisation. Before starting, it is
@@ -2352,12 +2365,12 @@ the first consequence of the inevitable result of elections. . . Shut up in
the city hall, charged to proceed after the forms established by the preceding
governments, these ardent revolutionists, these reformers found themselves
smitten with incapacity and sterility. . . but it was not the men who were the
-cause for this failure \-- it was the system.. .
+cause for this failure -- it was the system.. . _
>
-> "The will of the bulk of the nation once expressed, the rest would submit to
-it with a good grace, but this is not how things are done. The revolution
+> _"The will of the bulk of the nation once expressed, the rest would submit
+to it with a good grace, but this is not how things are done. The revolution
bursts out long before a general understanding has come, and those who have a
clear idea of what should be done the next day are only a very small minority.
The great mass of the people have as yet only a general idea of the end which
@@ -2370,11 +2383,11 @@ can only spring from the life of the people. . . The government becomes a
parliament with all the vices of a middle-class parliament. Far from being a
'revolutionary' government it becomes the greatest obstacle to the revolution
and at last the people find themselves compelled to put it out of the way, to
-dismiss those that but yesterday they acclaimed as their children.
+dismiss those that but yesterday they acclaimed as their children. _
>
-> "But it is not so easy to do so. The new government which has hastened to
+> _"But it is not so easy to do so. The new government which has hastened to
organise a new administration in order to extend it's domination and make
itself obeyed does not understand giving up so easily. Jealous of maintaining
it's power, it clings to it with all the energy of an institution which has
@@ -2654,18 +2667,18 @@ can see that the centralisation of power has begun to crystallise and grow
firm, that the apparatus of the state is being consolidated by the ownership
of property and even by an anti-socialist morality. Instead of hundreds of
thousands of property owners there is now a single owner served by a whole
-bureaucratic system and a new 'statised' morality.
+bureaucratic system and a new 'statised' morality. _
>
-> "The proletariat is gradually being enserfed by the state. The people are
+> _"The proletariat is gradually being enserfed by the state. The people are
being transformed into servants over whom there has risen a new class of
administrators -- a new class . . . Isn't this merely a new class system
-looming on the revolutionary horizon . . .
+looming on the revolutionary horizon . . . _
>
-> "The resemblance is all too striking . . . And if the elements of class
+> _"The resemblance is all too striking . . . And if the elements of class
inequality are as yet indistinct, it is only a matter of time before
privileges will pass to the administrators. We do not mean to say . . . that
the Bolshevik party set out to create a new class system. But we do say that
@@ -2673,21 +2686,21 @@ even the best intentions and aspirations must inevitably be smashed against
the evils inherent in any system of centralised power. The separation of
management from labour, the division between administrators and workers flows
logically from, centralisation. It cannot be otherwise . . . we are presently
-moving not towards socialism but towards state capitalism.
+moving not towards socialism but towards state capitalism. _
>
-> "Will state capitalism lead us to the gates of socialism? Of this we see not
-the slightest evidence . . . Arrayed against socialism are . . . thousands of
-administrators. And if the workers . . . should become a powerful
+> _"Will state capitalism lead us to the gates of socialism? Of this we see
+not the slightest evidence . . . Arrayed against socialism are . . . thousands
+of administrators. And if the workers . . . should become a powerful
revolutionary force, then it is hardly necessary to point out that the class
of administrators, wielding the state apparatus, will be a far from weak
opponent. The single owner and state capitalism form a new dam before the
-waves of our social revolution. . .
+waves of our social revolution. . . _
>
-> "Is it at all possible to conduct the social revolution through a
+> _"Is it at all possible to conduct the social revolution through a
centralised authority? Not even a Solomon could direct the revolutionary
struggle or the economy from one centre . . ."_ [M. Sergven, cited by Paul
Avrich, **Anarchists in the Russian Revolution**, pp. 123-5]
@@ -2745,7 +2758,7 @@ mistakes and, consequently, learn from them. Thus he defends Lenin's economic
policies of _"state capitalism"_ and _"one-man management"_ (and in the
process misleadingly suggests that these were **new** ideas on Lenin's part,
imposed by objective factors, rather than, as Lenin acknowledged, what he had
-advocated all along \-- see [section 5](append44.html#app5)). Thus we discover
+advocated all along -- see [section 5](append44.html#app5)). Thus we discover
that the collapse of industry (which had started in the start of 1917) meant
that _"[d]rastic measures had to be taken."_ But never fear, _"Lenin was not
one to shirk responsibility, however unpleasant the task."_ He called for
@@ -2762,7 +2775,7 @@ p. 73] So much for "workers' power"!
Ultimately, centralism is designed to exclude the mass participation
anarchists have long argued is required by a social revolution. It helped to
undermine what Kropotkin considered the key to the success of a social
-revolution \-- _"the people becom[ing] masters of their destiny."_ [**Op.
+revolution -- _"the people becom[ing] masters of their destiny."_ [**Op.
Cit.**, p. 133] In his words:
> _ "We understand the revolution as a widespread popular movement, during
@@ -2774,12 +2787,12 @@ in it no hopes whatever. We know beforehand that it will be able to do nothing
to accomplish the revolution as long as the people themselves do not
accomplish the change by working out on the spot the necessary new
institutions . . . nowhere and never in history do we find that people carried
-into government by a revolutionary wave, have proved equal to the occasion.
+into government by a revolutionary wave, have proved equal to the occasion. _
>
-> "In the task of reconstructing society on new principles, separate men . . .
-are sure to fail. The collective spirit of the masses is necessary for this
+> _"In the task of reconstructing society on new principles, separate men . .
+. are sure to fail. The collective spirit of the masses is necessary for this
purpose . . . a socialist government . . . would be absolutely powerless
without the activity of the people themselves, and that, necessarily, they
would soon begin to act fatally as a bridle upon the revolution."_ [**Op.
@@ -2795,6 +2808,8 @@ day followers) could not (and can not) overcome the structural imperatives of
centralisation and its role in society. Nor could it stop the creation of a
bureaucracy around these new centralised institutions.
+
+
## 8 How did the aim for party power undermine the revolution?
As well as a passion for centralisation and state capitalism, Bolshevism had
@@ -2966,7 +2981,7 @@ Bolsheviks are not elected (which they were, see [section
6](append41.html#app6) of the appendix ["What happened during the Russian
Revolution?"](append41.html)). It also ensures that Bolshevik representatives
to the soviets are not delegates from the workplace, but rather a
-"transmission belt"_ (to use a phrase from the 1920s) for the decisions of the
+"transmission belt" (to use a phrase from the 1920s) for the decisions of the
party leadership. In a nutshell, Bolshevik soviets would represent the party's
central committee, not those who elected them. As Oskar Anweiler summarised:
@@ -3044,7 +3059,7 @@ that is the fact."_ This _"minority . . . may be called a party,"_ Lenin
stressed. [quoted by Arthur Ransome, **The Crisis in Russia 1920**, p. 35]
This perspective can be traced back to the underlying ideology expounded by
-the Bolsheviks before and during 1917\. For example, mere days after seizing
+the Bolsheviks before and during 1917. For example, mere days after seizing
power in the October Revolution Lenin was stressing that the Bolsheviks'
_"present slogan is: No compromise, i.e. for a homogeneous Boshevik
government."_ He did not hesitate to use the threat to _"appeal to the
@@ -3082,11 +3097,11 @@ strivings of the proletariat was, therefore, privileged over the proletariat's
own class goals and a single discernible class will was, similarly, axiomatic
to both Marxism and Leninism. Both maintained that it was the communists who
alone articulated these goals and this will -- that was the party's principal
-historical role.
+historical role. _
>
-> "At this point, Leninism (again faithful to the Marxist original) resorted
+> _"At this point, Leninism (again faithful to the Marxist original) resorted
to a little-noticed definitional conjuring trick -- one that proved to be of
crucial importance for the mesmeric effect of the ideology. The trick was
spectacularly simple and audacious -- the class was defined as class only to
@@ -3133,7 +3148,7 @@ for working class power seems inconsistent with both Bolshevik theory and
practice. Lenin had been aiming for party power from the start, identifying it
with working class power. As the party was the vanguard of the proletariat, it
was duty bound to seize power and govern on behalf of the masses and,
-moreover, take any actions necessary to maintain the revolution \-- even if
+moreover, take any actions necessary to maintain the revolution -- even if
these actions violated the basic principles required to have any form of
meaningful workers' democracy and freedom. Thus the _"dictatorship of the
proletariat"_ had long become equated with party power and, once in power, it
@@ -3181,7 +3196,7 @@ defend the revolution against reaction but from the working class itself, who
do not have a high enough _"cultural level"_ to govern themselves. At best,
their role is that of a passive supporter, for "[w]ithout the confidence of
the class in the vanguard, without support of the vanguard by the class, there
-can be no talk of the conquest of power."_ While soviets _"are the only
+can be no talk of the conquest of power." While soviets _"are the only
organised form of the tie between the vanguard and the class"_ it does not
mean that they are organs of self-management. No, a _"revolutionary content
can be given . . . only by the party. This is proved by the positive
@@ -3212,3 +3227,8 @@ justify -- the dictatorship **over** the proletariat. The civil war may have
shaped certain aspects of these authoritarian tendencies but it did not create
them.
+[‹ What caused the degeneration of the Russian
+Revolution?](/afaq/append43.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/append4.html "Go to parent page" ) [Were any of the Bolshevik
+oppositions a real alternative? ›](/afaq/append45.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/append45.md b/markdown/append45.md
index a9649c3a7bec38f85fb1a61919c6bc41f6c55e2e..3d18fb2abe3f2045ba395a21c1c41e3e70490ba1 100644
--- a/markdown/append45.md
+++ b/markdown/append45.md
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ We will not cover all the various oppositions with the Bolshevik party here
(Robert V. Daniels' **The Conscience of the Revolution** discusses all of them
in some detail, as does Leonard Schapiro's **The Origin of the Communist
Autocracy**). We will concentrate on the _"Left Communists"_ of 1918, the
-_"Workers' Opposition"_ of 1920/1 and the Trotsky-led "Left Opposition"_ of
+_"Workers' Opposition"_ of 1920/1 and the Trotsky-led "Left Opposition" of
1923-7. It can be said that each opposition is a pale reflection of the one
before it and each had clear limitations in their politics which fatally
undermined any liberatory potential they had. Indeed, by the time of the
@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ particular the interests of the petty bourgeois peasantry, do not always
coincide with the interests of the proletariat."_ [quoted by Richard Sakwa,
**Soviet Communists in Power**, p. 182] This support for party power can also
be seen in Osinsky's comment that _"soviet power"_ and the "dictatorship of
-the proletariat"_ could _"seek support"_ from other social classes, so showing
+the proletariat" could _"seek support"_ from other social classes, so showing
that the class did not govern directly.
Thus soviet power was limited to approval of the party line and any deviation
@@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ of the party over the soviets encouraged an administrative one as well. Such a
development was further encouraged by the emergence of a massive and unwieldy
bureaucratic apparatus in 1918 . . . The Left Communists and the party
leadership were therefore in agreement that . . . the party should play a
-tutelary role over the soviets."_ Furthermore, _"[w]ith such a formulation it
+tutelary role over the soviets." Furthermore, _"[w]ith such a formulation it
proved difficult to maintain the vitality of the soviet plenum as the soviet
was controlled by a party fraction, itself controlled by a party committee
outside the soviet."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 182 and p. 182-3]
@@ -195,18 +195,18 @@ Bolsheviks had argued this position for some time (see [section
H.1.2](secH1.html#sech12), for example). Bukharin even went so far as to argue
that _"the watchword"_ taken up by some workers ("even metal workers"!) of
_"For class dictatorship, but against party dictatorship!"_ showed that the
-proletariat "was declassed."_ This also indicated that a _"misunderstanding
+proletariat "was declassed." This also indicated that a _"misunderstanding
arose which threatened the whole system of the proletarian dictatorship."_
[contained in Al Richardson (ed.), **In Defence of the Russian Revolution**,
p. 192] The echoes of the positions argued before the civil war can be seen in
Bukharin's glib comment that proletarian management of the revolution meant
the end of the _"proletarian"_ dictatorship!
-Lastly, the arguments of the Left Communists against "one-man management"_
-were echoed by the Democratic Centralists at the Ninth Party Congress. One
-member of this grouping (which included such _"Left Communists"_ as Osinsky)
-argued against Lenin's dominate position in favour of appointed managers
-inside and outside the party as follows:
+Lastly, the arguments of the Left Communists against "one-man management" were
+echoed by the Democratic Centralists at the Ninth Party Congress. One member
+of this grouping (which included such _"Left Communists"_ as Osinsky) argued
+against Lenin's dominate position in favour of appointed managers inside and
+outside the party as follows:
> _ "The Central Committee finds that the [local] party committee is a
bourgeois prejudice, is conservatism bordering on the province of treason, and
@@ -214,11 +214,11 @@ that the new form is the replacement of party committees by political
departments, the heads of which by themselves replace the elected committees .
. . You transform the members of the party into an obedient gramophone, with
leaders who order: go and agitate; but they haven't the right to elect their
-own committee, their own organs.
+own committee, their own organs. _
>
-> "I then put the question to comrade Lenin: Who will appoint the Central
+> _"I then put the question to comrade Lenin: Who will appoint the Central
Committee? You see, there can be individual authority here as well. Here also
a single commander can be appointed."_ [Sapronov, quoted by Daniels, **Op.
Cit.**, p. 114]
@@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ all, Trotsky had imposed a similar regime in the Army in 1918, as had Lenin in
industry in the same year. As discussed in [section 3](append43.html#app3) of
the appendix [ "What caused the degeneration of the Russian
Revolution?"](append43.html), the Bolshevik preference for centralised
-"democracy"_ effectively hollowed out the real democracy at the base which
+"democracy" effectively hollowed out the real democracy at the base which
makes democracy more than just picking masters.
## 2 What were the limitations of the _"Workers' Opposition"_ of 1920?
@@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ group was _"caused in part by the entry into the ranks of the Party of
elements which had still not completely adopted the communist world view."_
Significantly, those who **had** the _"communist world view"_ did not really
debate the issues raised and instead called the opposition "genuinely counter-
-revolutionary,"_ _"objectively counter-revolutionary"_ as well as _"too
+revolutionary," _"objectively counter-revolutionary"_ as well as _"too
revolutionary."_ [quoted by Brinton, **Op. Cit.**, p. 79]
For Lenin, the idea of industrial democracy was a nonsense. In this he was
@@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ participation as a danger to their power. Against the idea of economic
participation under Communist control raised by the _"Workers' Opposition,"_
the leading Bolsheviks favoured the NEP. This was a return to the same kind of
market-based _"state capitalist"_ strategy Lenin had advocated against the
-"Left Communists"_ **before** the outbreak of the civil war in May 1918 (and,
+"Left Communists" **before** the outbreak of the civil war in May 1918 (and,
as noted, he had argued for in 1917). This suggests a remarkable consistency
in Lenin's thoughts, suggesting that claims his policies he advocated and
implemented in power were somehow the opposite of what he _"really"_ wanted
@@ -451,7 +451,7 @@ Pamphlets**, p. 140]
## 3 What about Trotsky's _"Left Opposition"_ in the 1920s?
-Finally, there is Trotsky's opposition between 1923 and 1927\. Since 1918
+Finally, there is Trotsky's opposition between 1923 and 1927. Since 1918
Trotsky had been wholeheartedly in favour of the party dictatorship and its
economic regime. This position started to change once his own power came under
threat and he suddenly became aware of the necessity for reform.
@@ -792,7 +792,7 @@ working mass stood so far from the management of socialist industry as now"_
and that _"[p]re-revolutionary relations between foremen and workmen are
frequently found."_ Which is hardly surprising, given that Lenin had argued
for, and implemented, appointed one-man management armed with "dictatorial
-powers"_ from April 1918 and that Trotsky himself also supported one-man
+powers" from April 1918 and that Trotsky himself also supported one-man
management (see [section 10](append41.html#app10) of the appendix ["What
happened during the Russian Revolution?"](append41.html)).
@@ -1023,11 +1023,11 @@ old guard. But . . . they criticised Lenin's course of action from the
beginning, and not on details but as a whole. The Workers Opposition denounced
Lenin's economic line. The Workers Group went even farther and attacked the
political regime and the single party established by Lenin prior to the NEP .
-. .
+. . _
>
-> "Having put as the basis of its programme Marx's watchword for the 1st
+> _"Having put as the basis of its programme Marx's watchword for the 1st
International -- 'The emancipation of the workers must be the task of the
workers themselves' -- the Workers Group declared war from the start on the
Leninist concept of the 'dictatorship of the party' and the bureaucratic
@@ -1128,7 +1128,7 @@ was the last straw: _"We must devote greater attention to Miasnikov's
agitation,"_ he wrote to Molotov on December 5, _"and to report on it to the
Politburo twice a month."_ To deal with Miasnikov, meanwhile, the Orgburo
formed a new commission. This commission recommended his expulsion from the
-party, which was agreed by the Politburo on February 20, 1922\. This was the
+party, which was agreed by the Politburo on February 20, 1922. This was the
first instance, except for the brief expulsion of S. A. Lozovsky in 1918,
where Lenin actually expelled a well-known Bolshevik of long standing.
@@ -1141,7 +1141,7 @@ Oppositionist. The three men, all workers, constituted themselves as the
_"Provisional Central Organisational Bureau"_ of the group. Their first act,
in February 1923, was to draw up a statement of principles in anticipation of
the Twelfth Party Congress called the "Manifesto of the Workers' Group of the
-Russian Communist Party."_ The manifesto was _"denouncing the New Exploitation
+Russian Communist Party." The manifesto was _"denouncing the New Exploitation
of the Proletariat and urging the workers to fight for soviet democracy,"_
according to Trotskyist historian I. Deutscher. [**The Prophet Unarmed**,
p.107]
@@ -1162,7 +1162,7 @@ direct participation of the working class by nominations in a purely
bureaucratic way."_ [quoted by Daniels, **Op. Cit.**, p. 204]
The manifesto wondered whether the Russian proletariat might not be compelled
-_"to start anew the struggle -- and perhaps a bloody one \-- for the overthrow
+_"to start anew the struggle -- and perhaps a bloody one -- for the overthrow
of the oligarchy."_ Not that it contemplated an immediate insurrection. Rather
it sought to rally the workers, Communist and non-Communist alike, to press
for the elimination of bureaucratism and the revival of proletarian democracy.
@@ -1312,3 +1312,9 @@ of Lenin and Trotsky was to repress them. In summary, they show that the
problems of the revolution and subsequent civil war did not create but rather
revealed Bolshevism's authoritarian core.
+[‹ How did Bolshevik ideology contribute to the failure of the
+Revolution?](/afaq/append44.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/append4.html "Go to parent page" ) [Why does the Makhnovist
+movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism? ›](/afaq/append46.html
+"Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/append46.md b/markdown/append46.md
index 0041c0f7b4b2f22a2a705128ed3354374e88c104..4346de18409064a6e04fd2fabbb57b5f6b717a22 100644
--- a/markdown/append46.md
+++ b/markdown/append46.md
@@ -156,8 +156,8 @@ Two distinct aspects of the anarchist movement existed in the Ukraine at this
time, a political and non-military structure called the Nabat (Alarm)
federation which operated through the soviets and collectives and a military
command structure usually known after is commander Nestor Makhno as the
-**_Makhnovshchina**_ (which means the _"Makhno movement"_) although its proper
-name was the **_Revolutionary Insurgent Army of the Ukraine**_. This section
+**_Makhnovshchina_** (which means the _"Makhno movement"_) although its proper
+name was the **_Revolutionary Insurgent Army of the Ukraine_**. This section
of the FAQ will cover both, although the Makhnovshchina will be the main
focus.
@@ -383,21 +383,21 @@ associations in the Ukraine were formed at the instigation of the anarchist-
communists. The armed struggle of the working people against the counter-
revolution in general and the Austro-German invasion in particular has been
undertaken with the ideological and organic guidance of the anarchist-
-communists exclusively.
+communists exclusively. _
>
-> "Certainly it is not in your party's interest to give us credit for all
+> _"Certainly it is not in your party's interest to give us credit for all
this, but these are the facts and you can't dispute them. You know perfectly
well, I assume, the effective force and the fighting capacity of the free,
revolutionary forces of the Ukraine. It is not without reason that you have
evoked the courage with which they have heroically defended the common
revolutionary conquests. Among them, at least one half have fought under the
-anarchist banner. . .
+anarchist banner. . . _
>
-> "All this shows how mistaken you are, comrade Lenin, in alleging that we,
+> _"All this shows how mistaken you are, comrade Lenin, in alleging that we,
the anarchist-communists, don't have our feet on the ground, that our attitude
towards 'the present' is deplorable and that we are too fond of dreaming about
the future. What I have said to you in the course of this interview cannot be
@@ -622,21 +622,21 @@ Makhno, with his usual stubbornness and determination, said to his companions:
movement was ominous, the men were firm and full of enthusiasm. All 30 saw
only one path before them -- the path toward the enemy, who had about a
thousand well-armed men, and they all realised that this meant certain death
-for them. All were moved, but none lost courage.
+for them. All were moved, but none lost courage. _
>
-> "It was at this movement that one of the partisans, Shchus', turned to
-Makhno and said:
+> _"It was at this movement that one of the partisans, Shchus', turned to
+Makhno and said: _
>
-> "'From now on you will be **Batko** to all of us, and we vow to die with you
-in the ranks of the insurgents.'
+> _"'From now on you will be **Batko** to all of us, and we vow to die with
+you in the ranks of the insurgents.' _
>
-> "Then the whole detachment swore never to abandon the insurgent ranks, and
+> _"Then the whole detachment swore never to abandon the insurgent ranks, and
to consider Makhno the general **Batko** of the entire revolutionary
insurrection. Then they prepared to attack. Shchus' with five to seven men was
assigned to attack the flank of the enemy. Makhno with the others attacked
@@ -650,11 +650,11 @@ the number of attacking forces, and to pass to a counter-attack, the
insurgents chased them in separate groups, cutting them down in full gallop. A
part of the **pomeshchik** detachment fled to the Volchya River, where they
were drowned by peasants who had joined the battle. The enemy's defeat was
-complete.
+complete. _
>
-> "Local peasants and detachments of revolutionary insurgents came from all
+> _"Local peasants and detachments of revolutionary insurgents came from all
directions to triumphantly acclaim the heroes. They unanimously agreed to
consider Makhno as **Batko** of the entire revolutionary insurrection in the
Urkaine."_ [Arshinov, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 59-60]
@@ -706,19 +706,19 @@ great masses of peasants, speaking at improvised meetings, writing and
distributing letters and tracts. By pen and mouth, he called on the peasants
for a decisive struggle against the power of Skoropadsky and the landlords. He
declared tirelessly that the workers should now take their fates into their
-own hands and not let their freedom to act be taken from them . . .
+own hands and not let their freedom to act be taken from them . . . _
>
-> "Besides his appeals, Makhno proceeded immediately to direct action. His
+> _"Besides his appeals, Makhno proceeded immediately to direct action. His
first concern was to form a revolutionary military unit, sufficiently strong
to guarantee freedom of propaganda and action in the villages and towns and at
the same time to begin guerrilla operations. This unit was quickly organised
-.. . .
+.. . . _
>
-> "His first unit undertook two urgent tasks, namely, pursuing energetically
+> _"His first unit undertook two urgent tasks, namely, pursuing energetically
the work of propaganda and organisation among the peasants and carrying out a
stubborn armed struggle against all their enemies. The guiding principle of
this merciless struggle was as follows. No lord who persecuted the peasants,
@@ -726,12 +726,13 @@ no policeman of the Hetman, no Russian or German officer who was an implacable
enemy of the peasants, deserved any pity; he must be destroyed. All who
participated in the oppression of the poor peasants and workers, all who
sought to suppress their rights, to exploit their labour, should be executed.
+_
>
-> "Within two or three weeks, the unit had already become the terror, not only
-of the local bourgeoisie, but also of the Austro-German authorities."_ [**The
-Unknown Revolution**, p. 558]
+> _"Within two or three weeks, the unit had already become the terror, not
+only of the local bourgeoisie, but also of the Austro-German authorities."_
+[**The Unknown Revolution**, p. 558]
The night of 26 September saw Hulyai Pole briefly liberated from Hetman and
Austrian troops by the actions of Makhno's troops in association with local
@@ -1356,25 +1357,25 @@ circumstances, the core ideas remained. These were as follows:
> _ "The Makhnovist insurrectionary army was organised according to three
fundamental principles: voluntary enlistment, the electoral principle, and
-self-discipline.
+self-discipline. _
>
-> "**Voluntary enlistment** meant that the army was composed only of
-revolutionary fighters who entered it of their own free will.
+> _"**Voluntary enlistment** meant that the army was composed only of
+revolutionary fighters who entered it of their own free will. _
>
-> "**The electoral principle** meant that the commanders of all units of the
+> _"**The electoral principle** meant that the commanders of all units of the
army, including the staff, as well as all the men who held other positions in
the army, were either elected or accepted by the insurgents of the unit in
-question or by the whole army.
+question or by the whole army. _
>
-> "**Self-discipline** meant that all the rules of discipline were drawn up by
-commissions of insurgents, then approved by general assemblies of the various
-units; once approved, they were rigorously observed on the individual
+> _"**Self-discipline** meant that all the rules of discipline were drawn up
+by commissions of insurgents, then approved by general assemblies of the
+various units; once approved, they were rigorously observed on the individual
responsibility of each insurgent and each commander."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 96]
Voline paints a similar picture. He also notes that the electoral principle
@@ -1652,11 +1653,11 @@ passed on to the use of those peasants who support themselves solely through
their own labour. This transfer will be carried out in an orderly fashion
determined in common at peasant assemblies, which must remember in this matter
not only each of their own personal interests, but also bear in mind the
-common interest of all the oppressed, working peasantry.
+common interest of all the oppressed, working peasantry. _
>
-> "Factories, workshops, mines and other tools and means of production become
+> _"Factories, workshops, mines and other tools and means of production become
the property of the working class as a whole, which will run all enterprises
themselves, through their trade unions, getting production under way and
striving to tie together all industry in the country in a single, unitary
@@ -1940,35 +1941,35 @@ Makhnovist region and asked him:
> _ "Can there exist laws made by a few people who call themselves
revolutionaries which permit them to outlaw a whole people who are more
-revolutionary than they are themselves? . . .
+revolutionary than they are themselves? . . . _
>
-> "Is it permissible, is it admissible, that they should come to the country
+> _"Is it permissible, is it admissible, that they should come to the country
to establish laws of violence, to subjugate a people who have just overthrown
-all lawmakers and all laws?
+all lawmakers and all laws? _
>
-> "Does there exist a law according to which a revolutionary has the right to
+> _"Does there exist a law according to which a revolutionary has the right to
apply the most severe penalties to a revolutionary mass, of which he calls
himself the defender, simply because this mass has taken the good things which
-the revolution promised them, freedom and equality, without his permission?
+the revolution promised them, freedom and equality, without his permission? _
>
-> "Should the mass of revolutionary people perhaps be silent when such a
-revolutionary takes away the freedom which they have just conquered?
+> _"Should the mass of revolutionary people perhaps be silent when such a
+revolutionary takes away the freedom which they have just conquered? _
>
-> "Do the laws of the revolution order the shooting of a delegate because he
+> _"Do the laws of the revolution order the shooting of a delegate because he
believes he ought to carry out the mandate given him by the revolutionary mass
-which elected him?
+which elected him? _
>
-> "Whose interests should the revolutionary defend; those of the Party or
+> _"Whose interests should the revolutionary defend; those of the Party or
those of the people who set the revolution in motion with their blood?"_
[quoted by Arshinov, **Op. Cit.**, p. 103]
@@ -2012,7 +2013,7 @@ holding of prisoners, counter-insurgency (_"Originally it had a punitive
function, but because of improper treatment of prisoners of war, it was
deprived of its punitive function."_ [Palij, **Op. Cit.**, p. 300]). The
delegate stated that this _"counter-espionage service"_ was engaged in
-_"arbitrary acts and uncontrolled actions \-- of which some are very serious,
+_"arbitrary acts and uncontrolled actions -- of which some are very serious,
rather like the Bolshevik Cheka."_ [quoted by Voline, **Op. Cit.**, p. 643]
Immediately a commission of several delegates was created to investigate the
situation. Voline argues that _"[s]uch an initiative on the part of workers'
@@ -2156,6 +2157,8 @@ effacing, of handing too much authority to the population at key moments."_
As such, Makhnovist practice matched its theory. This can be said of few
social movements and it is to their credit that this is the case.
+
+
## 8 Weren't the Makhnovists just Kulaks?
According to Trotsky (and, of course, repeated by his followers), _"Makhno
@@ -2232,8 +2235,8 @@ However, if we take the term _"kulak"_ to mean _"small rural capitalist"_
(i.e. employer of wage labour) then this figure would be substantially smaller
as few within this group would employ hired labour or rent land. In fact, the
percentage of peasant households in Russia employing permanent wage-labour was
-3.3% in 1917, falling to 1% in 1920\. [Teodor Shanin, **The Awkward Class**,
-p. 171]
+3.3% in 1917, falling to 1% in 1920. [Teodor Shanin, **The Awkward Class**, p.
+171]
In 1917, the peasants all across the Russian Empire took back the land stolen
by the landlords. This lead to two developments. Firstly, there was a
@@ -2427,11 +2430,11 @@ peasants maintained that all the property of the former landlords was now by
right their own. This attitude was shared not only by the rich and middle
peasants but also the poor and landless, for they all wished to be independent
farmers. The poorer the areas, the more dissatisfied were the peasants with
-the Bolshevik decrees.
+the Bolshevik decrees. _
>
-> "Thus Communist agricultural policy and terrorism brought about a strong
+> _"Thus Communist agricultural policy and terrorism brought about a strong
reaction against the new Bolshevik regime. By the middle of 1919, all
peasants, rich and poor, distrusted the Bolsheviks."_ [Palij, **Op. Cit.**, p.
156]
@@ -2525,6 +2528,8 @@ bandits (and back again!) depending on whether their activity coincided with
the needs of Bolshevik power or not. Expediency is not a sound base to build a
critique, particularly one based simply on assertions like Trotsky's.
+
+
## 9 Were the Makhnovists anti-Semitic and pogromists?
No, they were not. Anyone who claims that the Mahnovist movement was anti-
@@ -2556,114 +2561,116 @@ pictured as a very restricted guerrilla movement, foreign to ideas of
brotherhood and international solidarity, and even tainted with anti-Semitism.
Nothing could be more criminal than such slanders. In order to shed light on
this question, we will cite here certain documented facts which relate to this
-subject.
+subject. _
>
-> "An important role was played in the Makhnovist army by revolutionaries of
+> _"An important role was played in the Makhnovist army by revolutionaries of
Jewish origin, many of whom had been sentenced to forced labour for
participation in the 1905 revolution, or else had been obliged to emigrate to
-Western Europe or America. Among others, we can mention:
+Western Europe or America. Among others, we can mention: _
>
-> "**Kogan** \-- vice-president of the central organ of the movement, the
+> _"**Kogan** \-- vice-president of the central organ of the movement, the
Regional Revolutionary Military Council of Hulyai Pole. Kogan was a worker
who, for reasons of principle, had left his factory well before the revolution
of 1917, and had gone to do agricultural work in a poor Jewish agricultural
colony. Wounded at the battle of Peregonovka, near Uman, against the
Denikinists, he was seized by them at the hospital at Uman where he was being
treated, and, according to witnesses, the Denikinists killed him with sabres.
+_
>
-> "**L. Zin'kovsky (Zadov)** \-- head of the army's counter espionage section,
-and later commander of a special cavalry regiment. A worker who before the
-1917 revolution was condemned to ten years of forced labour for political
-activities. One of the most active militants of the revolutionary
-insurrection.
+> _"**L. Zin'kovsky (Zadov)** \-- head of the army's counter espionage
+section, and later commander of a special cavalry regiment. A worker who
+before the 1917 revolution was condemned to ten years of forced labour for
+political activities. One of the most active militants of the revolutionary
+insurrection. _
>
-> "**Elena Keller** \-- secretary of the army's cultural and educational
+> _"**Elena Keller** \-- secretary of the army's cultural and educational
section. A worker who took part in the syndicalist movement in America. One of
-the organisers of the 'Nabat' Confederation.
+the organisers of the 'Nabat' Confederation. _
>
-> "**Iosif Emigrant (Gotman)** \-- Member of the army's cultural and
+> _"**Iosif Emigrant (Gotman)** \-- Member of the army's cultural and
educational section. A worker who took an active part in the Ukrainian
anarchist movement. One of the organisers of the 'Nabat' Confederation, and
-later a member of its secretariat.
+later a member of its secretariat. _
>
-> "**Ya. Alyi (Sukhovol'sky)** \-- worker, and member of the army's cultural
+> _"**Ya. Alyi (Sukhovol'sky)** \-- worker, and member of the army's cultural
and educational section. In the Tsarist period he was condemned to forced
labor for political activity. One of the organisers of the 'Nabat'
-Confederation and a member of its secretariat.
+Confederation and a member of its secretariat. _
>
-> "We could add many more names to the long list of Jewish revolutionaries who
-took part in different areas of the Makhnovist movement, but we will not do
-this, because it would endanger their security.
+> _"We could add many more names to the long list of Jewish revolutionaries
+who took part in different areas of the Makhnovist movement, but we will not
+do this, because it would endanger their security. _
>
-> "At the heart of the revolutionary insurrection, the Jewish working
+> _"At the heart of the revolutionary insurrection, the Jewish working
population was among brothers. The Jewish agricultural colonies scattered
throughout the districts of Mariupol, Berdyansk, Aleksandrovsk and elsewhere,
actively participated in the regional assemblies of peasants, workers and
insurgents; they sent delegates there, and also to the regional Revolutionary
-Military Council.
+Military Council. _
>
-> "Following certain anti-Semitic incidents which occurred in the region in
+> _"Following certain anti-Semitic incidents which occurred in the region in
February, 1919, Makhno proposed to all the Jewish colonies that they organise
their self-defence and he furnished the necessary guns and ammunition to all
these colonies. At the same time Makhno organised a series of meetings in the
-region where he appealed to the masses to struggle against anti-Semitism.
+region where he appealed to the masses to struggle against anti-Semitism. _
>
-> "The Jewish working population, in turn, expressed profound solidarity and
+> _"The Jewish working population, in turn, expressed profound solidarity and
revolutionary brotherhood toward the revolutionary insurrection. In answer to
the call made by the Revolutionary Military Council to furnish voluntary
combatants to the Makhnovist insurgent army, the Jewish colonies sent from
-their midst a large number of volunteers.
+their midst a large number of volunteers. _
>
-> "In the army of the Makhnovist insurgents there was an exclusively Jewish
+> _"In the army of the Makhnovist insurgents there was an exclusively Jewish
artillery battery which was covered by an infantry detachment, also made up of
Jews. This battery, commanded by the Jewish insurgent Shneider, heroically
defended Hulyai Pole from Denikin's troops in June, 1919, and the entire
-battery perished there, down to the last man and the last shell.
+battery perished there, down to the last man and the last shell. _
>
-> "In the extremely rapid succession of events after the uprising of 1918-19,
+> _"In the extremely rapid succession of events after the uprising of 1918-19,
there were obviously individuals who were hostile to Jews, but these
individuals were not the products of the insurrection; they were products of
Russian life. These individuals did not have any importance in the movement as
a whole. If people of this type took part in acts directed against Jews, they
-were quickly and severely punished by the revolutionary insurgents.
+were quickly and severely punished by the revolutionary insurgents. _
>
-> "We described earlier the speed and determination with which the Makhnovists
-executed Hryhoriyiv and his staff, and we mentioned that one of the main
-reasons for this execution was their participation in pogroms of Jews.
+> _"We described earlier the speed and determination with which the
+Makhnovists executed Hryhoriyiv and his staff, and we mentioned that one of
+the main reasons for this execution was their participation in pogroms of
+Jews. _
>
-> "We can mention other events of this nature with which we are familiar.
+> _"We can mention other events of this nature with which we are familiar. _
>
-> "On May 12, 1919, several Jewish families - 20 people in all - were killed
+> _"On May 12, 1919, several Jewish families - 20 people in all - were killed
in the Jewish agricultural colony of Gor'kaya, near Aleksandrovsk. The
Makhnovist staff immediately set up a special commission to investigate this
event. This commission discovered that the murders had been committed by seven
@@ -2673,41 +2680,41 @@ impossible to leave this crime unpunished, and they shot the murderers. It was
later established that this event and other attempts of this nature had been
carried out at the instigation of Denikin's agents, who had managed to
infiltrate the region and had sought by these means to prepare an atmosphere
-favourable for the entry of Denikin's troops into the Ukraine.
+favourable for the entry of Denikin's troops into the Ukraine. _
>
-> "On May 4th or 5th, 1919, Makhno and a few commanders hurriedly left the
+> _"On May 4th or 5th, 1919, Makhno and a few commanders hurriedly left the
front and went to Hulyai Pole, where they were awaited by the Extraordinary
Plenipotentiary of the Republic, L. Kamenev, who had arrived from Khar'kov
with other representatives of the Soviet government. At the Verkhnii Tokmak
station, Makhno saw a poster with the words: 'Death to Jews, Save the
-Revolution, Long Live Batko Makhno.'
+Revolution, Long Live Batko Makhno.' _
>
-> "'Who put up that poster?' Makhno asked.
+> _"'Who put up that poster?' Makhno asked. _
>
-> "He learned that the poster had been put up by an insurgent whom Makhno knew
-personally, a soldier who had taken part in the battle against Denikin's
+> _"He learned that the poster had been put up by an insurgent whom Makhno
+knew personally, a soldier who had taken part in the battle against Denikin's
troops, a person who was in general decent. He presented himself immediately
-and was shot on the spot.
+and was shot on the spot. _
>
-> "Makhno continued the journey to Hulyai Pole. During the rest of the day and
-during his negotiations with the Plenipotentiary of the Republic, he could not
-free himself from the influence of this event. He realised that the insurgent
-had been cruelly dealt with, but he also knew that in conditions of war and in
-view of Denikin's advance, such posters could represent an enormous danger for
-the Jewish population and for the entire revolution if one did not oppose them
-quickly and resolutely.
+> _"Makhno continued the journey to Hulyai Pole. During the rest of the day
+and during his negotiations with the Plenipotentiary of the Republic, he could
+not free himself from the influence of this event. He realised that the
+insurgent had been cruelly dealt with, but he also knew that in conditions of
+war and in view of Denikin's advance, such posters could represent an enormous
+danger for the Jewish population and for the entire revolution if one did not
+oppose them quickly and resolutely. _
>
-> "When the insurrectionary army retreated toward Uman in the summer of 1919,
+> _"When the insurrectionary army retreated toward Uman in the summer of 1919,
there were several cases when insurgents plundered Jewish homes. When the
insurrectionary army examined these cases, it was learned that one group of
four or five men was involved in all these incidents -- men who had earlier
@@ -2718,22 +2725,22 @@ under Hryhoriyiv were discharged from the Makhnovist army as an unreliable
element whose re-education was not possible in view of the unfavorable
conditions and the lack of time. Thus we see how the Makhnovists viewed anti-
Semitism. Outbursts of anti-Semitism in various parts of the Ukraine had no
-relation to the Makhnovshchina.
+relation to the Makhnovshchina. _
>
-> "Wherever the Jewish population was in contact with the Makhnovists, it
+> _"Wherever the Jewish population was in contact with the Makhnovists, it
found in them its best protectors against anti-Semitic incidents. The Jewish
population of Hulyai Pole, Aleksandrovsk, Berdyansk, Mariupol, as well as all
the Jewish agricultural colonies scattered throughout the Donets region, can
themselves corroborate the fact that they always found the Makhnovists to be
true revolutionary friends, and that due to the severe and decisive measures
of the Makhno visits, the anti-Semitic leanings of the counter-revolutionary
-forces in this region were promptly squashed.
+forces in this region were promptly squashed. _
>
-> "Anti-Semitism exists in Russia as well as in many other countries. In
+> _"Anti-Semitism exists in Russia as well as in many other countries. In
Russia, and to some extent in the Ukraine, it is not a result of the
revolutionary epoch or of the insurrectionary movement, but is on the contrary
a vestige of the past. The Makhnovists always fought it resolutely in words as
@@ -2746,7 +2753,7 @@ Cit.**, pp. 211-215]
Arshinov then goes on to quote an appeal published by Makhnovists together
with anarchists referring to an anti-Semitic incident which took place in the
spring of 1919. It is called **WORKERS, PEASANTS AND INSURGENTS FOR THE
-OPPRESSED, AGAINST THE OPPRESSORS \-- ALWAYS!**:
+OPPRESSED, AGAINST THE OPPRESSORS -- ALWAYS!**:
> _ "During the painful days of reaction, when the situation of the Ukrainian
peasants was especially difficult and seemed hopeless, you were the first to
@@ -2762,11 +2769,11 @@ death. . . On the clear and splendid foundation of the revolution appeared
indelible dark blots caused by the parched blood of poor Jewish martyrs who
now, as before, continue to be innocent victims of the criminal reaction, of
the class struggle . . . Shameful acts are being carried out. Anti-Semitic
-pogroms are taking place.
+pogroms are taking place. _
>
-> "Peasants, workers and insurgents! You know that the workers of all
+> _"Peasants, workers and insurgents! You know that the workers of all
nationalities -- Russians, Jews, Poles, Germans, Armenians, etc. -- are
equally imprisoned in the abyss of poverty. You know that thousands of Jewish
girls, daughters of the people, are sold and dishonoured by capital, the same
@@ -2780,11 +2787,11 @@ our enemies are exploiters and oppressors of various nationalities: the
Russian manufacturer, the German iron magnate, the Jewish banker, the Polish
aristocrat .. . . The bourgeoisie of all countries and all nationalities is
united in a bitter struggle against the revolution, against the labouring
-masses of the whole world and of all nationalities.
+masses of the whole world and of all nationalities. _
>
-> "Peasants, workers and insurgents! At this moment when the international
+> _"Peasants, workers and insurgents! At this moment when the international
enemy -- the bourgeoisie of all countries -- hurries to the Russian revolution
to create nationalist hatred among the mass of workers in order to distort the
revolution and to shake the very foundation of our class struggle - the
@@ -2792,12 +2799,13 @@ solidarity and unity of all workers -- you must move against conscious and
unconscious counter-revolutionaries who endanger the emancipation of the
working people from capital and authority. Your revolutionary duty is to
stifle all nationalist persecution by dealing ruthlessly with all instigators
-of anti-Semitic pogroms.
+of anti-Semitic pogroms. _
>
-> "The path toward the emancipation of the workers can be reached by the union
-of all the workers of the world."_ [quoted by Arshinov, **Op. Cit.**, 215-7]
+> _"The path toward the emancipation of the workers can be reached by the
+union of all the workers of the world."_ [quoted by Arshinov, **Op. Cit.**,
+215-7]
Arshinov also quotes an order issued by Makhno to _"all revolutionary
insurgents without exception"_ which states, in part, that the _"goal of our
@@ -2919,45 +2927,47 @@ insurgents against the slightest manifestation of the anti-Semitic spirit on
the part of a few isolated and misguided unfortunates in the army and the
population. . . One of the reasons for the execution of Grigoriev by the
Makhnovists was his anti-Semitism and the immense pogrom he organised at
-Elizabethgrad . . .
+Elizabethgrad . . . _
>
-> "We could cite a whole series of similar facts, but we do not find it
+> _"We could cite a whole series of similar facts, but we do not find it
necessary . . . and will content ourselves with mentioning briefly the
-following essential facts:
+following essential facts: _
>
-> "1. A fairly important part in the Makhnovist movement was played by
-revolutionists of Jewish origin.
+> _"1. A fairly important part in the Makhnovist movement was played by
+revolutionists of Jewish origin. _
>
-> "2. Several members of the Education and Propaganda Commission were Jewish.
+> _"2. Several members of the Education and Propaganda Commission were Jewish.
+_
>
-> "3. Besides many Jewish combatants in various units of the army, there was a
-battery composed entirely of Jewish artillery men and a Jewish infantry unit.
+> _"3. Besides many Jewish combatants in various units of the army, there was
+a battery composed entirely of Jewish artillery men and a Jewish infantry
+unit. _
>
-> "4. Jewish colonies in the Ukraine furnished many volunteers to the
-Insurrectionary Army.
+> _"4. Jewish colonies in the Ukraine furnished many volunteers to the
+Insurrectionary Army. _
>
-> "5. In general the Jewish population, which was very numerous in the
+> _"5. In general the Jewish population, which was very numerous in the
Ukraine, took an active part in all the activities of the movement. The Jewish
agricultural colonies which were scattered throughout the districts of
Mariupol, Berdiansk, Alexandrovsk, etc., participated in the regional
assemblies of workers, peasants and partisans; they sent their delegates to
-the regional Revolutionary Military Council.
+the regional Revolutionary Military Council. _
>
-> "6. Rich and reactionary Jews certainly had to suffer from the Makhnovist
+> _"6. Rich and reactionary Jews certainly had to suffer from the Makhnovist
army, not as Jews, but just in the same way as non-Jewish counter-
revolutionaries."_ [**The Unknown Revolution**, pp. 967-8]
@@ -2973,15 +2983,15 @@ Tcherikover had, for a number of years, had specialised in research on the
persecutions of the Jews in Russia. The Jewish historian states _"with
certainty that, on the whole, the behaviour of Makhno's army cannot be
compared with that of the other armies which were operating in Russian during
-the events 1917-21. Two facts I can certify absolutely explicitly.
+the events 1917-21. Two facts I can certify absolutely explicitly. _
-"1. It is undeniable that, of all these armies, including the Red Army, the
+_"1. It is undeniable that, of all these armies, including the Red Army, the
Makhnovists behaved best with regard the civil population in general and the
Jewish population in particular. I have numerous testimonies to this. The
proportion of **justified** complaints against the Makhnovist army, in
-comparison with the others, is negligible.
+comparison with the others, is negligible. _
-"2. Do not speak of pogroms alleged to have been organised by Makhno himself.
+_"2. Do not speak of pogroms alleged to have been organised by Makhno himself.
That is a slander or an error. Nothing of the sort occurred. As for the
Makhnovist Army, I have had hints and precise denunciations on this subject.
But, up to the present, every time I have tried to check the facts, I have
@@ -3077,6 +3087,8 @@ correction. Other repeat the lie from other sources. It was essential,
therefore, to spend time making the facts available and to nail the lie of
Makhnovist anti- Semitism once and for all!
+
+
## 10 Did the Makhnovists hate the city and city workers?
For some reason the Makhnovists have been portrayed as being against the city
@@ -3124,11 +3136,11 @@ the working classes of the cities and those of the countryside. The peasants
understand that without urban workers and powerful industrial enterprises they
will be deprived of most of the benefits which the social revolution makes
possible. Furthermore, they consider the urban workers to be their brothers,
-members of the same family of workers.
+members of the same family of workers. _
>
-> "There can be no doubt that, at the moment of the victory of the social
+> _"There can be no doubt that, at the moment of the victory of the social
revolution, the peasants will give their entire support to the workers. This
will be voluntary and truly revolutionary support given directly to the urban
proletariat. In the present-day situation [under the Bolsheviks], the bread
@@ -3139,11 +3151,11 @@ that in relation to the workers it plays the same role as that of a prison
administration toward the inmates. This is why the peasants do not have the
slightest desire to give their bread voluntarily to the State. This is why
they are so hostile in their relations with the contemporary tax collectors --
-the commissars and the various supply organs of the State.
+the commissars and the various supply organs of the State. _
>
-> "But the peasants always try to enter into **direct** relations with the
+> _"But the peasants always try to enter into **direct** relations with the
urban workers. The question was raised more than once at peasant congresses,
and the peasants always resolved it in a revolutionary and positive manner."_
[**Op. Cit.**, p. 258]
@@ -3253,6 +3265,8 @@ fairer to say that it was the Bolsheviks who expressed _"hostility"_ to the
city workers by imposing their dictatorship upon them rather than supporting
working-class self-management as the Makhnovists did!
+
+
## 11 Were the Makhnovists nationalists?
Some books on the Makhnovist movement try to present the Makhnovists as being
@@ -3353,27 +3367,27 @@ Makhnovist Insurgent Army wrote the following in October, 1919:
> _ "The cultural-educational section of the Makhnovist army constantly
receives questions from school teachers asking about the language in which
instruction should be given in the schools, now that Denikin's troops have
-been expelled.
+been expelled. _
>
-> "The revolutionary insurgents, holding to the principles of true socialism,
+> _"The revolutionary insurgents, holding to the principles of true socialism,
cannot in any field or by any measure do violence to the natural desires and
needs of the Ukrainian people. This is why the question of the language to be
taught in the schools cannot be solved by our army, but can only be decided by
-the people themselves, by parents, teachers and students
+the people themselves, by parents, teachers and students _
>
-> "It goes without saying that all the orders of Denikin's so-called 'Special
+> _"It goes without saying that all the orders of Denikin's so-called 'Special
Bureau' as well as General Mai-Maevsky's order No. 22, which forbids the use
of the mother tongue in the schools, are null and void, having been forcibly
-imposed on the schools.
+imposed on the schools. _
>
-> "In the interest of the greatest intellectual development of the people, the
-language of instruction should be that toward which the local population
+> _"In the interest of the greatest intellectual development of the people,
+the language of instruction should be that toward which the local population
naturally tends, and this is why the population, the students, the teachers
and the parents, and not authorities or the army, should freely and
independently resolve this question."_ [quoted by Arshinov, **Op. Cit.**, pp.
@@ -3429,6 +3443,8 @@ and councils. They did not limit their aims to national liberation, but rather
sought the self-liberation of the working classes from every oppression --
foreign or domestic, economic or political, cultural or social.
+
+
## 12 Did the Makhnovists support the Whites?
No, they did not. However, black propaganda by the Bolsheviks stated they did.
@@ -3443,12 +3459,12 @@ representative of the Kharkov government _"declared at the Plenary Session of
the Ekaterinoslav Soviet, that Soviet authorities had written proof of the
alliance between Makhno and Wrangel. This was obviously an intentional lie."_
Wrangel, perhaps believing these lies had some basis, sent a messenger to
-Makhno in July, 1920\. _"Wrangel's messenger was immediately executed"_ and
-the _"entire incident was reported in the Makhnovist press. All this was
-perfectly clear to the Bolsheviks. They nevertheless continued to trumpet the
-alliance between Makhno and Wrangel. It was only after a military-political
-agreement had been concluded between the Makhnovists and the Soviet power that
-the Soviet Commissariat of War announced that there had never been an alliance
+Makhno in July, 1920. _"Wrangel's messenger was immediately executed"_ and the
+_"entire incident was reported in the Makhnovist press. All this was perfectly
+clear to the Bolsheviks. They nevertheless continued to trumpet the alliance
+between Makhno and Wrangel. It was only after a military-political agreement
+had been concluded between the Makhnovists and the Soviet power that the
+Soviet Commissariat of War announced that there had never been an alliance
between Makhno and Wrangel, that earlier Soviet assertions to this effect were
an error."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 173-5]
@@ -3533,6 +3549,8 @@ might, playing a key role in the struggle and defeat of both Denikin and
Wrangel. Anyone who claims that they worked with the Whites is either ignorant
or a liar.
+
+
## 13 What was the relationship of the Bolsheviks to the movement?
The Makhnovists worked with the Bolsheviks in three periods. The first (and
@@ -3610,35 +3628,35 @@ fit. It is worth re-quoting the relevant section:
> _ "Can there exist laws made by a few people who call themselves
revolutionaries which permit them to outlaw a whole people who are more
-revolutionary than they are themselves? . . .
+revolutionary than they are themselves? . . . _
>
-> "Is it permissible, is it admissible, that they should come to the country
+> _"Is it permissible, is it admissible, that they should come to the country
to establish laws of violence, to subjugate a people who have just overthrown
-all lawmakers and all laws?
+all lawmakers and all laws? _
>
-> "Does there exist a law according to which a revolutionary has the right to
+> _"Does there exist a law according to which a revolutionary has the right to
apply the most severe penalties to a revolutionary mass, of which he calls
himself the defender, simply because this mass has taken the good things which
-the revolution promised them, freedom and equality, without his permission?
+the revolution promised them, freedom and equality, without his permission? _
>
-> "Should the mass of revolutionary people perhaps be silent when such a
-revolutionary takes away the freedom which they have just conquered?
+> _"Should the mass of revolutionary people perhaps be silent when such a
+revolutionary takes away the freedom which they have just conquered? _
>
-> "Do the laws of the revolution order the shooting of a delegate because he
+> _"Do the laws of the revolution order the shooting of a delegate because he
believes he ought to carry out the mandate given him by the revolutionary mass
-which elected him?
+which elected him? _
>
-> "Whose interests should the revolutionary defend; those of the Party or
+> _"Whose interests should the revolutionary defend; those of the Party or
those of the people who set the revolution in motion with their blood?"_
[quoted by Arshinov, **Op. Cit.**, p. 103]
@@ -3688,33 +3706,33 @@ Ukraine and against the organisation of the southern front, where Makhno's
brigade is stationed. This congress can have no other result then to excite
some new disgraceful revolt like that of Grigor'ev, and to open the front to
the Whites, before whom Makhno's brigade can only retreat incessantly on
-account of the incompetence, criminal designs and treason of its commanders.
+account of the incompetence, criminal designs and treason of its commanders. _
>
-> "1. By the present order this congress is forbidden, and will in no
-circumstances be allowed to take place.
+> _"1. By the present order this congress is forbidden, and will in no
+circumstances be allowed to take place. _
>
-> "2. All the peasant and working class population shall be warned. orally and
-in writing, that participation in the said congress will be considered an act
-of high treason against the Soviet Republic and the Soviet front.
+> _"2. All the peasant and working class population shall be warned. orally
+and in writing, that participation in the said congress will be considered an
+act of high treason against the Soviet Republic and the Soviet front. _
>
-> "3. All delegates to the said Congress shall be arrested immediately and
+> _"3. All delegates to the said Congress shall be arrested immediately and
bought before the Revolutionary Military Tribunal of the 14th, formerly 2nd,
-Army of the Ukraine.
+Army of the Ukraine. _
>
-> "4. The persons spreading the call of Makhno and the Hulyai Pole Executive
-Committee to the Congress shall likewise be arrested.
+> _"4. The persons spreading the call of Makhno and the Hulyai Pole Executive
+Committee to the Congress shall likewise be arrested. _
>
-> "5. The present order shall have the force of law as soon as it is
+> _"5. The present order shall have the force of law as soon as it is
telegraphed. It should be widely distributed, displayed in all public places,
and sent to the representatives of the executive committees of towns and
villages, as well as to all the representatives of Soviet authority, and to
@@ -3892,62 +3910,63 @@ _"Wrangel's success caused the Bolsheviks leaders to reconsider."_ [Palij,
**Op. Cit.**, p. 223] Sometime between the 10th and 15th of October the final
agreement was signed:
-> _ "Part I -- Political Agreement.
+> _ "Part I -- Political Agreement. _
>
-> "1. Immediate release of all Makhnovists and anarchists imprisoned or in
+> _"1. Immediate release of all Makhnovists and anarchists imprisoned or in
exile in the territories of the Soviet Republic; cessation of all persecutions
of Makhnovists or anarchists, except those who carry on armed conflict against
-the Soviet Government.
+the Soviet Government. _
>
-> "2. Complete freedom in all forms of public expression and propaganda for
+> _"2. Complete freedom in all forms of public expression and propaganda for
all Makhnovists and anarchists, for their principles and ideas, in speech and
the press, with the exception of anything that might call for the violent
overthrow of the Soviet Government, and on condition that the requirements of
military censorship be respected. For all kinds of publications, the
Makhnovists and anarchists, as revolutionary organisations recognised by the
Soviet Government may make use of the technical apparatus of the Soviet State,
-while naturally submitting to the technical rules for publication.
+while naturally submitting to the technical rules for publication. _
>
-> "3. Free participation in elections to the Soviets; and the right of
+> _"3. Free participation in elections to the Soviets; and the right of
Makhnovists and anarchists to be elected thereto. Free participation in the
organisation of the forthcoming Fifth Pan-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets . . .
+_
>
-> "Part II -- Military Agreement.
+> _"Part II -- Military Agreement. _
>
-> "1. The Ukrainian Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army (Makhnovist) will join
+> _"1. The Ukrainian Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army (Makhnovist) will join
the armed forces of the Republic as a partisan army, subordinate, in regard to
operations, to the supreme command of the Red Army; it will retain its
established internal structure, and does not have to adopt the bases and
-principles of the regular Red Army.
+principles of the regular Red Army. _
>
-> "2. When crossing Soviet territory at the front, or going between fronts,
+> _"2. When crossing Soviet territory at the front, or going between fronts,
the Insurrectionary Army will not accept into its ranks neither any
-detachments of, nor deserters from, the Red Army . . .
+detachments of, nor deserters from, the Red Army . . . _
>
-> "3. For the purpose of destroying the common enemy -- the White Army -- the
+> _"3. For the purpose of destroying the common enemy -- the White Army -- the
Ukrainian Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army (Makhnovists) will inform the
working masses that collaborate with it the agreement that has been concluded;
it will call upon the people to cease all military actions hostile to the
Soviet power; and for its part, the Soviet power will immediately publish the
-clauses of the agreement.
+clauses of the agreement. _
>
-> "4. The families of combatants of the Makhnovist Revolutionary
+> _"4. The families of combatants of the Makhnovist Revolutionary
Insurrectionary Army living in the territory of the Soviet Republic shall
enjoy the same rights as those of soldiers of the Red Army . . ."_ [quoted by
Arshinov, **Op. Cit.**, p. 178]
@@ -4069,6 +4088,8 @@ the Makhnovist movement shows, if need be, the party would happily exercise
its dictatorship **over** the proletariat (and peasantry) if that was needed
to retain its power.
+
+
## 14 How did the Makhnovists and Bolsheviks differ?
Like chalk and cheese.
@@ -4197,7 +4218,7 @@ expose the futility of nationalism. A large part of military organisation is
aimed at ensuring that soldiers remain fighting for causes they do not
necessarily believe in. Military discipline attempts to create an unthinking,
unquestioning body of soldiers, as fearful of their own side as of the
-other."_ [**Red & Black Revolution**, no. 1]
+other."_ [**Red & Black Revolution**, no. 1]
In short in both Russia and Spain the Bolsheviks wanted an army that would
obey them regardless of whether the individual soldiers felt they were doing
@@ -4370,11 +4391,11 @@ from labour and from revolution. In other words, what has been created is a
situation in which the labouring and revolutionary people have fallen under
the surveillance and rule of people who are alien to the working classes,
people who are inclined to exercise arbitrariness and violence over the
-workers. Such is the dictatorship of the Bolshevik-Communist Party . . .
+workers. Such is the dictatorship of the Bolshevik-Communist Party . . . _
>
-> "We again remind the working people that they will liberate themselves from
+> _"We again remind the working people that they will liberate themselves from
oppression, misery and violence only through their own efforts. No change in
power will help them in this. Only by means of their own free worker-peasant
organisations can the workers reach the summit of the social revolution --
@@ -4500,6 +4521,8 @@ that the former stuck by and introduced their stated aims of _"soviet power"_
and working-class freedom while the latter rejected them once they clashed
with Bolshevik party policies.
+
+
## 15 How do the modern followers of Bolshevism slander the Makhnovists?
Many modern-day supporters of Bolshevism, on the rare occasions when they do
@@ -4553,7 +4576,7 @@ However, more sophisticated slanders, lies and distortions have been levelled
at the Makhnovists by the supporters of Bolshevism. This is to be expected, as
the experience of the Makhnovists effectively refute the claim that the
Bolsheviks had no choice but to act as they did. It is hard to maintain a
-position that "objective conditions"_ made the Bolsheviks act as they did when
+position that "objective conditions" made the Bolsheviks act as they did when
another mass revolutionary army, operating in the same environment, did not
act in the same way. This means that the Makhnovists are strong evidence that
Bolshevik politics played a key role in the degeneration of the Russian
@@ -4564,7 +4587,7 @@ A recent example of this is John Rees' essay _"In Defence of October"_
(**International Socialism**, no. 52, pp. 3-82). Rees, a member of the UK
Socialist Workers' Party (SWP) is at pains to downplay the role of Bolshevik
ideology in the degeneration of the Russian Revolution. He argues that
-"objective factors"_ ensured that the Bolsheviks acted as they did. The
+"objective factors" ensured that the Bolsheviks acted as they did. The
_"subjective factor"_ was simply a choice between defeat and defence against
the Whites: _"Within these limits Bolshevik policy was decisive."_ [**Op.
Cit.**, p. 30] This explains his attack on the Makhnovist movement. Faced with
@@ -5162,18 +5185,18 @@ Trotsky's autocratic structure). The political agreement was as follows:
> _ "1. Immediate release, and an end to the persecution of all Makhno men and
anarchists in the territories of the Soviet Republics, except those who carry
-on armed resistance against Soviet authorities.
+on armed resistance against Soviet authorities. _
>
-> "2. Makhno men and anarchists were to have complete freedom of expression of
-their ideas and principles, by speech and the press, provided that nothing was
-expressed that tended to a violent overthrow of Soviet government, and on
-condition that military censorship be respected. . .
+> _"2. Makhno men and anarchists were to have complete freedom of expression
+of their ideas and principles, by speech and the press, provided that nothing
+was expressed that tended to a violent overthrow of Soviet government, and on
+condition that military censorship be respected. . . _
>
-> "3. Makhno men and anarchists were to enjoy full rights of participation in
+> _"3. Makhno men and anarchists were to enjoy full rights of participation in
elections to the soviets, including the right to be elected, and free
participation in the organisation of the forthcoming Fifth All-Ukrainian
Congress of Soviets . . ."_ [cited by Palij, **Op. Cit.**, p. 224]
@@ -5238,11 +5261,11 @@ have a clear and intended desire to deceive the reader. As regards the third
agreement, while he makes no pretence that the Makhnovists were the guilty
party however, he implies that the Bolsheviks had to act as they did before
the Makhnovists turned on them. Little wonder, then, that he does not provide
-the details of the agreement made between the Bolsheviks and Makhnovists \--
-to do so would have been to expose the authoritarianism of the Bolsheviks.
-Simply put, Rees'distortions of the source material he uses comes as no
-surprise. It undermines his basic argument and so cannot be used in its
-original form. Hence the cherry-picking of quotations to support his case.
+the details of the agreement made between the Bolsheviks and Makhnovists -- to
+do so would have been to expose the authoritarianism of the Bolsheviks. Simply
+put, Rees'distortions of the source material he uses comes as no surprise. It
+undermines his basic argument and so cannot be used in its original form.
+Hence the cherry-picking of quotations to support his case.
After distorting Makhnovist relations with the Bolsheviks, Rees moves on to
distorting the socio-political ideas and practice of the Makhnovists. As would
@@ -5339,7 +5362,7 @@ Clearly, the Makhnovists **did** create a _"programme that would appeal to the
workers."_ However, it is true that the Makhnovists did fail win over more
than a minority of workers. This may have been due to the fact that the
Makhnovists only freed two cities, both for short periods of time. As Paul
-Avrich notes, "he found little time to implement his economic programs."_
+Avrich notes, "he found little time to implement his economic programs."
[**Anarchist Portraits**, p. 121] Given how Rees bends over backwards to
justify Bolshevik policies in terms of _"objective factors,"_ it is
significant that in his discussion of the Makhnovists such _"objective
@@ -5358,7 +5381,7 @@ Firstly, we should highlight the Bolshevik (and so, presumably,
_"proletarian"_) patterns imposed on the railway workers. Trotsky simply
_"plac[ed] the railwaymen and the personnel of the repair workshops under
martial law"_ and _"summarily ousted"_ the leaders of the railwaymen's trade
-union when they objected."_ The Central Administrative Body of Railways
+union when they objected." The Central Administrative Body of Railways
(Tsektran) he created was run by him _"along strictly military and
bureaucratic lines."_ In other words, he applied his ideas on the
_"militarisation of labour"_ in full. [M. Brinton, **The Bolsheviks and
@@ -5408,8 +5431,8 @@ and to maintain a sort of united front of the entire peasantry."_ [M. Palij,
**Op. Cit.**, p. 214]
Clearly, Rees has distorted the source material, conveniently missing out the
-information that Makhno had most definitely "disturbed"_ the peasant economy
-at the expense of the rich! And, we are sure that Rees would have a fit if it
+information that Makhno had most definitely "disturbed" the peasant economy at
+the expense of the rich! And, we are sure that Rees would have a fit if it
were suggested that the real basis of Bolshevik support was not their
socialism, but their opposition to the war and the Whites!
@@ -5858,6 +5881,8 @@ factors, did not act in the same manner as the Bolsheviks shows that Bolshevik
ideology played a key role in the failure of the revolution. This explains
Rees' clumsy attempts to rewrite the history and theory of the Makhnovshchina.
+
+
## 16 What lessons can be learned from the Makhnovists?
The Makhnovist movement was one of the most important events of the Russian
@@ -5925,11 +5950,11 @@ imposition from above of the Bolshevik leadership's vision of revolution. When
the Insurgent Army drove the enemy out of an area they encouraged the local
population to solve their own problems. Where the Red Army took over, the
Cheka quickly followed. The Bolsheviks themselves were energetically snuffing
-out the ideals of 1917.
+out the ideals of 1917. _
>
-> "Given such considerations it may be, though it cannot be logically proven
+> _"Given such considerations it may be, though it cannot be logically proven
one way or the other, that the Bolsheviks' deeply rooted authoritarianism
rather than the civil war itself led to the construction of a highly
centralised system that aimed at 'complete control' over political and many
@@ -6118,3 +6143,8 @@ show that social revolutions need not consist of changing one set of bosses
for another. The Makhnovist movement clearly shows that libertarian ideas can
be successfully applied in a revolutionary situation.
+[‹ Were any of the Bolshevik oppositions a real
+alternative?](/afaq/append45.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/append4.html "Go to parent page" ) [Bibliography for FAQ
+›](/afaq/biblio.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/arlinks.md b/markdown/arlinks.md
index 550f22daf56b906e0a25606da1cfb0c316f34dd0..bdfc6cb4d88a8782e4e56d9f210516595ca48a26 100644
--- a/markdown/arlinks.md
+++ b/markdown/arlinks.md
@@ -1,610 +1,813 @@
+
+
+Sites of interest to Anarchists
+
+
+
# Sites of interest to Anarchists
-_**Web-pages by organisations or on topics which anarchists may find useful.
+_**Web-pages by organisations or on topics which anarchists may find useful.
**_
-Click on the flag to go back to _**"An Anarchist FAQ"**_ main page
+Click [here](index.html) to go back to _**"An Anarchist FAQ"**_ main page
-[](index.html)
+* [Papers, Magazines and Journals](arlinks.html#otherpapers)
+
+
+---
+* [Groups and Organisations](arlinks.html#othergroups)
+
-* [Papers, Magazines and Journals](arlinks.html#otherpapers)
+* [Labour movement sites](arlinks.html#otherlabour)
+
-* [Groups and Organisations](arlinks.html#othergroups)
+* [Situationist and Libertarian Marxist sites
+](arlinks.html#otherlibmarx)
-* [Labour movement sites](arlinks.html#otherlabour)
+* [General sites of interest](arlinks.html#othergeneral)
-* [Situationist and Libertarian Marxist sites ](arlinks.html#otherlibmarx)
-* [General sites of interest](arlinks.html#othergeneral)
----
+
## Papers, Magazines and Journals
_**Interesting on-line magazines, papers and journals.**_
-[ Lobster: Journal of parapolitics, intelligence and State
-Research](http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/)
-Excellent journal exposing parapolitical goings on across the world. Find out
-what the secret state is up to. Recommended.
+[
+Lobster: Journal of parapolitics, intelligence and State Research](http://www
+.lobster-magazine.co.uk/)
+
+Excellent journal exposing parapolitical goings on across the world.
+Find out what the secret state is up to. Recommended.
[Z Magazine: A Political Monthly](http://zmagsite.zmag.org/curTOC.htm)
+
Left-libertarian magazine, based in the USA. Contributors include such well
known people as Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman and Howard Zinn.
[Left Business Observer](http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html)
+
[Left Business Observer](http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/)
-Excellent site for exposing the myths of modern day business and has a load of
-useful facts and statistics. Recommended.
+
+Excellent site for exposing the myths of modern day business and has
+a load of useful facts and statistics. Recommended.
[CovertAction Quarterly](http://www.covertaction.org/default.htm)
-Site for the excellent magazine **Covert Action Quarterly** which keeps track
-of the actions of the state (secret and not-so-secret). Often contains
-articles by Noam Chomsky. Excellent selection of on-line articles on many
-important and interesting subjects.
+
+Site for the excellent magazine **Covert Action Quarterly** which
+keeps track of the actions of the state (secret and not-so-secret). Often
+contains articles by Noam Chomsky. Excellent selection of on-line articles
+on many important and interesting subjects.
[Multinational Monitor On-Line](http://www.essential.org/monitor/)
-Excellent on-line journal exposing the actions of multinationals to the cold
-light of day.
+
+Excellent on-line journal exposing the actions of multinationals to the
+cold light of day.
[Red Pepper](http://www.redpepper.org.uk/)
+
UK based left-radical magazine.
[SchNEWS](http://www.schnews.org.uk)
-Excellent UK based free-sheet. Covers roads protests and other forms of direct
-action. Recommended.
+
+Excellent UK based free-sheet. Covers roads protests and other forms
+of direct action. Recommended.
[The On-Line Report of the Progressive
Review](http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/ProRev/)
+
Interesting US based radical magazine.
[Dollars And Sense Magazine home](http://www.dollarsandsense.org/)
-[ Dollars & Sense Magazine](http://www.igc.apc.org/dollars/index.html)
-Excellent US based magazine that aims to expose the realities of capitalism.
-Includes an excellent article on the [Mondragon Cooperative
+
+[
+Dollars & Sense Magazine](http://www.igc.apc.org/dollars/index.html)
+
+Excellent US based magazine that aims to expose the realities of
+capitalism. Includes an excellent article on the [Mondragon Cooperative
complex](http://www.igc.apc.org/dollars/issues/nov97/mon.html) in the Basque
country.
[Dissent](http://www.dissentmagazine.org/)
-A US based quarterly magazine for independent minds which discusses politics,
-economics and culture.
+
+A US based quarterly magazine for independent minds which discusses
+politics, economics and culture.
[The Arbalest](http://ri.xu.org/arbalest/index.html)
-Based in the Southern USA, the Arbalest holds the position that the economy
-interferes with liberty just as much as the state does.
+
+Based in the Southern USA, the Arbalest holds the position that
+the economy interferes with liberty just as much as the state does.
[Alternative Press Review - Your Guide Beyond the
Mainstream](http://www.altpr.org/)
+
Good US based magazine which, as wel as reviewing the radical press, has
articles on current issues.
+
+
## Groups and Organisations
_**Non-anarchist but interesting on-line groups.**_
[Independent Media Center](http://www.indymedia.org/)
-Essential source for independent reporting on demos (plus extensive
-discussions).
+
+Essential source for independent reporting on demos
+(plus extensive discussions).
-[FAIR -- Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting](http://www.fair.org/)
-Exposes what the media hides and has an excellent account of bringing Rush
-Limbaugh's _"Reign of Error"_ to an end.
+[FAIR -- Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting](http://www.fair.org/)
+
+Exposes what the media hides and has an excellent account of bringing
+Rush Limbaugh's _"Reign of Error"_ to an end.
[Welcome To ZNet](http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm)
+
Left-libertarian series of archives and links, based around Z magazine
magazine. Includes a Noam Chomsky archive as well as a lecture series on
**Participatory Economics** (based on the work of Michael Albert and Robin
Hahnel and called ParEcon).
[Project Censored](http://zippy.sonoma.edu/ProjectCensored/)
+
Lists the most censored news items in the United States. Find out what the
capitalist media does not want you to know!
[Creating Livable Alternatives to Wage Slavery
(CLAWS)](http://www.whywork.org/)
+
Excellent anti-work and anti-wage slavery site.
[Peacefire Home Page](http://www.peacefire.org/)
+
Teenagers against net censorship. Great site.
[CORPORATE WATCH](http://www.corpwatch.org/)
+
[www.corporatewatch.org.uk - "The earth is not dying, it is being killed, and
those who are killing it have names and
addresses".](http://www.corporatewatch.org/)
-Name says it all! Site for keeping an eye on what the corporations are trying
-to do to us.
+
+Name says it all! Site for keeping an eye on what the corporations are
+trying to do to us.
[SWEATSHOP WATCH](http://www.sweatshopwatch.org/)
-Name says it all! Find out about the evils of sweatshops and how to stop them.
+
+Name says it all! Find out about the evils of sweatshops and how
+to stop them.
[NikeWages.org](http://www.nikewages.org/)
+
Find out how Nike exploits workers across the globe.
[Solidarity Pages with Mexico](http://www.struggle.ws/mexico.html)
-Information on whats going on in Mexico and what the anarchist influenced
-Zapatista movement is up to. Essential reading. Plus [Cartoons and photos from
-the Zapatista rebellion in Chiapas, Mexico](
-http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3102/)
+
+Information on whats going on in Mexico and what the anarchist influenced
+Zapatista movement is up to. Essential reading. Plus
+[Cartoons and photos from the Zapatista rebellion in Chiapas,
+Mexico](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3102/)
-[Reseau de solidarite avec le Mexique - Montreal Home Page](
-http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3231/RSM)
+[Reseau de solidarite avec le Mexique - Montreal Home
+Page](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3231/RSM)
+
Solidarity web-page with the Zapatista. In French.
[The Gatherings for Humanity and against
Neoliberalism](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3849/gatherdx.html)
+
Find out about the resistance to global capitalism. Excellent site.
-[Frente Zapatista de Liberacin Nacional](http://spin.com.mx./~floresu/FZLN/)
-Homepages of the Zapatistas, one of the best things to happened to Mexico for
-a long time. Also check out this [Zapatista
-Women](http://www.actlab.utexas.edu/~geneve/zapwomen/) site.
+[Frente Zapatista de Liberación Nacional](http://spin.com.mx./~floresu/FZLN/)
+
+Homepages of the Zapatistas, one of the best things to happened to
+Mexico for a long time. Also check out this [Zapatista
+Women](http://www.actlab.utexas.edu/~geneve/zapwomen/)
+site.
+
+[](http://www.k2net.co.uk/~savage/ef/) >Earth First!
-[Earth First!](http://www.k2net.co.uk/~savage/ef/)
+
+
[Earth First! Journal](http://www.enviroweb.org/ef/)
+
Home page for the radical, direct actionist environmental group.
[Leeds Earth First!](http://www.leedsef.ukf.net/index.htm)
+
Home page of the Leeds (UK) Earth First! group.
[Leonard Peltier](http://www.freepeltier.org/)
+
Home page for the campaign to free Leonard Peltier.
[EnviroLink Pre Home Page](http://www.envirolink.org/)
-Home page for the non-profit organisation which unites hundreds of
-organisations and volunteers in over 130 countries. Has up-to-date environment
-resources available.
+
+
+Home page for the non-profit organisation which unites hundreds of
+organisations and volunteers in over 130 countries. Has up-to-date
+environment resources available.
-[QPIRG @ Concordia University Online]( http://concordia.pirg.ca/)
-Home page for an umbrella organisation of community activists, researchers,
+[QPIRG @ Concordia University Online](http://concordia.pirg.ca/)
+
+Home page for an umbrella organisation of community activists, researchers,
students and educators in Montreal, Canada.
[STUDENT ORGANIZED RESISTANCE
MOVEMENT](http://www.carleton.ca/~pmoore/storm/storm1.htm)
-Alberta, USA, based radical students organisation aiming to put people before
-profits.
+
+Alberta, USA, based radical students organisation aiming to put people
+before profits.
[Statewatch Home Page](http://www.poptel.org.uk/statewatch/)
+
[Statewatch: monitoring civil liberties in the EU](http://www.statewatch.org/)
+
Database on the state and civil liberties in the UK and Europe.
[South End Press](http://www.lbbs.org/sep/sep.htm)
-US based left-libertarian publishers. They print works by the likes of
-Chomskey, Edward Herman and Howard Zinn.
+
+US based left-libertarian publishers. They print works by the likes
+of Chomskey, Edward Herman and Howard Zinn.
[Common Courage Press -- Home](http://www.commoncouragepress.com/)
-US based radical publishers. They print lots of books by Noam Chomsky, plus
-other important works.
+
+US based radical publishers. They print lots of books by Noam Chomsky,
+plus other important works.
[United for a Fair Economy](http://www.stw.org/)
-Useful information on the state of the US economy and what you can do about
-it.
+
+Useful information on the state of the US economy and what you can
+do about it.
[Reclaim the Streets!](http://www.reclaimthestreets.net/)
+
[Reclaim the Streets!](http://www.gn.apc.org/rts/)
+
UK based environmental direct action organisation.
[TLIO-The Land Is Ours Homepage](http://www.oneworld.org/tlio/)
-Campaign for land-rights in the UK. For access to our common birthright, the
-land!
+
+Campaign for land-rights in the UK. For access to our common birthright,
+the land!
[Direct Action Media Network](http://damn.tao.ca/)
-DAMN is a multi-media news service that covers direct actions that progressive
-organisations and individuals take to attain a peaceful, open, just and
-enlightened society.
+
+DAMN is a multi-media news service that covers direct actions that
+progressive organisations and individuals take to attain a peaceful,
+open, just and enlightened society.
[DIRECT ACTION NETWORK HOME](http://www.directactionnetwork.org/)
+
Name says its all. Find out about non-violent direct action.
[Philadelphia Direct Action Group](http://www.thepartysover.org/)
+
Name says it all!
[Institute for Global Communications--Welcome!](http://www.igc.org/igc/)
-Webpages aiming to expand and inspire movements for peace, economic and social
-justice, human rights, and environmental sustainability around the world.
+
+Webpages aiming to expand and inspire movements for peace, economic and
+social justice, human rights, and environmental sustainability around the
+world.
[Anti-Fascist Action](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5602/)
-UK based **Anti-Fascist Action**. As the name suggests, AFA is a pro-direct
-action, anti-nazi group. Site includes articles from **Fighting Talk**, their
-magazine.
+
+UK based **Anti-Fascist Action**. As the name suggests, AFA
+is a pro-direct action, anti-nazi group. Site includes articles
+from **Fighting Talk**, their magazine.
[AFA. Antifascistisk aktion i Sverige](http://www.motkraft.net/afa/)
+
Anti-Fascist Action in Sweden
-[IAI - Internationale Antitheocratique Insurrectionnelle - Insurrectional
-Antitheocratic International](http://www.chez.com/iai/)
-Some sort of revolutionary councilist organisation, aiming for self-managed
+[IAI -
+Internationale Antitheocratique Insurrectionnelle -
+Insurrectional Antitheocratic International](http://www.chez.com/iai/)
+
+Some sort of revolutionary councilist organisation, aiming for self-managed
communes/councils.
[Arizona Direct Action Coalition](http://move.to/adac)
+
Name says it all!
[Mission Yuppie Eradication Project](http://www.geocities.com/myep.geo/)
+
Anti-yuppie webpage from the Mission, San Francisco.
[Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
(RAWA)](http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/index.html)
-Fighting for women's equality against religious fundamentalism and imperialism
-in Afghanistan.
+
+Fighting for women's equality against religious fundamentalism
+and imperialism in Afghanistan.
-[Interactivist Info Exchange: Independent Media &
+[Interactivist Info Exchange: Independent Media &
Analysis](http://slash.autonomedia.org/)
+
Useful webpage for news and analysis for radicals.
+
+
## Labour movement sites
[LabourNet](http://www.labournet.org)
+
[LabourNet UK](http://www.labournet.net)
-Excellent resource for strike information and labour union links and
+
+Excellent resource for strike information and labour union links and
information. Recommended.
-[ Labor versus Capital in the New World Order -- Rise Phoenix Home
+[
+Labor versus Capital in the New World Order -- Rise Phoenix Home
Page](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8425/)
-Another excellent labour resource, with links to many anarchist and anarcho-
-syndicalist webpages.
+
+Another excellent labour resource, with links to many anarchist and
+anarcho-syndicalist webpages.
[Cyber Picket Line](http://www.cf.ac.uk/ccin/union/)
+
Very extensive labour resource directory.
[Welcome to Laborlink](http://laborlink.simplenet.com/)
-A gateway to several resources on trade unions, employment law and so on. US
-based.
+
+A gateway to several resources on trade unions, employment law
+and so on. US based.
[UnionWeb Home Page](http://www.unionweb.org/)
+
US based labour union site. AFL-CIO based.
-[SIPTU Fightback - Ireland : SIPTU activists seeking a democratic & fighting
-trade union](http://www.struggle.ws/siptu.html)
-Irish rank and file group working to make their trade union more libertarian.
+[SIPTU Fightback - Ireland : SIPTU activists seeking a democratic &
+fighting trade union](http://www.struggle.ws/siptu.html)
+
+Irish rank and file group working to make their trade union more
+libertarian.
[Labor and Anti-Work Kiosk](http://www.infoshop.org/labor_kiosk.html)
+
Good collection of labour movement links (part of the Mid-Atlantic Infoshop).
-[LabourStart: Where trade unionists start their day on the net](
-http://www.labourstart.org/)
+[LabourStart: Where trade unionists start their day on the
+net](http://www.labourstart.org/)
+
Useful selection of labour related links and information.
[Unicobas scuola - Federazione sindacale dei comitati di base. Sito nazionale.
Raccolta Legislativa. Archivio di leggi, circolari, ordinanze, decreti
concernenti la normativa scolastica](http://www.unicobas.it/)
+
Italian "base union" webpage. Militant rank-and-file ran labour unions.
[McDonalds Workers Resistance](http://www.geocities.com/mwrposse3/)
+
For all rebel McDonalds' workers!
+
+
## Situationist and Libertarian Marxist sites
-_**Not all Marxists are authoritarians or Leninists. Some support self-managed
-class struggle, working class autonomy and a self-managed socialist society.
-Here are a few sites on this minority trend within Marxism.**_
+_**Not all Marxists are authoritarians or Leninists. Some support
+self-managed class struggle, working class autonomy and a self-managed
+socialist society. Here are a few sites on this minority trend within
+Marxism.**_
-[Situationist International
-Archives](http://www.nothingness.org/SI/index.html)
+[Situationist
+International Archives](http://www.nothingness.org/SI/index.html)
+
Archive for one of the most important revoluntionary groups in the 1960s. The
Situationists updated revoluntary theory for a society based upon consumerism
and the mass media. Essential reading for a critique of modern capitalism.
[Anti-Economy Anti-Capital Net](http://www.webcom.com/maxang/)
-Interesting marxian libertarian-communist web-site. Situationist influenced in
-a big way.
+
+
+Interesting marxian libertarian-communist web-site. Situationist influenced
+in a big way.
[Harry M. Cleaver, Jr.](http://www.eco.utexas.edu/facstaff/Cleaver/index.html)
-Home page of the Autonomist Marxist writer. Contains essays with an
+
+Home page of the Autonomist Marxist writer. Contains essays with an
interesting analysis of various aspects of capitalism. Like anarchists,
-Cleaver places emphasis on class struggle as the key to understanding
-capitalism.
+Cleaver
+places emphasis on class struggle as the key to understanding capitalism.
-[Aufheben](http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/aut_html/auf1edit.htm)
+[](http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/aut_html/auf1edit.htm)
+>Aufheben
+
+
+
[Aufheben](http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/)
-Excellent autonomist influenced libertarian Marxist magazine. Has articles on
-social struggles as well as a theoretical overview of the problems within the
-traditional Marxist ideas of (economic) crisis theory. Based in England.
+
+Excellent autonomist influenced libertarian Marxist magazine. Has articles
+on social struggles as well as a theoretical overview of the problems within
+the traditional Marxist ideas of (economic) crisis theory. Based in England.
[AUT-OP-SY Home Page](http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/aut_html/)
-Home page for all things Autonomist Marxist on the net. Autonomist Marxists,
-like anarchists, place great emphasis on the class struggle and self-managed
-struggles. Like most Marxists, however, they try to force their new ideas into
+
+Home page for all things Autonomist Marxist on the net. Autonomist Marxists,
+like anarchists, place great emphasis on the class struggle and self-managed
+struggles. Like most Marxists, however, they try to force their new ideas into
Marx instead of trying to move beyond him. Still worth checking out.
[Subversion](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8195/)
+
British based libertarian communist/Marxist magazine. Worth checking out.
-[Eclipse & Re-emergence of the Communist
+[Eclipse & Re-emergence of the Communist
Movement](http://www.skatta.demon.co.uk/eclipse/eclipstc.htm)
+
Classic introduction to libertarian marxist ideas.
-[Collective Action Notes](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2379/)
-US based publication which documents and discusses different struggles. Has
-articles by Anton Pannekoek (a famous Dutch council communist) plus the
-excellent ["A Ballad Against
-Work"](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2379/intro.htm)
+[Collective Action
+Notes](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2379/)
+
+US based publication which documents and discusses different struggles.
+Has articles by Anton Pannekoek (a famous Dutch council communist) plus the
+excellent [](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2379/intro.htm) >"A
+Ballad Against Work"
[For Communism - John Gray Web Site](http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/)
-Has extensive archive of libertarian marxist/communist work by the likes of
-Paul Mattick, Anton Pannekoek and so on. Includes works by and about
+
+Has extensive archive of libertarian marxist/communist work by the likes
+of Paul Mattick, Anton Pannekoek and so on. Includes works by and about
communist-anarchists like Kropotkin and Malatesta.
[RADICAL CHAINS: beyond Trotskyism, autonomism
etc.](http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/guest/radical/RADCHAIN.HTM)
-Libertarian marxist magazine - contains excellent critical articles on
+
+Libertarian marxist magazine - contains excellent critical articles on
Leninism and the history of the Russian Revolution.
[Antagonism Home Page](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3909/)
+
Anti-capitalist and anti-state struggle for a world human community.
[Libertarian Communist Economy](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/6579/)
-Interesting discussion on how a stateless communist economy could work.
+
+Interesting discussion on how a stateless communist economy could work.
Written by a group of German Council Communists in the 1930s.
[Midnight Notes](http://www.midnightnotes.org/)
+
Autonomous/Libertarian Marxist magazine based in the USA.
[The Bad Days will end](http://www.geocities.com/jkellstadt/index.htm)
-Magazine advocating communism -- the overthrow of capitalism by the
-international working class and the creation of a stateless and truly
-egalitarian society from below, by means of autonomous, radically-democratic,
-and voluntarily-federated workers' organizations.
-
-[ Common Dreams NewsCenter - News & Views for the Progressive
+
+Magazine advocating communism -- the overthrow of capitalism
+by the international working class and the creation of
+a stateless and truly egalitarian society from below, by
+means of autonomous, radically-democratic, and
+voluntarily-federated workers' organizations.
+
+[
+Common Dreams NewsCenter - News & Views for the Progressive
Community](http://www.commondreams.org/)
+
Interesting Council Communist magazine.
[Break Their Haughty Power](http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner/)
+
Interesting webpage from a libertarian Marxist.
[Wildcat](http://www.webcom.com/wildcat/)
+
Left-communist magazine from the UK.
[Left Wing Communism - an infantile disorder?](http://www.left-dis.nl/)
+
Multi-lingual council communist webpage.
[The Commoner](http://www.commoner.org.uk/)
+
A web journal for other values. An automonist Marxist webpage.
+
+
## General sites of interest
_**General sites useful to anarchists and libertarians**_
[Critiques Of Libertarianism ](http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html)
-Excellent site for critiques of right-wing libertarianism. While not anarchist
-as such, it is full of interesting and useful information and arguments to use
-against right-libertarians.
+
+Excellent site for critiques of right-wing libertarianism. While not
+anarchist as such, it is full of interesting and useful information and
+arguments to use against right-libertarians.
[McSpotlight Pre-Home Page](http://www.McSpotlight.org/)
+
Find out the truth behind McDonald's corporate image! This web-site is about
the **McLibel trial** \- McDonald's charged two anarchists for libel and it
has well and truly backfired on them. Lesson - don't mess with anarchists,
-they will stand up to corporate bully tactics!
+they will stand up to
+corporate bully tactics!
-[ Rebuttal to the Anarchism FAQ of Bryan
+[
+Rebuttal to the Anarchism FAQ of Bryan
Caplan](http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/anarchistsect.html)
+
A good introductionary critique of the "Anarchist" FAQ of Bryan Caplan.
[Tom Tomorrow and This Modern World](http://www.well.com/user/tomorrow/)
+
Often very funny political cartoons.
[Post Keynesian Thought Internet Archive](http://csf.Colorado.EDU/pkt/)
-Excellent source of radical economics articles and links. Essays from a wide
-range of viewpoints -- Marxist, Kaleckian, post-Keynesian and so on.
+
+Excellent source of radical economics articles and links. Essays from a
+wide range of viewpoints -- Marxist, Kaleckian, post-Keynesian and so on.
[When Corporations Rule the
World](http://iisd1.iisd.ca/pcdf/corprule/corporat.htm)
+
Why capitalism has little in common with Adam Smith's original ideas and the
-danger corporations pose to our liberties and planet. Interesting read but
+danger corporations pose to our liberties and planet. Interesting read but
also check out this critique called
[Antiglobalization](http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/Globalization.html).
[DisInformation](http://www.disinfo.com/)
+
Contains much information about alot of topics. Thats the best description we
can come up with at the present moment. Worth checking out.
[Political Corrections](http://deoxy.org/pc.htm)
-Extensive information resource. Has links to Noam Chomsky articles and a host
-of other useful information.
+
+Extensive information resource. Has links to Noam Chomsky articles and
+a host of other useful information.
[Liberalism Resurgent](http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/tenets.htm)
+
Contains the excellent [Steve Kangas' Liberal
FAQ](http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/LiberalFAQ.htm). Both sites contain loads
-of information and facts which debunk many political myths by using the latest
-studies, statistics and arguments. Recommended for the amount of information
-it places at your finger tips. Also good for exposing right-libertarian
-nonsense for what it is.
+of information and facts which
+debunk many political myths by using the latest studies, statistics and
+arguments. Recommended for the amount of information it places at your
+finger tips. Also good for exposing right-libertarian nonsense for what it is.
[FIGHT HOMEP@GE](http://members.tripod.com/~miguell/miguel.htm)
-This page fights against fascism, racism, imperialism and sexism. Has links to
-sites about East Timor.
+
+This page fights against fascism, racism, imperialism and sexism. Has
+links to sites about East Timor.
-[Plawiuk Pontificates](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5202/index.htm)
-"Voice of the Rebel worker" with articles and links on many subjects of
+[](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5202/index.htm) >Plawiuk
+Pontificates
+
+
+
+"Voice of the Rebel worker" with articles and links on many subjects of
interest to radicals.
[Kenin's Home Page](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4667/)
-Information on Municipal Socialism, a decentralised socialism based upon local
-people owning and managing their own towns and neighbourhoods.
+
+Information on Municipal Socialism, a decentralised socialism based
+upon local people owning and managing their own towns and neighbourhoods.
-[Beyond Capitalism, Socialism, Anarchism:
-Autonarchy](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8778/)
-Interesting essay on Autonarchy - an attempt to develop our political ideas
-into new areas.
+[](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8778/) >Beyond Capitalism,
+Socialism, Anarchism: Autonarchy
-[Adbusters Culture Jammers Headquarters](http://www.adbusters.org/)
-Hate adverts? Think they pollute the mind? Then this is the site for you!
+
+
+Interesting essay on Autonarchy - an attempt to develop our political
+ideas into new areas.
-[LOL Entry Page](http://www.lol.shareworld.com/leftonl/lolhome.htm)
-Left on Line - A cyber community of people concerned about social change.
-Associated with **Z Magazine**.
+[](http://www.adbusters.org/) >Adbusters Culture Jammers Headquarters
+
+Hate adverts? Think they pollute the mind? Then this is the site
+for you!
+
+[](http://www.lol.shareworld.com/leftonl/lolhome.htm) >LOL Entry Page
+
+Left on Line - A cyber community of people concerned about social
+change. Associated with **Z Magazine**.
[Economist Jokes](http://netec.mcc.ac.uk/JokEc.html)
+
And why not?
-[The People's Page: Texts and Links for the Worker and
-Student](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5549/)
-Has links to and information about many left-wing and capitalist stuff. Also
-has a nice little section on anarchism. Worth looking at.
+[](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5549/) >The People's Page: Texts
+and Links for the Worker and Student
+
+Has links to and information about many left-wing and capitalist stuff.
+Also has a nice little section on anarchism. Worth looking at.
[Thomas Jefferson and His Writings](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7842/)
-Nice site on the ideas and works of Jefferson (who, while not an anarchist,
-does have some important ideas some of which have alot in common with
-anarchist ones). Also contains the excellent [Objectivism and Thomas
-Jefferson](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7842/otjindex.htm) which saves
-Jefferson from the Randoids as well as making many telling arguments against
-Ayn Rand's dogma's.
+
+Nice site on the ideas and works of Jefferson (who, while not an
+anarchist, does have some important ideas some of which have alot in
+common with anarchist ones). Also contains the excellent [Objectivism and
+Thomas Jefferson](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7842/otjindex.htm) which
+saves Jefferson from the Randoids as well
+as making many telling arguments against Ayn Rand's dogma's.
[The Official Judi Bari Home Page](http://www.monitor.net/~bari/)
-Homepage on the life and struggles of Earth First!er and Wobbly, Judi bari who
-died recently. Worth looking at.
+
+Homepage on the life and struggles of Earth First!er and Wobbly, Judi
+bari who died recently. Worth looking at.
[BERTRAND RUSSELL ARCHIVES](http://www.mcmaster.ca/russdocs/russell.htm)
+
Webpages on noted philosopher and social activist Bertrand Russel. Russel was
-influenced by anarchist and (left) libertarian ideas and was a supporter of
-Guild Socialism.
+influenced by anarchist and (left) libertarian ideas and was a supporter
+of Guild Socialism.
-[ GOODBYE CAPITALISM HELLO FULL AUTOMATION
-](http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/6308/index.html)
-Interesting webpage full of arguments against capitalism and other subjects.
+[](http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/6308/index.html) > GOODBYE
+CAPITALISM HELLO FULL AUTOMATION
+
+Interesting webpage full of arguments against capitalism and other
+subjects.
-[alt.eRED](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3843/newrab.html)
-Melbourne (Australia) based collective which provides information and a
+[](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3843/newrab.html) >alt.eRED
+
+Melbourne (Australia) based collective which provides information and a
analysis of current struggles.
[Jay's Leftist and "Progressive" Internet Resources
Directory](http://www.neravt.com/left/)
-Name says it all. Links to loads of interesting sites, including anarchist
+
+Name says it all. Links to loads of interesting sites, including anarchist
ones.
[Peace Tree](http://www.webcom.com/~peace/)
-For information on Food not Bombs, Peaceworkers International and other peace
-related activity.
+
+For information on Food not Bombs, Peaceworkers International and other
+peace related activity.
[First Nations](http://www.dickshovel.com/)
+
Links and information on Native America issues.
[Solidaritygroup Political Prisoners](http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/english.htm)
+
Name says it all.
[Activism - Wilderness - Politics -
Ecology](http://www.connix.com/~harry/index.html)
-Information on various topics, including Chomsky, Emma Goldman, the US spooks
+
+Information on various topics, including Chomsky, Emma Goldman, the US spooks
(CIA and FBI) and social activism in general.
[COMMODITY FETISH](http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/9973/)
-Radical anti-capitalist page. Contains information on anarchism and council
-communism.
+
+Radical anti-capitalist page. Contains information on anarchism and
+council communism.
-[ Jay's Leftist and "Progressive" Internet Resources Directory Top
+[
+Jay's Leftist and "Progressive" Internet Resources Directory Top
Page](http://www.neravt.com/left/)
-Extensive listing of "leftist" sites, plus anarchist and other revolutionary
+
+Extensive listing of "leftist" sites, plus anarchist and other revolutionary
ones.
[Anti-Racism in Ireland ](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4079/)
+
Name says it all.
-[MAI? No thanks...!](http://mai.flora.org/library/)
-Webpage against the "Multilateral Agreement on Investment" and the
+[](http://mai.flora.org/library/) >MAI? No thanks...!
+
+Webpage against the "Multilateral Agreement on Investment" and the
globalisation of capitalism. Also mirrored
[here](http://www.geocities.com/athens/3565/)
[Ending Corporate Governance: Revoking Our
Plutocracy](http://www.ratical.com/corporations/index.html)
+
Source of useful information and facts on corporations and how to stop them.
[Filtering in Libraries](http://burn.ucsd.edu/~mai/library/index.html)
+
Webpage on net-censorship in public libraries (in the USA in particular).
[Micheal Moore Homepage](http://www.michaelmoore.com/)
-Homepage of that wonderful (and funny) battler for the underdog, Micheal Moore
-(author of **Downsize this!** and star of TVNation. Also check out [The Awful
-Truth](http://www.theawfultruth.com), his excellent new TV show. Recommended
-(if you don't laugh, you're dead!).
+
+Homepage of that wonderful (and funny) battler for the underdog,
+Micheal Moore (author of **Downsize this!** and star of TVNation.
+Also check out [The Awful Truth](http://www.theawfultruth.com),
+his excellent new TV show. Recommended (if you don't laugh, you're dead!).
[The Anti-Capitalist Web](http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/Floor/5666/)
+
Not much there just now, but it looks promising.
[The RickSters Activist Home Page](http://www.flash.net/~caco/)
+
Useful resources for activists.
[catastrophe](http://freespeech.org/mat/)
+
Information and links for activists and other subsersives!
[EDIN](http://garnet.berkeley.edu:3333/)
+
Economic Democracy Information Network.
[Pieman's Home Page-Happiness is a Cream Pie](http://www.pieman.org/)
-Have pie, will fling! Find out about the merits of using pies as a means of
-protest. Worth checking out! Direct Action at its funniest...
+
+Have pie, will fling! Find out about the merits of using pies as a means
+of protest. Worth checking out! Direct Action at its funniest...
[Documents from the Women's Liberation Movement - Duke Special
Collections](http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/wlm/)
+
Very useful resource on a very important movement.
[CCU](http://gallery.uunet.be/Anthonie.De.Lausnay/CCU.html)
-The Computer Clash Unit ( CCU ) is a part of 'Progressive Network' and
+
+
+The Computer Clash Unit ( CCU ) is a part of 'Progressive Network' and
'Blissett International'. The main goal of CCU is to enable
-progressive/leftist/anarchist/... groups and movements to build and maintain
-webspace to spread their ideas, opinions and experiences. Also in Dutch,
-[Spaak en TandradX](http://gallery.uunet.be/Anthonie.De.Lausnay/SeT.html). Not
-sure what to make of it, to be honest.
+progressive/leftist/anarchist/... groups
+and movements to build and maintain webspace to spread their ideas,
+opinions and experiences. Also in Dutch, [Spaak en
+TandradX](http://gallery.uunet.be/Anthonie.De.Lausnay/SeT.html). Not sure what
+to make of it, to be honest.
[Edward
Herman](http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Edward_Herman.html)
+
Home page about Edward Herman, radical economist and co-worker of Noam
Chomsky.
[Welcome to www.AlfieKohn.org](http://www.alfiekohn.org/)
-Webpages on the work of Alfie Kohn about the benefits of co-operation.
+
+Webpages on the work of Alfie Kohn about the benefits of co-operation.
Essential reading for all anarchists.
[LETSystems - the Home Page](http://www.gmlets.u-net.com/)
-Homepage of Local Exchange Trading Systems. A modern form of mutual banking
-and alternative, non-interest bearing, money.
+
+Homepage of Local Exchange Trading Systems. A modern form of
+mutual banking and alternative, non-interest bearing, money.
[The University of Texas Inequality Project](http://utip.gov.utexas.edu/)
+
Find out about inequality across the world.
[Anxiety Culture: Entry Page](http://www.anxietyculture.com/)
+
UK based anti-work site.
[GNU's Not Unix! - the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation
(FSF)](http://www.fsf.org/)
+
[GNU's Not Unix! - the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation
(FSF)](http://www.gnu.org/)
-Homepage for very libertarian and cool GNU Project. Essential reading for a
-wee bit of anarchy in action!
+
+Homepage for very libertarian and cool GNU Project. Essential reading
+for a wee bit of anarchy in action!
[Public Domain Campaign](http://www7.50megs.com/jwalch/)
+
Anti-copy right campaign webpage.
[Wolfman's U of C Page](http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~dhallsop/)
+
Selection of anarchist and other left-wing links and papers.
[anti-fascism.org](http://www.anti-fascism.org/)
+
Fighting fascism, hate, and bigotry both on and off the internet.
[Florida Radical Calendar](http://www.geocities.com/radicalcalendar)
-This is a calendar of events occurring in radical and progressive communities
-throughout the state. the goal of the site is threefold: to provide accurate
-information, to unify activists and to encourage people to get involved.
+
+This is a calendar of events occurring in radical and
+progressive communities throughout the state. the goal
+of the site is threefold: to provide accurate
+information, to unify activists and to encourage
+people to get involved.
[The 'Participatory Economics Project' homepage.](http://www.parecon.org)
-A vision of a non-capitalist participatory economy. Contains the books
-[Looking forward](http://www.zmag.org/books/lf.htm), [Political Economy of
-PARECON](http://www.zmag.org/books/polpar.htm) and [A quiet revolution in
-Welfare economics](http://www.zmag.org/books/quiet.htm), all of which are
-worth reading as they contain some interesting ideas.
-
-[ Labour Theory of Value
+
+A vision of a non-capitalist participatory economy. Contains the books
+[Looking forward](http://www.zmag.org/books/lf.htm),
+[Political Economy of PARECON](http://www.zmag.org/books/polpar.htm)
+and [A quiet revolution in Welfare
+economics](http://www.zmag.org/books/quiet.htm),
+all of which are worth reading as they contain some interesting ideas.
+
+[
+Labour Theory of Value
FAQ](http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/LTV-FAQ.html)
+
Introduction to the Labour Theory of Value.
[Anti-Fascist Forum](http://af.antifa.net/)
+
Name says it all!
[Ithaca HOURS](http://www.ithacahours.org/)
+
Home page for the alternative money system.
[NoLogo: the book that became part of a movement](http://nologo.org/index.pl)
+
Excellent related to the influential book **No Logo**
[Jo Freeman: Feminist Scholar and Author](http://www.jofreeman.com/index.htm)
+
Webpage of the famous feminist writer.
[Anti-fascist Think Tank :: No Pasaran!](http://www.nopasaran.antifa.net/)
+
Anti-Fascist webpage.
+
+
+[‹ Other Anarchist Web-pages](/afaq/alinks.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/links.html "Go to parent page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/biblio.md b/markdown/biblio.md
index 364417b23d0e940ce9b3edd4203f4a612ac34c15..0aba2b1b42029d3e05b053bc6b5d1ebf852f34ca 100644
--- a/markdown/biblio.md
+++ b/markdown/biblio.md
@@ -1,7 +1,5 @@
# _Bibliography for FAQ_
-* * *
-
This bibliography lists all the books quoted in the FAQ. However, details for
some of these books is missing. This information will also be added to over
time. Some books are listed in more than one edition. This is due to the
@@ -14,15 +12,13 @@ authors; books by anarchists and other libertarians; books about anarchism,
anarchists and anarchist history by non-libertarians; and books by non-
anarchists/libertarians.
-* * *
-
## _Anarchist Anthologies_
Avrich, Paul (ed.), **The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution**, Thames and
Hudson Ltd, London, 1973.
Brook, Frank H. (ed.), **The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty
-(1881-1908)**, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, 1994\.
+(1881-1908)**, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, 1994.
Dawn Collective (eds.), **Under the Yoke of the State: Selected Anarchist
Responses to Prisons and Crime vol. 1, 1886-1929**, Dawn Collective/Kate
@@ -31,14 +27,14 @@ Sharpley Library/PMB, Oakland/London/Berkeley, 2003.
Dark Star (ed.), **Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader**, AK Press/Dark
Star, Edinburgh/San Francisco, 2002.
-**Beneath the Paving Stones: Situationists and the beach, May 1968**, AK Press/Dark Star, Edinburgh/San Francisco, 2001.
+**Beneath the Paving Stones: Situationists and the beach, May 1968**, AK Press/Dark Star, Edinburgh/San Francisco, 2001.
Dolgoff, Sam (ed.), **The Anarchist Collectives: self-management in the
Spanish revolution, 1936-1939**, Black Rose Books, Montreal, 1974.
Ehrlich, Howard J, Carol Ehrlich, David De Leon, Glenda Morris (eds.),
-**Reinventing Anarchy: What are Anarchists thinking these days?**, Routledge &
-Kegan Paul, London, 1979.
+**Reinventing Anarchy: What are Anarchists thinking these days?**, Routledge
+& Kegan Paul, London, 1979.
Ehrlich, Howard J. (ed.), **Reinventing Anarchy, Again**, AK Press,
Edinburgh/San Francisco, 1996.
@@ -50,7 +46,7 @@ Graham, M. (ed.), **Man! An Anthology of Anarchist Ideas, Essays, Poetry and
Commentaries**, Cienfuegos Press, London, 1974.
Graham, Robert (ed.), **Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas
-\-- Volume 1: From Anarchy to Anarchism (300CE to 1939)**, Black Rose Books,
+-- Volume 1: From Anarchy to Anarchism (300CE to 1939)**, Black Rose Books,
Montreal/New York/London, 2005.
Guerin, Daniel (ed.), **No Gods, No Masters: An Anthology of Anarchism** (in
@@ -61,14 +57,18 @@ Writings on the Anarchist Tradition**, Anchor Books, New York, 1966.
Woodcock, George (ed.), **The Anarchist Reader**, Fontana, Glasgow, 1987.
+
+
## _Anarchist and Libertarian Works_
ACF, **Marxism and Its Failures**, ACE Editions, London, 1990.
+
+
Ackelsberg, Martha A., **Free Women of Spain: anarchism and the struggle for
the emancipation of women**, AK Press, Oakland/Edinburgh, 2005.
-**Free Women of Spain: anarchism and the struggle for the emancipation of women**, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1991.
+**Free Women of Spain: anarchism and the struggle for the emancipation of women**, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1991.
Anarchist Federation, **The Role of the Revolutionary Organisation**,
Anarchist Communist Editions, London, 2008.
@@ -93,40 +93,40 @@ of Desire Armed**, no, 43, Spring/Summer 1997, pp. 50-2.
Arshinov, Peter, **The History of the Makhnovist Movement**, Freedom Press,
London, 1987.
-**The Two Octobers** available at: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/russia/arshinov_2_oct.html
+**The Two Octobers** available at: <http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/russia/arshinov_2_oct.html>
Avrich, Paul, **An American Anarchist: The Life of Voltairine de Cleyre**,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1978.
-**Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America**, AK Press, Edinburgh/Oakland, 2005
+**Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America**, AK Press, Edinburgh/Oakland, 2005
-**Kronstadt 1921**, W.W. Norton and Company Inc., New York, 1970\.
+**Kronstadt 1921**, W.W. Norton and Company Inc., New York, 1970.
-**The Russian Anarchists**, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1978.
+**The Russian Anarchists**, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1978.
-**Anarchist Portraits**, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1988.
+**Anarchist Portraits**, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1988.
-**The Haymarket Tragedy**, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1984\.
+**The Haymarket Tragedy**, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1984.
_"Bolshevik Opposition To Lenin: G. Miasnikov and the Workers Group"_, pp.
1-29, **Russian Review**, vol. 43, no. 1
-**Bolshevik Opposition To Lenin: G. Miasnikov and the Workers Group**, available at: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2379/mias.htm
+**Bolshevik Opposition To Lenin: G. Miasnikov and the Workers Group**, available at: <http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2379/mias.htm>
Bakunin, Micheal, **The Basic Bakunin**, Robert M. Cutler (trans. and ed.),
Promethus Books, Buffalo, N.Y., 1994.
-**Bakunin on Anarchism**, 2nd Edition, Sam Dolgoff (ed.), Black Rose Books, Montreal, 1980.
+**Bakunin on Anarchism**, 2nd Edition, Sam Dolgoff (ed.), Black Rose Books, Montreal, 1980.
-**The Political Philosophy of Bakunin**, G.P. Maximov (ed.), The Free Press, New York, 1953.
+**The Political Philosophy of Bakunin**, G.P. Maximov (ed.), The Free Press, New York, 1953.
-**Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings**, Arthur Lehning (ed.), Jonathan Cape, London, 1973.
+**Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings**, Arthur Lehning (ed.), Jonathan Cape, London, 1973.
-**Statism and Anarchy**, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990\.
+**Statism and Anarchy**, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990.
-**God and the State**, Dover, New York, 1970.
+**God and the State**, Dover, New York, 1970.
-**Marxism, Freedom and the State**, K.J. Kenafick (ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1984.
+**Marxism, Freedom and the State**, K.J. Kenafick (ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1984.
Barclay, Harold, **The State**, Freedom Press, London, 2003.
@@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ Pirate Press, Sheffield, 1990.
_"Objections to Anarchism"_, **The Raven: Anarchist Quarterly**, no. 12 (Vol.
3, No. 4), Oct-Dec 1990, Freedom Press, pp. 339-364.
-**Objections to Anarchism** available at http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/sp000146.txt
+**Objections to Anarchism** available at <http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/sp000146.txt>
Bennello, George, _"The Challenge of Mondragon"_ in **Reinventing Anarchy,
Again**, Howard Ehrlich (ed.), AK Press, Edinburgh/San Francisco, 1996.
@@ -146,15 +146,15 @@ Bennello, George C., **From the Ground Up**, Black Rose Books, Montreal, 1992.
Berkman, Alexander, **What is Anarchism?**, AK Press,
Edinburgh/London/Oakland, 2003.
-**The ABC of Anarchism**, Freedom Press, London, 1977.
+**The ABC of Anarchism**, Freedom Press, London, 1977.
-**What is Communist Anarchism?**, Phoenix Press, London, 1989.
+**What is Communist Anarchism?**, Phoenix Press, London, 1989.
-**The Russian Tragedy**, Phoenix Press, London, 1986.
+**The Russian Tragedy**, Phoenix Press, London, 1986.
-**The Bolshevik Myth**, Pluto Press, London, 1989.
+**The Bolshevik Myth**, Pluto Press, London, 1989.
-**Life of an Anarchist: The Alexander Berkman reader**, Gene Fellner (ed.), Four Walls Eight Windows, New York, 1992\.
+**Life of an Anarchist: The Alexander Berkman reader**, Gene Fellner (ed.), Four Walls Eight Windows, New York, 1992.
Berkman, Alexander (ed.), **The Blast**, AK Press, Edinburgh/Oakland, 2005.
@@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ Anarchist Quarterly**, no. 31 (Vol. 8, No. 3), Autumn 1993, Freedom Press, pp.
Berneri, Marie-Louise, **Neither East Nor West: Selected Writings 1939-48**,
Freedom Press, London, 1988.
-**Journey Through Utopia**, Freedom Press, London, 1982.
+**Journey Through Utopia**, Freedom Press, London, 1982.
Berry, David, **A History of the French Anarchist Movement, 1917-1945**,
Greenwood Press, Westport, 2002.
@@ -173,15 +173,15 @@ Greenwood Press, Westport, 2002.
Black, Bob, **The Abolition of Work and other essays**, Loompanics Unlimited,
Port Townsend, 1986.
-**Friendly Fire**, Autonomedia, New York, 1992.
+**Friendly Fire**, Autonomedia, New York, 1992.
-**Anarchy After Leftism**, CAL Press, Columbia, 1997.
+**Anarchy After Leftism**, CAL Press, Columbia, 1997.
-**The Abolition of Work**, available at http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/black/sp000156.txt
+**The Abolition of Work**, available at <http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/black/sp000156.txt>
-**The Libertarian as Conservative**, available at http://www.applicom.com/pnews/libertarian.html
+**The Libertarian as Conservative**, available at <http://www.applicom.com/pnews/libertarian.html>
-**Smokestack Lighting**, available at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/smokestack.html
+**Smokestack Lighting**, available at <http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/smokestack.html>
Bonanno, Alfredo M., **Anarchism and the National Liberation Struggle**,
Bratach Dubh Editions, Catania, 1981.
@@ -189,48 +189,48 @@ Bratach Dubh Editions, Catania, 1981.
Bookchin, Murray, **Post Scarcity Anarchism**, 3rd Edition, AK Press,
Edinburgh/Oakland, 2004.
-**Post Scarcity Anarchism**, Wildwood House, London, 1971.
+**Post Scarcity Anarchism**, Wildwood House, London, 1971.
-**The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years 1868-1936**, AK Press, Edinburgh/San Francisco, 1998.
+**The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years 1868-1936**, AK Press, Edinburgh/San Francisco, 1998.
-**The Third Revolution: Popular Movements in the Revolutionary Era**, Volume 1, Cassel, London, 1996.
+**The Third Revolution: Popular Movements in the Revolutionary Era**, Volume 1, Cassel, London, 1996.
-**The Third Revolution: Popular Movements in the Revolutionary Era**, Volume 2, Cassel, London, 1998.
+**The Third Revolution: Popular Movements in the Revolutionary Era**, Volume 2, Cassel, London, 1998.
-**Toward an Ecological Society**, Black Rose, Montreal, 1980.
+**Toward an Ecological Society**, Black Rose, Montreal, 1980.
-**Remaking Society: Pathways to a Green Future**, South End Press, Boston, MA., 1990.
+**Remaking Society: Pathways to a Green Future**, South End Press, Boston, MA., 1990.
-**Social Anarchism and Lifestyle Anarchism**, AK Press, Edinburgh/San Francisco, 1995.
+**Social Anarchism and Lifestyle Anarchism**, AK Press, Edinburgh/San Francisco, 1995.
-**The Modern Crisis**, New Society Publishers, Philadelphia, 1986\.
+**The Modern Crisis**, New Society Publishers, Philadelphia, 1986.
-**The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy**, AK Press, Edinburgh/Oakland, 2005
+**The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy**, AK Press, Edinburgh/Oakland, 2005
-**The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy**, Cheshire Books, Palo Alto, California, 1982.
+**The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy**, Cheshire Books, Palo Alto, California, 1982.
_"Communalism: The Democratic Dimension of Anarchism"_, **Democracy and
Nature**, No. 8 (vol. 3, no. 2), pp. 1-12.
-**Which Way for the Ecology Movement?**, AK Press, Edinburgh/San Francisco, 1994.
+**Which Way for the Ecology Movement?**, AK Press, Edinburgh/San Francisco, 1994.
-**The Philosophy of Social Ecology**, Black Rose Books, Montreal/New York, 1990.
+**The Philosophy of Social Ecology**, Black Rose Books, Montreal/New York, 1990.
-**From Urbanisation to Cities: Toward a New Politics of Citizenship**, Cassell, London, 1995.
+**From Urbanisation to Cities: Toward a New Politics of Citizenship**, Cassell, London, 1995.
_"Nationality and the 'National Question'"_, **Society and Nature**, no. 5,
vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 8-36.
-**The Communist Manifesto: Insights and Problems**, available at: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bookchin/comman.html
+**The Communist Manifesto: Insights and Problems**, available at: <http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bookchin/comman.html>
_"Looking Back at Spain,"_ **The Radical Papers**, pp. 53-96, Dimitrios I.
Roussopoulos (ed.), Black Rose Books, Montreal/New York, 1987
-**The Murray Bookchin Reader**, Janet Biehl (ed.), Cassell, London, 1997.
+**The Murray Bookchin Reader**, Janet Biehl (ed.), Cassell, London, 1997.
-**Anarchism, Marxism, and the Future of the Left: Interviews and Essays, 1993-1998**, AK Press, Edinburgh/San Francisco, 1999.
+**Anarchism, Marxism, and the Future of the Left: Interviews and Essays, 1993-1998**, AK Press, Edinburgh/San Francisco, 1999.
-**To Remember Spain: The Anarchist and Syndicalist Revolution of 1936**, AK Press, Edinburgh/San Francisco, 1994.
+**To Remember Spain: The Anarchist and Syndicalist Revolution of 1936**, AK Press, Edinburgh/San Francisco, 1994.
Bookchin, Murray and Dave Foreman, **Defending the Earth: A Dialogue between
Murray Bookchin and Dave Foreman**, Black Rose Books, Montreal/New York.
@@ -245,11 +245,11 @@ Bricianer, Serge **Pannekoek and the Workers' Councils**, Telos Press, Saint
Louis, 1978.
Brinton, Maurice, **For Workers' Power: The Selected Writings of Maurice
-Brinton**, David Goodway (ed.), AK Press, Edinburgh/Oakland, 2004\.
+Brinton**, David Goodway (ed.), AK Press, Edinburgh/Oakland, 2004.
-**The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control 1917 to 1921: the State and Counter-Revolution**, Solidarity and Black and Red, London and Detroit, 1975.
+**The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control 1917 to 1921: the State and Counter-Revolution**, Solidarity and Black and Red, London and Detroit, 1975.
-**The Irrational in Politics**, Soldarity (London), London, 1975.
+**The Irrational in Politics**, Soldarity (London), London, 1975.
Brown, L. Susan, **The Politics of Individualism: Liberalism, Liberal Feminism
and Anarchism**, Black Rose, Montreal/New York, 1993.
@@ -262,9 +262,9 @@ Cardan, Paul, **Modern Capitalism and Revolution**, 2nd edition, Solidarity,
London, 1974.
Carson, Kevin A., **The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand**, available at:
-http://www.mutualist.org/id4.html
+<http://www.mutualist.org/id4.html>
-**Studies in Mutualist Political Economy**, available at: http://www.mutualist.org/id47.html
+**Studies in Mutualist Political Economy**, available at: <http://www.mutualist.org/id47.html>
Carter, Alan, **Marx: A Radical Critique**, Wheatsheaf Books, Brighton, 1988.
@@ -274,13 +274,13 @@ Rose Books, Montreal, 1986.
Castoriadis, Cornelius, **Workers' Councils and the Economics of a Self-
Managed Society**, Wooden Shoe Pamphlet, Philadelphia, 1984.
-**Political and Social Writings**, vol. 1, translated and edited by David Ames Curtis, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1988\.
+**Political and Social Writings**, vol. 1, translated and edited by David Ames Curtis, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1988.
-**Political and Social Writings**, vol. 2, translated and edited by David Ames Curtis, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1988\.
+**Political and Social Writings**, vol. 2, translated and edited by David Ames Curtis, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1988.
-**Political and Social Writings**, vol. 3, translated and edited by David Ames Curtis, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1993\.
+**Political and Social Writings**, vol. 3, translated and edited by David Ames Curtis, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1993.
-**The Meaning of Socialism**, Philadelphia Solidarity, Philadelphia, 1994.
+**The Meaning of Socialism**, Philadelphia Solidarity, Philadelphia, 1994.
_"The Role of Bolshevik Ideology in the Birth of the Bureaucracy"_, contained
in **Political and Social Writings**, vol. 3, pp. 89-105
@@ -288,85 +288,85 @@ in **Political and Social Writings**, vol. 3, pp. 89-105
Chomsky, Noam, **Chronicles of Dissent: Interviews with David Barsamian**,
Common Courage and AK Press, Monroe, 1992.
-**Deterring Democracy**, Vintage, London, 1992.
+**Deterring Democracy**, Vintage, London, 1992.
-**Keeping the Rabble in Line: Interviews with David Barsamian**, AK Press, Edinburgh, 1994.
+**Keeping the Rabble in Line: Interviews with David Barsamian**, AK Press, Edinburgh, 1994.
-**Noam Chomsky on Anarchism**, available at: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9612-anarchism.html
+**Noam Chomsky on Anarchism**, available at: <http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9612-anarchism.html>
-**Language and Politics**, Expanded Second Edition, C.P. Otero (ed.), AK Press, Edinburgh/London/Oakland, 2004.
+**Language and Politics**, Expanded Second Edition, C.P. Otero (ed.), AK Press, Edinburgh/London/Oakland, 2004.
_"Marxism, Anarchism, and Alternative Futures"_, pp. 775-785, **Language and
Politics**, Expanded Second Edition.
-**Preface to Rudolf Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism**, Pluto Press, London, 1989.
+**Preface to Rudolf Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism**, Pluto Press, London, 1989.
-**World Orders, Old and New**, Pluto Press, London, 1994.
+**World Orders, Old and New**, Pluto Press, London, 1994.
-**Radical Priorities**, Black Rose Books, Montreal, 1981.
+**Radical Priorities**, Black Rose Books, Montreal, 1981.
-**Year 501: The Conquest Continues**, Verso, London, 1993.
+**Year 501: The Conquest Continues**, Verso, London, 1993.
-**Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies**, Pluto Press, London, 1991.
+**Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies**, Pluto Press, London, 1991.
-**Expanding the Floor of the Cage**, available at: http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/199704--.htm
+**Expanding the Floor of the Cage**, available at: <http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/199704--.htm>
-**Rollback** Parts I to IV, Z Magazine, January to May 1995 available at: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199505--.htm
+**Rollback** Parts I to IV, Z Magazine, January to May 1995 available at: <http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199505--.htm>
-**Interview on Pozner/Donahue in 1992**, available at http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/chomskydon.html
+**Interview on Pozner/Donahue in 1992**, available at <http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/chomskydon.html>
-**For Reasons of State**, Fontana/Collins, Suffolk, 1973.
+**For Reasons of State**, Fontana/Collins, Suffolk, 1973.
-**The Umbrella of US Power: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Contradictions of US Policy**, Open Media Pamphlet, Seven Stories Press, New York, 1999.
+**The Umbrella of US Power: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Contradictions of US Policy**, Open Media Pamphlet, Seven Stories Press, New York, 1999.
-**The Chomsky Reader**, James Peck (ed.), Pantheon Books, New York, 1987\.
+**The Chomsky Reader**, James Peck (ed.), Pantheon Books, New York, 1987.
-**Turning the Tide: US Intervention in Central America and the Struggle for Peace**, Pluto Press, 1985.
+**Turning the Tide: US Intervention in Central America and the Struggle for Peace**, Pluto Press, 1985.
-**Language and Politics**, Black Rose Books, Montreal, 1999.
+**Language and Politics**, Black Rose Books, Montreal, 1999.
-**Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs**, Pluto Press, London, 2000.
+**Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs**, Pluto Press, London, 2000.
-**Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky**, Peter R. Mitchell and John Schoeffel (eds.), The New Press, New York, 2002.
+**Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky**, Peter R. Mitchell and John Schoeffel (eds.), The New Press, New York, 2002.
-**Problems of Knowledge and Freedom: The Russell Lectures**, The New Press, New York/London, 2003.
+**Problems of Knowledge and Freedom: The Russell Lectures**, The New Press, New York/London, 2003.
-**Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance**, Hamish Hamilton, London, 2003.
+**Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance**, Hamish Hamilton, London, 2003.
-**Powers and Prospects: Reflections on Human Nature and the Social Order**, Pluto Press, London, 1996.
+**Powers and Prospects: Reflections on Human Nature and the Social Order**, Pluto Press, London, 1996.
-**Class Warfare: Interviews with David Barsamian**, Pluto Press, London, 1996.
+**Class Warfare: Interviews with David Barsamian**, Pluto Press, London, 1996.
-**American Power and the New Mandarins**, Penguin Books, London, 1969\.
+**American Power and the New Mandarins**, Penguin Books, London, 1969.
-**Anarchism Interview: Noam Chomsky interviewed by Ziga Vodovnik**, available at: http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20040714.htm
+**Anarchism Interview: Noam Chomsky interviewed by Ziga Vodovnik**, available at: <http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20040714.htm>
-**Letters from Lexington: Reflections on Propaganda**, Common Courage Press/AK Press, Monroe/Edinburgh, 1993.
+**Letters from Lexington: Reflections on Propaganda**, Common Courage Press/AK Press, Monroe/Edinburgh, 1993.
-**Chomsky on Anarchism**, AK Press, Edinburgh/Oakland, 2005.
+**Chomsky on Anarchism**, AK Press, Edinburgh/Oakland, 2005.
-**Government in the Future**, Seven Stories Press, New York, 2005.
+**Government in the Future**, Seven Stories Press, New York, 2005.
-**Propaganda and the Public Mind: Conversations with Noam Chomsky**, Pluto Press, London, 2001.
+**Propaganda and the Public Mind: Conversations with Noam Chomsky**, Pluto Press, London, 2001.
-**Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy**, Hamish Hamilton, London, 2006.
+**Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy**, Hamish Hamilton, London, 2006.
-**The Culture of Terrorism**, Pluto Press, London, 1989.
+**The Culture of Terrorism**, Pluto Press, London, 1989.
-**Imperial Ambitions: Conversations with Noam Chomsky on the post-9/11 World**, Penguin Books, London, 2005.
+**Imperial Ambitions: Conversations with Noam Chomsky on the post-9/11 World**, Penguin Books, London, 2005.
-**Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media**, Mark Achbar (ed.), Black Rose Books, Quebec/New York, 1994.
+**Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media**, Mark Achbar (ed.), Black Rose Books, Quebec/New York, 1994.
-**Reluctant Icon: Noam Chomsky interviewed by Tim Halle** available at http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1999----.htm
+**Reluctant Icon: Noam Chomsky interviewed by Tim Halle** available at <http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1999----.htm>
Christie, Stuart, **We, the Anarchists! A Study of the Iberian Anarchist
Federation (FAI) 1927-1927**, The Meltzer Press and Jura Media,
Hastings/Petersham, 2000.
-**My Granny made me an Anarchist (The Christie File part 1, 1946-1964)**, Christie Books, Hastings, 2002.
+**My Granny made me an Anarchist (The Christie File part 1, 1946-1964)**, Christie Books, Hastings, 2002.
-Christie, Stuart and Meltzer, Albert, **The Floodgates of Anarchy**, Kahn &
-Averill, Southampton, 1984.
+Christie, Stuart and Meltzer, Albert, **The Floodgates of Anarchy**, Kahn
+& Averill, Southampton, 1984.
Ciliga, Ante, **The Russian Enigma**, Ink Links Ltd, London, 1979.
@@ -376,24 +376,24 @@ Power**, Black Rose Books, Montreal, 1984.
Clark, John P., **Max Stirner's Egoism**, Freedom Press, London, 1976.
Clark, John P and Martin, Camille (eds.), **Anarchy, Geography, Modernity: The
-Radical Social Thought of Elise Reclus**, Lexington Books, Lanham, 2004.
+Radical Social Thought of Elisée Reclus**, Lexington Books, Lanham, 2004.
Cleaver, Harry, **Reading Capital Politically**, AK Press/Anti-theses, London,
-2000\.
+2000.
-Cohn-Bendit, Daniel & Gabriel, **Obsolete Communism: The Left-Wing
-Alternative**, AK Press, Edinburgh, London & San Franciso, 2000\.
+Cohn-Bendit, Daniel & Gabriel, **Obsolete Communism: The Left-Wing
+Alternative**, AK Press, Edinburgh, London & San Franciso, 2000.
Cole, G.D.H., **Guild Socialism Restated**, Transaction Books, New Brunswick,
-1980\.
+1980.
-**Self-Government in Industry**, Hutchinson Educational, London, 1972\.
+**Self-Government in Industry**, Hutchinson Educational, London, 1972.
Comfort, Alex, **Authority and Delinquency in the Modern State: A
Criminological Approach to the Problem of Power**, Routledge and Kegan Paul,
-1950\.
+1950.
-**Writings against Power and Death: The Anarchist articles and Pamphlets of Alex Comfort**, David Goodway (ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1994.
+**Writings against Power and Death: The Anarchist articles and Pamphlets of Alex Comfort**, David Goodway (ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1994.
Crump, John, **Hatta Shuzo and Pure Anarchism in Interwar Japan**, St.
Martin's Press, Inc., New York, 1993.
@@ -404,18 +404,18 @@ Publishing Co., Chicago, 1984.
de Cleyre, Voltairine, **The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader**, A.J. Brigati
(ed.), AK Press, Oakland/Edinburgh, 2004.
-**Exquisite Rebel: The Essays of Voltairine de Cleyre -- Anarchist, Feminist, Genius**, Sharon Presley and Crispin Sartwell (eds.), State University of New York Press, New York, 2005.
+**Exquisite Rebel: The Essays of Voltairine de Cleyre -- Anarchist, Feminist, Genius**, Sharon Presley and Crispin Sartwell (eds.), State University of New York Press, New York, 2005.
_"Anarchism"_, pp. 30-34, **Man!**, M. Graham (ed.), Cienfuegos Press, London,
1974.
-**Direct Action**, available at http://www.etext.org/Politics/Spunk/library/writers/decleyre/sp001334.html
+**Direct Action**, available at <http://www.etext.org/Politics/Spunk/library/writers/decleyre/sp001334.html>
-**The Economic Tendency of Freethought**, available at http://alumni.umbc.edu/~akoont1/tmh/voltair.html
+**The Economic Tendency of Freethought**, available at <http://alumni.umbc.edu/~akoont1/tmh/voltair.html>
-**Anarchism and American Traditions**, available at http://alumni.umbc.edu/~akoont1/tmh/vdc.html
+**Anarchism and American Traditions**, available at <http://alumni.umbc.edu/~akoont1/tmh/vdc.html>
-**The First Mayday: The Haymarket Speeches 1895-1910**, Cienfuegos Press, Libertarian Book Club and Soil of liberty, Orkney/ Minneapolis, 1980
+**The First Mayday: The Haymarket Speeches 1895-1910**, Cienfuegos Press, Libertarian Book Club and Soil of liberty, Orkney/ Minneapolis, 1980
de Ligt, Bart, **The Conquest of Violence**, Pluto Press, London, 1989.
@@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ Workers Solidarity Movement, Dublin, 1989.
Direct Action Movement, **Winning the Class War: An Anarcho-Syndicalist
Strategy**, Direct Action Movement-IWA, Manchester/Glasgow, 1991.
-**Direct Action in Industry**, available at: http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/practice/sp001703.html
+**Direct Action in Industry**, available at: <http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/practice/sp001703.html>
Dobson, V.G., **Bringing the Economy Home from the Market**, Black Rose Books,
Montreal, 1993.
@@ -443,18 +443,18 @@ Montreal, 1993.
Dolgoff, Sam, **The Cuban Revolution: A Critical Perspective**, Black Rose
Books, Montreal, 1976.
-**The American Labour Movement: A New Beginning**, Resurgence, Champaign, Il., 1980.
+**The American Labour Movement: A New Beginning**, Resurgence, Champaign, Il., 1980.
-**A Critique of Marxism**, Soil of Liberty, Minneapolis, unknown.
+**A Critique of Marxism**, Soil of Liberty, Minneapolis, unknown.
Draughn, Jeff, **Between Anarchism and Libertarianism: Defining a New
-Movement**, available at http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/between.html
+Movement**, available at <http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/between.html>
Ervin, Lorenzo Kom'boa, **Anarchism and the Black Revolution**, Monkeywrench
-Press and the Workers Self-Education Foundation, Philadelphia, 1994\.
+Press and the Workers Self-Education Foundation, Philadelphia, 1994.
Fabbri, Luigi, **Bourgeois Influences on Anarchism**, Acrata Press, San
-Francisco, 1987\.
+Francisco, 1987.
_"Anarchy and 'Scientific' Communism"_, in **The Poverty of Statism**, pp.
13-49, Albert Meltzer (ed.), Cienfuegos Press, Sanday, 1981
@@ -462,7 +462,7 @@ _"Anarchy and 'Scientific' Communism"_, in **The Poverty of Statism**, pp.
Fernandez, Frank, **Cuban Anarchism: The History of a Movement**, See Sharp
Press, Tucson, 2001.
-Fleming, Marie, **The Geography of Freedom: The Odyssey of Elise Reclus**,
+Fleming, Marie, **The Geography of Freedom: The Odyssey of Elisée Reclus**,
Black Rose Books, Montreal/New York, 1988.
Foner, Philip S. (ed.), **The Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs**,
@@ -480,7 +480,7 @@ Fotopoulos, Takis, _"The Economic Foundations of an Ecological Society"_,
_"The Nation-state and the Market,"_ **Society and Nature**, No. 5 (vol. 2,
no. 2), pp. 37-80.
-**Towards an Inclusive Democracy: The crisis of the growth economy and the need for a new liberatory Project**, Cassell, London/New York, 1997.
+**Towards an Inclusive Democracy: The crisis of the growth economy and the need for a new liberatory Project**, Cassell, London/New York, 1997.
Ford, Earl C. and Foster, William Z., **Syndicalism**, Charles H. Keer
Publishing Co., Chicago, 1990.
@@ -492,41 +492,42 @@ Fernandez, Neil C., **Capitalism and Class Struggle in the USSR: A Marxist
Theory**, Ashgate, Aldershot, 1997.
Friends of Durruti, **Towards a Fresh Revolution**, available at:
-http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/fod/towardsintro.html
+<http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/fod/towardsintro.html>
-**The Friends of Durruti Accuse**, available at: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8195/Durruti.html
+**The Friends of Durruti Accuse**, available at: <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8195/Durruti.html>
Fromm, Erich, **To Have Or To Be?**, Abacus, London, 1993.
-**Man for Himself: An Enquiry into the Psychology of Ethics**, Ark Paperbacks, London, 1986.
+**Man for Himself: An Enquiry into the Psychology of Ethics**, Ark Paperbacks, London, 1986.
-**The Sane Society**, Kegan Paul, 1959.
+**The Sane Society**, Kegan Paul, 1959.
-**The Fear of Freedom**, Ark Paperbacks, London, 1989.
+**The Fear of Freedom**, Ark Paperbacks, London, 1989.
Galleani, Luigi, **The End of Anarchism?**, Cienfuegos Press, Orkney, 1982.
Godwin, William, **The Anarchist Writings of William Godwin**, Peter Marshall
-(ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1986.
-
-**An Enquiry concerning Political Justice**, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1976
+(ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1986. **An Enquiry concerning Political
+Justice**, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1976
Goldman, Emma, **Red Emma Speaks: An Emma Goldman Reader**, 3rd Edition, Alix
Kates Shulman (ed.), Humanity Books, New York, 1998.
-**Red Emma Speaks**, Alix Kates Shulman (ed.), Wildwood House, London, 1979.
+**Red Emma Speaks**, Alix Kates Shulman (ed.), Wildwood House, London, 1979.
+
+**Anarchism and Other Essays**, Dover Publications Ltd., New York, 1969.
-**Anarchism and Other Essays**, Dover Publications Ltd., New York, 1969.
+**Vision on Fire: Emma Goldman on the Spanish Revolution**, Commonground Press, New Paltz New York, 1985.
-**Vision on Fire: Emma Goldman on the Spanish Revolution**, Commonground Press, New Paltz New York, 1985.
+**My Disillusionment in Russia**, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York, 1970.
-**My Disillusionment in Russia**, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York, 1970.
+**Living My Life** (in 2 volumes), Dover Publications, New York, 1970.
-**Living My Life** (in 2 volumes), Dover Publications, New York, 1970.
+**Emma Goldman: A Documentary History of the American Years volume 1: Made for America, 1890-1901**, Candace Falk (ed.), University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London, 2003.
-**Emma Goldman: A Documentary History of the American Years volume 1: Made for America, 1890-1901**, Candace Falk (ed.), University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London, 2003\.
+**Emma Goldman: A Documentary History of the American Years volume 2: Making Speech Free, 1902-1909**, Candace Falk (ed.), University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London, 2005.
-**Emma Goldman: A Documentary History of the American Years volume 2: Making Speech Free, 1902-1909**, Candace Falk (ed.), University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London, 2005\.
+**Writings of Emma Goldman: Essays on Anarchism, Feminism, Socialism, and Communism**, Red and Black Publishers, St. Petersburg, Florida, 2013
Goodway, David, **Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought
and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward**, Liverpool University
@@ -540,25 +541,28 @@ Gorter, Herman, **Open Letter to Comrade Lenin**, Wildcat, 1989.
Graeber, David, **Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology**, Prickly Paradigm
Press, Chicago, 2004.
-**Possibilities: Essays on Hierarchy, Rebellion, and Desire**, AK Press, Edinburgh/Oakland, 2007.
+**Possibilities: Essays on Hierarchy, Rebellion, and Desire**, AK Press, Edinburgh/Oakland, 2007.
Green Anarchy, **Against Mass Society**, available at:
-http://www.primitivism.com/mass-society.htm
+<http://www.primitivism.com/mass-society.htm>
Greene, William B., **Mutual Banking**, West Brookfield, 1850.
Guerin, Daniel, **Anarchism: From Theory to Practice**, Monthly Review Press,
New York/London, 1970.
-**Class Struggle in the First French Republic: Bourgeois and Bras Nus 1793-1795**, Pluto Press, London, 1977.
+**Class Struggle in the First French Republic: Bourgeois and Bras Nus 1793-1795**, Pluto Press, London, 1977.
Harper, Clifford, **Anarchy: A Graphic Guide**, Camden Press, London, 1987.
+Hoffman, Robert L., **Revolutionary Justice: The Social and Political Theory
+of P.J. Proudhon**, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1972.
+
International Workers Association, **Principles, Aims and Statutes of the
International Workers Association**, Monty Millar Press, Broadway, 1983.
Industrial Workers of the World, **How to fire your boss**, available at:
-http://fletcher.iww.org/direct_action/title.html
+<http://fletcher.iww.org/direct_action/title.html>
Kelman, James, **Some Recent Attacks: Essays Cultural and Political**, AK
Press, Stirling, 1992.
@@ -577,7 +581,7 @@ Journal of Desire Armed**, no. 34, pp. 59-62.
Knabb, Ken, **Public Secrets**, Bureau of Public Secrets, Berkeley, 1997.
-**The Poverty of Primitivism**, available at http://www.slip.net/~knabb/CF/primitivism.htm
+**The Poverty of Primitivism**, available at <http://www.slip.net/~knabb/CF/primitivism.htm>
Knabb, Ken (ed.), **Situationist International Anthology**, Bureau of Public
Secrets, Berkeley, 1981.
@@ -585,48 +589,50 @@ Secrets, Berkeley, 1981.
Kropotkin, Peter, **Anarchism: A Collection of Revolutionary Writings**, Roger
N. Baldwin (ed.), Dover Press, New York, 2002.
-**Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets**, R.N. Baldwin (ed.), Dover Press, New York, 1970.
+**Act for Yourselves: articles from Freedom 1886-1907**, N. Walter and H. Becker (eds), Freedom Press, London, 1988.
-**Act for Yourselves: articles from Freedom 1886-1907**, N. Walter and H. Becker (eds), Freedom Press, London, 1988.
+**Ethics: Origin and Development**, Blom, 1968.
-**Ethics: Origin and Development**, Blom, 1968.
+**Mutual Aid**, Freedom Press, London, 1987.
-**Mutual Aid**, Freedom Press, London, 1987.
+**The Conquest of Bread**, Elephant Editions, Catania, 1985.
-**The Conquest of Bread**, Elephant Editions, Catania, 1985.
+**The State: Its Historic Role**, Freedom Press, London, 1987.
-**The State: Its Historic Role**, Freedom Press, London, 1987.
+**Anarchism and Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Principles**, Freedom Press, London, 1987.
-**Anarchism and Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Principles**, Freedom Press, London, 1987.
+**The Great French Revolution** (in two volumes), Elephant Editions, Catania, 1986.
-**The Great French Revolution** (in two volumes), Elephant Editions, Catania, 1986.
+**Words of a Rebel**, Black Rose Books, Montreal, 1992.
-**Words of a Rebel**, Black Rose Books, Montreal, 1992.
+**Evolution and Environment**, Black Rose Books, Montreal, 1995.
-**Evolution and Environment**, Black Rose Books, Montreal, 1995.
+**Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow**, Colin Ward (ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1985.
-**Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow**, Colin Ward (ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1985.
+**Direct Struggle Against Capital: A Peter Kropotkin Anthology**, Iain McKay (ed.), AK Press, Edinburgh, Oakland, Baltimore, 2014.
-**Small Communal Experiments and Why They Fail**, Jura Media, Sydney, 1997.
+**Small Communal Experiments and Why They Fail**, Jura Media, Sydney, 1997.
-**The Place of Anarchism in Socialistic Evolution**, Practical Parasite Publications, Cymru, 1990.
+**The Place of Anarchism in Socialistic Evolution**, Practical Parasite Publications, Cymru, 1990.
-**Selected Writings on Anarchism and Revolution**, Martin A. Miller (ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge, 1970.
+**Selected Writings on Anarchism and Revolution**, Martin A. Miller (ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge, 1970.
-**Memiors of a Revolutionist**, Black Rose Books, Montreal/New York, 1989.
+**Memiors of a Revolutionist**, Black Rose Books, Montreal/New York, 1989.
-**The Conquest of Bread and Other Writings**, Unversity Press, Cambridge, 1995.
+**The Conquest of Bread and Other Writings**, Unversity Press, Cambridge, 1995.
+
+**Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets**, R.N. Baldwin (ed.), Dover Press, New York, 1970.
_"Syndicalism and Anarchism"_, **Black Flag**, no. 211, pp. 16-19.
-**The Commune of Paris**, available at: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/pcommune.html
+**The Commune of Paris**, available at: <http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/pcommune.html>
Labadie, Joseph A., **Anarchism: What It Is and What It Is Not**, available
-at: http://alumni.umbc.edu/~akoont1/tmh/anar_jal.html
+at: <http://alumni.umbc.edu/~akoont1/tmh/anar_jal.html>
-**Different Phases of the Labour Question**, available at: http://members.aol.com/labadiejo/page11.html
+**Different Phases of the Labour Question**, available at: <http://members.aol.com/labadiejo/page11.html>
-**What is Socialism?**, available at: http://members.aol.com/labadiejo/page7.html
+**What is Socialism?**, available at: <http://members.aol.com/labadiejo/page7.html>
Landauer, Gustav, **For Socialism**, Telos Press, St. Louis, 1978.
@@ -643,18 +649,18 @@ London, 1975.
Levy, Carl, **Gramsci and the Anarchists**, Berg, Oxford, 1999.
-Magn, Ricardo Flores, **Dreams of Freedom: A Ricardo Flores Magn Reader**, AK
-Press, Edinburgh/Oakland, 2005.
+Magón, Ricardo Flores, **Dreams of Freedom: A Ricardo Flores Magón Reader**,
+AK Press, Edinburgh/Oakland, 2005.
-**Land and Liberty: Anarchist influences in the Mexican Revolution**, David Poole (ed.), Cienfuegos Press, Sanday, 1977.
+**Land and Liberty: Anarchist influences in the Mexican Revolution**, David Poole (ed.), Cienfuegos Press, Sanday, 1977.
Mailer, Phil, **Portugal: The Impossible Revolution**, Solidarity, London,
-1977\.
+1977.
Makhno, Nestor, **The Struggle Against the State and other Essays**, AK Press,
Edinburgh/San Francisco, 1996.
-**My Visit to the Kremlin**, Kate Sharpley Library, London, 1993.
+**My Visit to the Kremlin**, Kate Sharpley Library, London, 1993.
Makhno, Nestor, Ida Mett, Piotr Archinov, Valevsky, Linsky, **The
Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists**, Workers Solidarity
@@ -662,19 +668,19 @@ Movement, Dublin, 1989.
Malatesta, Errico, **Anarchy**, Freedom Press, London, 2001.
-**Anarchy**, Freedom Press, London, 1974.
+**Anarchy**, Freedom Press, London, 1974.
-**Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, 3rd Edition, Vernon Richards (ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1993.
+**Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, 3rd Edition, Vernon Richards (ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1993.
-**Life and Ideas**, Vernon Richards (ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1965.
+**Life and Ideas**, Vernon Richards (ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1965.
-**The Anarchist Revolution**, Vernon Richards (ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1995.
+**The Anarchist Revolution**, Vernon Richards (ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1995.
-**Fra Contadini: A Dialogue on Anarchy**, Bratach Dudh Editions, Catena, 1981.
+**Fra Contadini: A Dialogue on Anarchy**, Bratach Dudh Editions, Catena, 1981.
-**At the Cafe: Conversations on Anarchism**, Freedom Press, London, 2005.
+**At the Cafe: Conversations on Anarchism**, Freedom Press, London, 2005.
-**A Talk about Anarchist Communism**, Freedom Press, London, 1894\.
+**A Talk about Anarchist Communism**, Freedom Press, London, 1894.
_"Towards Anarchism"_, pp. 73-78, **Man!**, M. Graham (ed.), Cienfuegos Press,
London, 1974.
@@ -690,9 +696,8 @@ Anarchism in America, 1827-1908**, Ralph Myles Publisher Inc., Colorado
Springs, 1970.
Marshall, Peter, **Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism**,
-Fontana, London, 1993.
-
-**Nature's Web: An Exploration of Ecological Thinking**, Simon & Schuster, London, 1992.
+Fontana, London, 1993. **Nature's Web: An Exploration of Ecological
+Thinking**, Simon & Schuster, London, 1992.
Marzocchi, Umberto, **Remembering Spain: Italian Anarchist Volunteers the
Spanish Civil War**, Kate Sharpley Library, London, 1991.
@@ -700,18 +705,18 @@ Spanish Civil War**, Kate Sharpley Library, London, 1991.
Mattick, Paul, **Economic Crisis and Crisis Theory**, M.E. Sharpe, White
Plains, New York, 1981.
-**Economics, Politics, and the Age of Inflation**, Merlin Press, London, 1978.
+**Economics, Politics, and the Age of Inflation**, Merlin Press, London, 1978.
-**Anti-Bolshevik Communism**, Merlin Press, London, 1978.
+**Anti-Bolshevik Communism**, Merlin Press, London, 1978.
-**Marx and Keynes: The Limits of the Mixed Economy**, Merlin Press, London, 1971.
+**Marx and Keynes: The Limits of the Mixed Economy**, Merlin Press, London, 1971.
-**Marxism: The Last Refuge of the Bourgeoisie?**, M. E. Sharpe, Inc./Merlin Press, Armonk/London, 1983.
+**Marxism: The Last Refuge of the Bourgeoisie?**, M. E. Sharpe, Inc./Merlin Press, Armonk/London, 1983.
Maximoff, G. P., **Program of Anarcho-Syndicalism**, Monty Miller Press,
Sydney, 1985.
-**The Guillotine at Work: twenty years of terror in Russia (data and documents)**, Chicago Section of the Alexander Berkman Fund, Chicago, 1940.
+**The Guillotine at Work: twenty years of terror in Russia (data and documents)**, Chicago Section of the Alexander Berkman Fund, Chicago, 1940.
Maximoff, G. P (ed.), **Constructive Anarchism**, Monty Miller Press, Sidney,
1988.
@@ -722,11 +727,11 @@ Montreal/New York, 1989
Meltzer, Albert, **I Couldn't Paint Golden Angels**, AK Press, Edinburgh,
1996.
-**Anarchism: Arguments for and against**, 7th Revised Edition, AK Press, Edinbrugh/San Francisco, 2000.
+**Anarchism: Arguments for and against**, 7th Revised Edition, AK Press, Edinbrugh/San Francisco, 2000.
-**Anarchism: Arguments for and against**, 3rd Edition, Black Flag, London, 1986.
+**Anarchism: Arguments for and against**, 3rd Edition, Black Flag, London, 1986.
-**The Anarcho-Quiz Book**, Simian Publications, Orkney, 1976.
+**The Anarcho-Quiz Book**, Simian Publications, Orkney, 1976.
Meltzer, Albert (ed.), **The Poverty of Statism**, Cienfuegos Press, Orkney,
1981.
@@ -737,26 +742,28 @@ Michel, Louise, **The Red Virgin: Memoirs of Louise Michel**, The University
of Alabama Press, Alabama, 1981
Moorcock, Michael, **Starship Stormtroopers**, available at:
-http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/Moorcock.html
+<http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/Moorcock.html>
Moore, John, **Primitivist Primer**, available at:
-http://lemming.mahost.org/johnmoore/primer.htm
+<http://lemming.mahost.org/johnmoore/primer.htm>
Morris, Brian, **Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom**, Black Rose Books,
Montreal, 1993.
-**Ecology and Anarchism: Essays and Reviews on Contemporary Thought**, Images Publishing (Malvern) Ltd, Malvern Wells, 1996.
+**Ecology and Anarchism: Essays and Reviews on Contemporary Thought**, Images Publishing (Malvern) Ltd, Malvern Wells, 1996.
-**Kropotkin: The Politics of Community**, Humanity Books, New York, 2004.
+**Kropotkin: The Politics of Community**, Humanity Books, New York, 2004.
Morris, William, **Political Writings: Contributions to Justice and Commonweal
1883-1890**, Thoemmes Press, Bristol, 1994.
-**A Factory As it Might Be**, Mushroom Bookshop, Nottingham, 1994.
+**A Factory As it Might Be**, Mushroom Bookshop, Nottingham, 1994.
Nettlau, Max, **A Short History of Anarchism**, Freedom Press, London, 1996.
-**Errico Malatesta: The Biography of an Anarchist**, available at: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/malatesta/nettlau/nettlauonmalatesta.html
+**Errico Malatesta: The Biography of an Anarchist**, available at: [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/malatesta/nettlau/nettlauo...](http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/malatesta/nettlau/nettlauonmalatesta.html "http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/malatesta/nettlau/nettlauonmalatesta.html" )
+
+
Nursey-Bray, Paul, **Anarchist Thinkers and Thought: an annotated
bibliography**, Greenwood Press, New York, 1992.
@@ -766,13 +773,13 @@ London, 1997.
Pannekeok, Anton, **Workers' Councils**, AK Press, Oakland/Edinburgh, 2003.
-**Lenin as Philosopher: A Critical Examination of the Philosophical Basis of Leninism**, Merlin Press, London, 1975\.
+**Lenin as Philosopher: A Critical Examination of the Philosophical Basis of Leninism**, Merlin Press, London, 1975.
Parsons, Albert R., **Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis**,
University Press of the Pacific, Honolulu, 2003.
-Parsons, Lucy, **Freedom, Equality & Solidarity: Writings & Speeches,
-1878-1937**, Gale Ahrens (ed.), Charles H. Kerr, Chicago, 2004\.
+Parsons, Lucy, **Freedom, Equality & Solidarity: Writings & Speeches,
+1878-1937**, Gale Ahrens (ed.), Charles H. Kerr, Chicago, 2004.
Pataud, Emile and Pouget, Emile, **How we shall bring about the Revolution:
Syndicalism and the Co-operative Commonwealth**, Pluto Press, London, 1990.
@@ -780,56 +787,60 @@ Syndicalism and the Co-operative Commonwealth**, Pluto Press, London, 1990.
Pateman, Carole, **The Problem of Political Obligation: A Critique of Liberal
Theory**, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1985.
-**The Sexual Contract**, Polity, Cambridge, 1988.
+**The Sexual Contract**, Polity, Cambridge, 1988.
-**Participation and Democratic Theory**, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1970.
+**Participation and Democratic Theory**, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1970.
-**The Disorder of Women: Democracy, Feminism and Political theory**, Polity, Cambridge, 1989.
+**The Disorder of Women: Democracy, Feminism and Political theory**, Polity, Cambridge, 1989.
Paz, Abel, **Durruti: The People Armed**, Black Rose Books, Montreal, 1976.
-**The Spanish Civil War**, Pocket Archives, Hazan, Paris, 1997.
+**The Spanish Civil War**, Pocket Archives, Hazan, Paris, 1997.
-**Durruti in the Spanish Revolution**, AK Press, Edinburgh/Oakland, 2007\.
+**Durruti in the Spanish Revolution**, AK Press, Edinburgh/Oakland, 2007.
Peacott, Joe, **Individualism and Inequality**, available at:
-http://world.std.com/~bbrigade/TL anarchy and inequality.htm
+<http://world.std.com/~bbrigade/TL> anarchy and inequality.htm
-**Individualism Reconsidered**, available at: http://world.std.com/~bbrigade/badpp3.htm
+**Individualism Reconsidered**, available at: <http://world.std.com/~bbrigade/badpp3.htm>
Peirats, Jose, **Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution**, Freedom Press,
London, 1990.
-**The CNT in the Spanish Revolution**, vol. 1, The Meltzer Press, Hastings, 2001.
+**The CNT in the Spanish Revolution**, vol. 1, The Meltzer Press, Hastings, 2001.
+
+**The CNT in the Spanish Revolution**, vol. 2, ChristieBooks.com, Hastings, 2005.
+
-**The CNT in the Spanish Revolution**, vol. 2, ChristieBooks.com, Hastings, 2005.
Piercy, Marge, **Woman on the Edge of Time**, The Woman's Press, London, 1995.
Pouget, Emile , **Direct Action**, Kate Sharpley Library, London, 2003.
-**The Party Of Labour**, available at: http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/archive/display/190/index.php
+**The Party Of Labour**, available at: <http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/archive/display/190/index.php>
Proudhon, P-J, **What is Property: an inquiry into the principle of right and
-of government**, William Reeves Bookseller Ltd., London, 1969\.
+of government**, William Reeves Bookseller Ltd., London, 1969.
-**System of Economical Contradictions: or, the Philosophy of Misery**, Benjamin Tucker, Boston, 1888.
+**System of Economical Contradictions: or, the Philosophy of Misery**, Benjamin Tucker, Boston, 1888.
-**The General Idea of the Revolution**, Pluto Press, London, 1989.
+**The General Idea of the Revolution**, Pluto Press, London, 1989.
-**Interest and Principal: A Loan is a Service** available at: http://www.pitzer.edu/~dward/Anarchist_Archives/proudhon/interestletter1.html
+**Interest and Principal: A Loan is a Service** available at: [http://www.pitzer.edu/~dward/Anarchist_Archives/proudhon/interestletter1...](http://www.pitzer.edu/~dward/Anarchist_Archives/proudhon/interestletter1.html "http://www.pitzer.edu/~dward/Anarchist_Archives/proudhon/interestletter1.html" )
-**Interest and Principal: The Circulation of Capital, Not Capital Itself, Gives Birth to Progress** available at: http://www.pitzer.edu/~dward/Anarchist_Archives/proudhon/interestletter2.html
+**Interest and Principal: The Circulation of Capital, Not Capital Itself, Gives Birth to Progress** available at: [http://www.pitzer.edu/~dward/Anarchist_Archives/proudhon/interestletter2...](http://www.pitzer.edu/~dward/Anarchist_Archives/proudhon/interestletter2.html "http://www.pitzer.edu/~dward/Anarchist_Archives/proudhon/interestletter2.html" )
-**Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon**, Stewart Edwards (ed.), MacMillan, London, 1969.
+**Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon**, Stewart Edwards (ed.), MacMillan, London, 1969.
-**The Principle of Federation**, University of Toronto Press, Canada, 1979.
+**The Principle of Federation**, University of Toronto Press, Canada, 1979.
-**Proudhon's Solution of the Social Problem**, Henry Cohen (ed.), Vanguard Press, New York, 1927.
+**Proudhon's Solution of the Social Problem**, Henry Cohen (ed.), Vanguard Press, New York, 1927.
-**Du Principe Fdratif et de la Ncessit De Reconstituer le Parti de la Rvolution**, E. Dentu, Paris, 1863.
+**Property is Theft! A Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Anthology**, Iain McKay (ed.), AK Press, Edinburgh, Oakland, Baltimore, 2011.
-**Carnets**, vol. 3, Marcel Riviere, Paris, 1968
+**Du Principe Fédératif et de la Nécessité De Reconstituer le Parti de la Révolution**, E. Dentu, Paris, 1863.
+
+**Carnets**, vol. 3, Marcel Riviere, Paris, 1968
Puente, Isaac, **Libertarian Communism**, Monty Miller Press, Sydney, 1985.
@@ -842,46 +853,46 @@ Anarchists**, Granada Publishing Ltd., London, 1978.
Read, Herbert, **Anarchy and Order: essays in politics**, Faber and Faber Ltd,
London, 1954.
-**A One-Man Manifesto and other writings from Freedom Press**, Freedom Press, London, 1994.
+**A One-Man Manifesto and other writings from Freedom Press**, Freedom Press, London, 1994.
Richards, Vernon, **Lessons of the Spanish Revolution**, 3rd Edition, Freedom
Press, London, 1983.
-**The Impossibilities of Social Democracy**, Freedom Press, London, 1978.
+**The Impossibilities of Social Democracy**, Freedom Press, London, 1978.
Richards, Vernon (ed.), **Neither Nationalisation nor Privatisation:
Selections from the Anarchist Journal Freedom 1945-1950**, Freedom Press,
London, 1989.
-**Spain 1936-39 Social revolution and Counter Revolution: Selections from the Anarchist fortnightly Spain and the World**, Freedom Press, London, 1990.
+**Spain 1936-39 Social revolution and Counter Revolution: Selections from the Anarchist fortnightly Spain and the World**, Freedom Press, London, 1990.
-**Why Work? Arguments for the Leisure Society**, Freedom Press, London, 1997.
+**Why Work? Arguments for the Leisure Society**, Freedom Press, London, 1997.
-**The May Days in Barcelona**, Freedom Press, London, 1987\.
+**The May Days in Barcelona**, Freedom Press, London, 1987.
-**World War - Cold War: Selections from the Anarchist Journals War Commentary and Freedom, 1939-1950**, Freedom Press, London, 1989.
+**World War - Cold War: Selections from the Anarchist Journals War Commentary and Freedom, 1939-1950**, Freedom Press, London, 1989.
-**The Left and World War II: Selections from the Anarchist Journal War Commentary 1939-1943**, Freedom Press, London, 1989.
+**The Left and World War II: Selections from the Anarchist Journal War Commentary 1939-1943**, Freedom Press, London, 1989.
Rocker, Rudolf, **Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice**, AK Press,
Edinburgh/Oakland, 2004.
-**Anarcho-Syndicalism**, Phoenix Press, London, 1988.
+**Anarcho-Syndicalism**, Phoenix Press, London, 1988.
-**Nationalism and Culture**, Michael E. Coughlin, Minnesota, 1978\.
+**Nationalism and Culture**, Michael E. Coughlin, Minnesota, 1978.
-**The London Years**, Five Leaves Publications/AK Press, Nottingham/Oakland, 2005.
+**The London Years**, Five Leaves Publications/AK Press, Nottingham/Oakland, 2005.
-**The Tragedy of Spain**, ASP, London & Doncaster, 1986.
+**The Tragedy of Spain**, ASP, London & Doncaster, 1986.
-**Anarchism and Sovietism**, available at: http://flag.blackened.net/rocker/soviet.htm
+**Anarchism and Sovietism**, available at: <http://flag.blackened.net/rocker/soviet.htm>
-**Marx and Anarchism**, available at: http://flag.blackened.net/rocker/marx.htm
+**Marx and Anarchism**, available at: <http://flag.blackened.net/rocker/marx.htm>
-**Pioneers of American Freedom: Origin of Liberal and Radical Thought in America**, Rocker Publications Committee, Los Angeles, 1949.
+**Pioneers of American Freedom: Origin of Liberal and Radical Thought in America**, Rocker Publications Committee, Los Angeles, 1949.
-Root & Branch (ed.), **Root & Branch: The Rise of the Workers Movements**,
-Fawcett Publications, Greenwich, Conn., 1975.
+Root & Branch (ed.), **Root & Branch: The Rise of the Workers
+Movements**, Fawcett Publications, Greenwich, Conn., 1975.
Rooum, Donald, **What is Anarchism? An Introduction**, Freedom Press, London,
1992.
@@ -889,12 +900,12 @@ Rooum, Donald, **What is Anarchism? An Introduction**, Freedom Press, London,
Roussopoulos, Dimitrios I. (ed.), **The Radical Papers**, Black Rose Books,
Montreal/New York, 1987.
-**The Anarchist Papers**, Black Rose Books, Montreal/New York, 2002.
+**The Anarchist Papers**, Black Rose Books, Montreal/New York, 2002.
Russell, Bertrand, **The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism**, George Allen and
Unwin Ltd., London, 1949.
-**Roads to Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism and Syndicalism**, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., London, 1973.
+**Roads to Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism and Syndicalism**, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., London, 1973.
Sabatini, Peter, _"Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy"_, **Anarchy: A Journal of
Desire Armed**, no. 41, Fall/Winter 1994-5
@@ -911,7 +922,7 @@ Human Condition Have Failed**, Yale University Press, New Haven and London,
1998.
Sheppard, Brian Oliver, **Anarchism vs. Primitivism**, See Sharpe Press,
-Tuscon, 2003\.
+Tuscon, 2003.
Shipway, Mark A. S., **Antiparliamentary Communism: The Movement for Workers'
Councils in Britain, 1917-45**, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 1988.
@@ -922,31 +933,31 @@ AK Press, Oakland/Edinburgh, 2006.
Skirda, Alexandre, **Nestor Makhno Anarchy's Cossack: The struggle for free
soviets in the Ukraine 1917-1921**, AK Press, Edinburgh/Oakland, 2004
-**Facing the Enemy: A History of Anarchist Organisation from Proudhon to May 1968**, AK Press, Edinburgh/Oakland, 2002.
+**Facing the Enemy: A History of Anarchist Organisation from Proudhon to May 1968**, AK Press, Edinburgh/Oakland, 2002.
_"The Rehabilitation of Makhno"_, **The Raven: Anarchist Quarterly**, no. 8
(Vol. 2, No. 4), Oct. 1989, Freedom Press, pp. 338-352
Smart, D.A. (ed.), **Pannekoek and Gorter's Marxism**, Pluto Press, London,
-1978\.
+1978.
Spooner, Lysander, **Natural Law**, available at
-http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/spoonnat.html
+<http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/spoonnat.html>
-**No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority**, Ralph Myles Publisher, Inc., Colorado Springs, 1973.
+**No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority**, Ralph Myles Publisher, Inc., Colorado Springs, 1973.
-**An essay on the Trial by Jury**, John P. Jewett and Co., Boston, 1852.
+**An essay on the Trial by Jury**, John P. Jewett and Co., Boston, 1852.
-**A Letter to Grover Cleveland**, Benjamin R. Tucker, Boston, 1886\.
+**A Letter to Grover Cleveland**, Benjamin R. Tucker, Boston, 1886.
-**Revolution: The Only Remedy For The Oppressed Classes Of Ireland, England, And Other Parts Of The British Empire**, available at: http://www.lysanderspooner.org/Revolution.htm
+**Revolution: The Only Remedy For The Oppressed Classes Of Ireland, England, And Other Parts Of The British Empire**, available at: <http://www.lysanderspooner.org/Revolution.htm>
-**Poverty: Its Illegal Causes and Legal Cure**, Bela Marsh, Boston, 1846.
+**Poverty: Its Illegal Causes and Legal Cure**, Bela Marsh, Boston, 1846.
-**The Law of Intellectual Property, or, An Essay on the Right of Authors and Inventors to a Perpetual Property in Their Ideas**, Boston, 1885.
+**The Law of Intellectual Property, or, An Essay on the Right of Authors and Inventors to a Perpetual Property in Their Ideas**, Boston, 1885.
Starhawk, _"Staying on the Streets,"_ contained in **On Fire: The Battle of
-Genoa and the anti-capitalist movement**, One Off Press, unknown, 2001\.
+Genoa and the anti-capitalist movement**, One Off Press, unknown, 2001.
Stirner, Max, **The Ego and Its Own**, Rebel Press, London, 1993.
@@ -954,7 +965,7 @@ Tolstoy, Leo, **The Kingdom of God is Within You: Christianity Not as a Mystic
Religion but as a New Theory of Life**, University of Nebraska Press, London,
1984.
-**The Slavery of Our Times**, John Lawrence, London, 1972.
+**The Slavery of Our Times**, John Lawrence, London, 1972.
Trotwatch, **Carry on Recruiting! Why the Socialist Workers Party dumped the
'downturn' in a 'dash for growth' and other party pieces**, AK
@@ -964,7 +975,7 @@ Tucker, Benjamin R., **Instead of a Book, by a man too busy to write one: a
fragmentary exposition of philosophical anarchism culled from the writings of
Benj. R. Tucker**, Haskell House Publishers, New York, 1969.
-**Occupancy and Use verses the Single Tax** available at: http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker32.html
+**Occupancy and Use verses the Single Tax** available at: <http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker32.html>
_"Why I am an Anarchist"_, pp. 132-136, **Man!**, M. Graham (ed.), Cienfuegos
Press, London, 1974.
@@ -976,39 +987,39 @@ London, 1991.
Vaneigem, Raoul, **The Revolution of Everyday Life**, Rebel Press/Left Bank
Books, London, 1994.
-Voline, **The Unknown Revolution**, Black & Red/Solidarity, Detroit/Chicago,
-1974\.
+Voline, **The Unknown Revolution**, Black & Red/Solidarity,
+Detroit/Chicago, 1974.
Walter, Nicolas, **About Anarchism**, Freedom Press, London, 2002.
-**The Anarchist Past and other essays**, Five Leaves Publications, Nottingham, 2007.
+**The Anarchist Past and other essays**, Five Leaves Publications, Nottingham, 2007.
Ward, Colin, **Anarchy in Action** (2nd Edition), Freedom Press, London, 1982.
-**Social Policy: an anarchist response**, Freedom Press, London, 2000.
+**Social Policy: an anarchist response**, Freedom Press, London, 2000.
-**Talking Houses**, Freedom Press, London, 1990.
+**Talking Houses**, Freedom Press, London, 1990.
-**Housing: An Anarchist Approach**, Freedom Press, London, 1983
+**Housing: An Anarchist Approach**, Freedom Press, London, 1983
-**Reflected in Water: A Crisis of Social Responsibility**, Cassel, London, 1997.
+**Reflected in Water: A Crisis of Social Responsibility**, Cassel, London, 1997.
-**Freedom to go: after the motor age**, Freedom Press, London, 1991.
+**Freedom to go: after the motor age**, Freedom Press, London, 1991.
-**Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction**, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004.
+**Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction**, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004.
-**Cotters and Squatters: Housing's Hidden History**, Five Leaves, Nottingham, 2005.
+**Cotters and Squatters: Housing's Hidden History**, Five Leaves, Nottingham, 2005.
Ward, Colin (ed.), **A Decade of Anarchy: Selections from the Monthly Journal
Anarchy**, Freedom , London, 1987.
Ward, Colin and Goodway, David, **Talking Anarchy**, Five Leaves, Nottingham,
-2003\.
+2003.
Watson, David, **Beyond Bookchin: Preface for a Future Social Ecology**,
Autonomedia/Black and Red/Fifth Estate, USA, 1996.
-**Against the Megamachine: Essays on Empire and Its Enemies**, Autonomedia/Fifth Estate, USA, 1997.
+**Against the Megamachine: Essays on Empire and Its Enemies**, Autonomedia/Fifth Estate, USA, 1997.
Weick, David, _"Anarchist Justice"_, pp. 215-36, **Anarchism: Nomos XIX**, J.
Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman (eds.), New York University Press, New
@@ -1017,9 +1028,9 @@ York, 1978.
Weil, Simone, **Oppression and Liberty**, Routledge, London, 2001.
Wetzel, Tom, **The Origins of the Union Shop**, available at:
-http://www.uncanny.net/~wsa/union3.html
+<http://www.uncanny.net/~wsa/union3.html>
-**Workers' Power and the Spanish Revolution**, available at: http://www.uncanny.net/~wsa/spain.html
+**Workers' Power and the Spanish Revolution**, available at: <http://www.uncanny.net/~wsa/spain.html>
Wildcat Group (ed.), **Class War on the Home Front: Revolutionary Opposition
to the Second World War**, Wildcat Group, Manchester, 1986.
@@ -1030,32 +1041,37 @@ works of Oscar Wilde**, HarperCollins Publishers, Glasgow, 1994.
Wilson, Charlotte, **Three Essays on Anarchism**, Drowned Rat Publications,
Cambridge, 1985.
-**Anarchist Essays **, Freedom Press, London, 2000.
+**Anarchist Essays **, Freedom Press, London, 2000.
+
Wilson, Robert Anton, **Natural Law: or don't put a rubber on your willy**,
Loompanics Ltd, Port Townsend, 1987.
Woodcock, George, **Anarchism: A History of libertarian ideas and movements**
(2nd Edition), Penguin Books, England, 1986.
-**Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: A Biography**, Black Rose Books, Montreal/New York, 1987.
+**Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: A Biography**, Black Rose Books, Montreal/New York, 1987.
+
+**Anarchy or Chaos**, Freedom Press, London, 1944.
+
+
Woodcock, G. and Avakumovic, I., **The Anarchist Prince**, Boardman, London,
-1950\.
+1950.
Zerzan, John, **Elements of Refusal**, Left Bank Books, Seattle, 1988.
-**On the Transition: Postscript to Future Primitive**, available at: http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/fp.htm
+**On the Transition: Postscript to Future Primitive**, available at: <http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/fp.htm>
Zinn, Howard, **A People's History of the United States**, 2nd Edition,
Longman, Essex, 1996.
-**Failure to Quit: Reflections of an Optimistic Historian**, Common Courage Press, Monroe Main, 1993.
+**Failure to Quit: Reflections of an Optimistic Historian**, Common Courage Press, Monroe Main, 1993.
-**The Colorado Coal Strike, 1913-14**, contained in **Three Strikes: Miners, Musicians, Salesgirls, and the Fighting Spirit of Labor's Last Century**, Howard Zinn, Dana Frank, Robin D. G. Kelly, Beacon Press, Boston, 2001.
+**The Colorado Coal Strike, 1913-14**, contained in **Three Strikes: Miners, Musicians, Salesgirls, and the Fighting Spirit of Labor's Last Century**, Howard Zinn, Dana Frank, Robin D. G. Kelly, Beacon Press, Boston, 2001.
-**The Zinn Reader: Writings on Disobedience and Democracy**, Seven Stories Press, New York, 1997.
+**The Zinn Reader: Writings on Disobedience and Democracy**, Seven Stories Press, New York, 1997.
-**An Interview with Howard Zinn on Anarchism: Rebels Against Tyranny**, available at: http://www.revolutionbythebook.akpress.org/an-interview-with-howard-zinn-on-anarchism-rebels-against-tyranny/
+**An Interview with Howard Zinn on Anarchism: Rebels Against Tyranny**, available at: [http://www.revolutionbythebook.akpress.org/an-interview-with-howard-zinn...](http://www.revolutionbythebook.akpress.org/an-interview-with-howard-zinn-on-anarchism-rebels-against-tyranny/ "http://www.revolutionbythebook.akpress.org/an-interview-with-howard-zinn-on-anarchism-rebels-against-tyranny/" )
Zinn, Howard and Arnove, Anthony (eds.), **Voices of a People's History of the
United States**, Seven Stories Press, New York, 2004.
@@ -1132,7 +1148,7 @@ Merithew, Caroline Waldron, _"Anarchist Motherhood: Toward the making of a
revolutionary Proletariat in Illinois Coal towns"_, pp. 217-246, Donna R.
Gabaccoia and Franca Iacovetta (eds.), **Women, Gender, and Transnational
Lives: Italian Workers of the World**, University of Toronto Press, Toronto,
-2002\.
+2002.
Miller, Martin A., **Kropotkin**, The University of Chicago Press, London,
1976.
@@ -1158,7 +1174,7 @@ Ukrainian Revolution**, University of Washington Press, Seattle, 1976.
Pernicone, Nunzio, **Italian Anarchism: 1864-1892**, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, 1993.
-**Carlo Tresca: Portrait of a Rebel**, Palgrave MacMillian, New York, 2005.
+**Carlo Tresca: Portrait of a Rebel**, Palgrave MacMillian, New York, 2005.
Pyziur, Eugene, **The Doctrine of Anarchism of Michael A. Bakunin**, Marquette
University Press, Milwaukee, 1955.
@@ -1225,7 +1241,7 @@ Aldershot, 1992.
Armstrong, Philip, Glyn, Andrew and Harrison, John, **Capitalism Since World
War II: The making and breakup of the great boom**, Fontana, London, 1984.
-**Capitalism Since 1945**, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1991.
+**Capitalism Since 1945**, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1991.
Arrow, Kenneth, _"Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for
Inventiveness,"_ in National Bureau of Economic Research, **The Rate and
@@ -1257,21 +1273,24 @@ Nicolson, London, 1982.
Baran, Paul A. and Sweezy, Paul M., **Monopoly Capital**, Monthly Press
Review, New York, 1966.
+Baron, Samuel H., **Plekhanov: the Father of Russian Marxism**, Routledge
+& K. Paul, London, 1963
+
Barry, Brian, _"The Continuing Relevance of Socialism"_, in **Thatcherism**,
-Robert Skidelsky (ed.), Chatto & Windus, London, 1988.
+Robert Skidelsky (ed.), Chatto & Windus, London, 1988.
Beder, Sharon, **Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism**,
Green Books, Dartington, 1997.
Beevor, Antony, **The Spanish Civil War**, Cassell, London, 1999.
-**The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939**, Phoenix, London, 2006.
+**The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939**, Phoenix, London, 2006.
Berghahn, V. R., **Modern Germany: society, economy and politics in the
twentieth century**, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987.
Berlin, Isaiah, **Four Essays on Liberty**, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
-1969\.
+1969.
Bernstein, Michael A., **The Great Depression: Delayed recovery and Economic
Change in America, 1929-1939**, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1987.
@@ -1287,10 +1306,10 @@ Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C, 1990.
Blum, William, **Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World
War II**, 2nd edition, Zed Books, London, 2003.
-**Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower**, 3rd edition, Zed Books, London, 2006.
+**Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower**, 3rd edition, Zed Books, London, 2006.
-Bhm-Bawerk, Eugen, **Capital and Interest**, Libertarian Press, South Holland,
-Ill., 1959.
+Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen, **Capital and Interest**, Libertarian Press, South
+Holland, Ill., 1959.
Bolloten, Burnett, **The Spanish Civil War: Revolution and Counter
Revolution**, Harvester-Wheatsheaf, New York, 1991.
@@ -1300,14 +1319,14 @@ Evolution**, Croom Helm , London, 1985.
Bourne, Randolph, **Untimely Papers**, B.W. Huebsch, New York, 1919.
-**War and the Intellectuals: Essays by Randolph S. Bourne 1915-1919**, Harper Torchbooks, New York, 1964.
+**War and the Intellectuals: Essays by Randolph S. Bourne 1915-1919**, Harper Torchbooks, New York, 1964.
Bowles, Samuel and Edwards, Richard (Eds.), **Radical Political Economy**,
(two volumes), Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Aldershot, 1990.
Bowles, Samuel and Gintis, Hebert, **Schooling in Capitalist America:
-Education Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life**, Routledge & Kegan
-Paul, London, 1976\.
+Education Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life**, Routledge &
+Kegan Paul, London, 1976.
Braverman, Harry, **Labour and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in
the Twentieth Century**, Monthly Review Press, New York, 1974.
@@ -1328,9 +1347,9 @@ Brovkin, Vladimir N., **From Behind the Front Lines of the Civil War:
political parties and social movements in Russia, 1918-1922**, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, N.J, 1994.
-**The Mensheviks After October: Socialist Opposition and the Rise of the Bolshevik Dictatorship**, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1987.
+**The Mensheviks After October: Socialist Opposition and the Rise of the Bolshevik Dictatorship**, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1987.
-**Russia after Lenin : politics, culture and society, 1921-1929**, Routledge, London/New York, 1998
+**Russia after Lenin : politics, culture and society, 1921-1929**, Routledge, London/New York, 1998
Brovkin, Vladimir N. (ed.), **The Bolsheviks in Russian Society: The
Revolution and Civil Wars**, Yale University Press, New Haven and London,
@@ -1344,7 +1363,7 @@ Spokesman, Nottingham, 1978-80.
Carr, Edward Hallett, **The Bolshevik Revolution: 1917-1923**, in three
volumes, Pelican Books, 1966.
-**The Interregnum 1923-1924**, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1969.
+**The Interregnum 1923-1924**, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1969.
Carr, Raymond, **Spain: 1808-1975**, 2nd Edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford,
1982.
@@ -1352,30 +1371,28 @@ Carr, Raymond, **Spain: 1808-1975**, 2nd Edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford,
Carrier, James G. (ed.), **Meanings of the market: the free market in western
culture**, Berg, Oxford, 1997.
-Chandler, Lester V., **America's Greatest Depression, 1929-1941**, Harper &
-Row, New York/London, 1970.
+Chandler, Lester V., **America's Greatest Depression, 1929-1941**, Harper
+& Row, New York/London, 1970.
Chang, Ha-Joon, **Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historic
Perspective**, Anthem Press, London, 2002.
-**Bad samaritans: rich nations, poor policies and the threat to the developing world**, Random House Business, London, 2007
+**Bad samaritans: rich nations, poor policies and the threat to the developing world**, Random House Business, London, 2007
Clark, J.B., **The Distribution of Wealth: A theory of wages, interest and
profits**, Macmillan, New York, 1927
Cliff, Tony, **Lenin: The Revolution Besieged**, vol. 3, Pluto Press, London,
-1978\.
-
-**Lenin: All Power to the Soviets**, vol. 2, Pluto Press, London, 1976\.
+1978. **Lenin: All Power to the Soviets**, vol. 2, Pluto Press, London, 1976.
-**State Capitalism in Russia**, Bookmarks, London, 1988.
+**State Capitalism in Russia**, Bookmarks, London, 1988.
_"Trotsky on Substitutionism"_, contained in Tony Cliff, Duncan Hallas, Chris
Harman and Leon Trotsky, **Party and Class**, Bookmarks, London, 1996.
-**Trotsky**, vol. 3, Bookmarks, London, 1991.
+**Trotsky**, vol. 3, Bookmarks, London, 1991.
-**Revolution Besieged: Lenin 1917-1923**, Bookmarks, London, 1987.
+**Revolution Besieged: Lenin 1917-1923**, Bookmarks, London, 1987.
Cohen, Stephan F., **Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution**, Oxford
University Press, London, 1980.
@@ -1405,7 +1422,7 @@ Cowling, Keith, **Monopoly Capitalism**, MacMillian, London, 1982.
Cowling, Keith and Sugden, Roger, **Transnational Monopoly Capitalism**,
Wheatshelf Books, Sussez, 1987.
-**Beyond Capitalism: Towards a New World Economic Order**, Pinter, London, 1994.
+**Beyond Capitalism: Towards a New World Economic Order**, Pinter, London, 1994.
Curry, Richard O. (ed.), **Freedom at Risk: Secrecy, Censorship, and
Repression in the 1980s**, Temple University Press, 1988.
@@ -1413,7 +1430,7 @@ Repression in the 1980s**, Temple University Press, 1988.
Curtis, Mark, **Web of Deceit: Britain's real role in the world**, Vintage,
London, 2003.
-**Unpeople: Britain's Secret Human Rights Abuses**, Vintage, London, 2004.
+**Unpeople: Britain's Secret Human Rights Abuses**, Vintage, London, 2004.
Daniels, Robert V., **The Conscience of the Revolution: Communist Opposition
in Soviet Russia**, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1960.
@@ -1424,10 +1441,10 @@ Vintage Books, New York, 1960.
Davidson, Paul, **Controversies in Post-Keynesian Economics**, E. Elgar,
Brookfield, Vt., USA, 1991.
-**John Maynard Keynes**, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2007
+**John Maynard Keynes**, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2007
-Davis, Mike, **Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nio Famines and the Making of the
-Third World**, Verso, London, 2002.
+Davis, Mike, **Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of
+the Third World**, Verso, London, 2002.
Denikin, General A., **The White Armies**, Jonathan Cape, London, 1930.
@@ -1439,8 +1456,8 @@ University Press, 1959.
Devine, Pat, **Democracy and Economic Planning**, Polity, Cambridge, 1988.
-Dobbs, Maurice, **Studies in Capitalist Development**, Routledge & Kegan Paul
-Ltd., London, 1963.
+Dobbs, Maurice, **Studies in Capitalist Development**, Routledge & Kegan
+Paul Ltd., London, 1963.
Dobson, Ross V. G., **Bringing the Economy Home from the Market**, Black Rose
Books, Montreal, 1993.
@@ -1449,8 +1466,7 @@ Domhoff, G. William, **Who Rules America Now? A view from the '80s**,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1983.
Donaldson, Peter, **A Question of Economics**, Penguin Books, London, 1985.
-
-**Economics of the Real World**, 3rd edition, Penguin books, London, 1984.
+**Economics of the Real World**, 3rd edition, Penguin books, London, 1984.
Dorril, Stephen and Ramsay, Robin, **Smear! Wilson and the Secret State**,
Fourth Estate Ltd., London, 1991.
@@ -1461,7 +1477,7 @@ Philip S. Foner (ed.) International Publishers, New York, 1975.
Draper, Hal, **The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' from Marx to Lenin**,
Monthly Review Press, New York, 1987.
-**The Myth of Lenin's "Concept of The Party"**, available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/works/1990/myth/myth.htm
+**The Myth of Lenin's "Concept of The Party"**, available at: <http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/works/1990/myth/myth.htm>
Du Boff, Richard B., **Accumulation and Power: an economic history of the
United States**, M.E. Sharpe, London, 1989.
@@ -1473,7 +1489,7 @@ Eastman, Max, **Since Lenin Died**, Boni and Liveright, New York, 1925.
Eatwell, Roger and Wright, Anthony (eds.), **Contemporary political
ideologies**, Pinter, London, 1993.
-Edwards, Stewart, **The Paris Commune 1871**, Victorian (& Modern History)
+Edwards, Stewart, **The Paris Commune 1871**, Victorian (& Modern History)
Book Club, Newton Abbot, 1972.
Edwards, Stewart (ed.), **The Communards of Paris, 1871**, Thames and Hudson,
@@ -1484,23 +1500,23 @@ Eisler, Rianne, **Sacred Pleasure**,
Ellerman, David P., **Property and Contract in Economics: The Case for
Economic Democracy**, Blackwell, Oxford, 1992.
-**The Democratic Worker-Owned Firm: A New Model for East and West**, Unwin Hyman, Boston, 1990.
+**The Democratic Worker-Owned Firm: A New Model for East and West**, Unwin Hyman, Boston, 1990.
as "J. Philmore", **The Libertarian Case for Slavery**, available at:
-http://cog.kent.edu/lib/Philmore1/Philmore1.htm
+<http://cog.kent.edu/lib/Philmore1/Philmore1.htm>
Elliot, Larry and Atkinson, Dan, **The Age of Insecurity**, Verso, London,
1998.
-**Fantasy Island: Waking Up to the Incredible Economic, Political and Social Illusions of the Blair Legacy**, Constable, London, 2007.
+**Fantasy Island: Waking Up to the Incredible Economic, Political and Social Illusions of the Blair Legacy**, Constable, London, 2007.
-**The Gods That Failed: Now the Financial Elite have Gambled Away our Futures**, Vintage Books, London, 2009.
+**The Gods That Failed: Now the Financial Elite have Gambled Away our Futures**, Vintage Books, London, 2009.
Engler, Allan, **Apostles of Greed: Capitalism and the myth of the individual
in the market**, Pluto Press, London, 1995.
Faiwel, G. R., **The Intellectual Capital of Michal Kalecki: A study in
-economic theory and policy**, University of Tennessee Press, 1975\.
+economic theory and policy**, University of Tennessee Press, 1975.
Farber, Samuel, **Before Stalinism: The Rise and Fall of Soviet Democracy**,
Polity Press, Oxford, 1990.
@@ -1512,12 +1528,12 @@ Ferguson, C. E., **The Neo-classical Theory of Production and Distribution**,
Cambridge University Press, London, 1969.
Ferro, Marc, **October 1917: A social history of the Russian Revolution**,
-Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1980.
+Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1980.
Figes, Orlando, **A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924**,
Jonathan Cape, London, 1996.
-**Peasant Russia, Civil War: the Volga countryside in revolution 1917-1921**, Phoenix Press, London, 2001.
+**Peasant Russia, Civil War: the Volga countryside in revolution 1917-1921**, Phoenix Press, London, 2001.
Flamm, Kenneth, **Creating the Computer: Government, Industry, and High
Technology**, The Brookings Institution, Washington D.C., 1988.
@@ -1538,13 +1554,13 @@ Friedman, David, **The Machinery of Freedom**, Harper and Row, New York, 1973.
Friedman, Milton, **Capitalism and Freedom**, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, 2002.
-**Economic Freedom, Human Freedom, Political Freedom**, available at: http://www.cbe.csueastbay.edu/~sbesc/frlect.html
+**Economic Freedom, Human Freedom, Political Freedom**, available at: <http://www.cbe.csueastbay.edu/~sbesc/frlect.html>
-**The Hong Kong Experiment**, available at: http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3532186.html
+**The Hong Kong Experiment**, available at: <http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3532186.html>
Funnell, Warrick, Jupe, Robert and Andrew, Jane, **In Government we Trust:
Market Failure and the delusions of privatisation**, Pluto Press, London,
-2009\.
+2009.
Gaffney, Mason and Harrison, Mason, **The Corruption of Economics**,
Shepheard-Walwyn (Publishers) Ltd., London, 1994.
@@ -1555,7 +1571,7 @@ Press, New York, 1999.
Galbraith, John Kenneth, **The Essential Galbraith**, Houghton Mifflin
Company, New York, 2001.
-**The New Industrial State**, 4th edition, Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford, 2007.
+**The New Industrial State**, 4th edition, Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford, 2007.
Gemie, Sharif, **French Revolutions, 1815-1914**, Edinburgh University Press,
Edinburgh, 1999.
@@ -1563,7 +1579,7 @@ Edinburgh, 1999.
Getzler, Israel, **Kronstadt 1917-1921: The Fate of a Soviet Democracy**,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983.
-**Martov: A Political Biography of a Russian Social Democrat**, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, 1967.
+**Martov: A Political Biography of a Russian Social Democrat**, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, 1967.
_"Soviets as Agents of Democratisation"_, in **Revolution in Russia:
reassessments of 1917**, Edith Rogovin Frankel, Jonathan Frankel, Baruch Knei-
@@ -1577,17 +1593,17 @@ Gilmour, Ian, **Dancing with Dogma, Britain Under Thatcherism**, Simon and
Schuster, London, 1992.
Glennerster, Howard and Midgley, James (eds.), **The Radical Right and the
-Welfare State: an international assessment**, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991\.
+Welfare State: an international assessment**, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991.
Gluckstein, Donny, **The Tragedy of Bukharin**, Pluto Press, London, 1994
-**The Paris Commune: A Revolutionary Democracy**, Bookmarks, London, 2006
+**The Paris Commune: A Revolutionary Democracy**, Bookmarks, London, 2006
Glyn, Andrew, **Capitalism Unleashed: Finance Globalisation and Welfare**,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006.
Glyn, Andrew and Miliband, David (eds.), **Paying for Inequality: The Economic
-Costs of Social Injustice**, IPPR/Rivers Oram Press, London, 1994\.
+Costs of Social Injustice**, IPPR/Rivers Oram Press, London, 1994.
Goodstein, Phil H., **The Theory of the General Strike from the French
Revolution to Poland**, East European Monographs, Boulder, 1984.
@@ -1595,7 +1611,7 @@ Revolution to Poland**, East European Monographs, Boulder, 1984.
Gould, Stephan Jay, **Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History**,
Penguin Books, London, 1991.
-**Bully for Brontosaurus: Reflections in Natural History**, Hutchinson Radius, London, 1991.
+**Bully for Brontosaurus: Reflections in Natural History**, Hutchinson Radius, London, 1991.
Gramsci, Antonio, **Selections from Political Writings (1921-1926)**, Lawrence
and Wishart, London, 1978.
@@ -1620,9 +1636,9 @@ Politics of South America**, Routledge, 1989.
Hahnel, Robin and Albert, Michael, **The Quiet Revolution in Welfare
Economics**, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1990.
-**The Political Economu of Participatory Economics**, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1991.
+**The Political Economu of Participatory Economics**, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1991.
-**Looking Forward: Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century**, South End Press, Boston, 1991.
+**Looking Forward: Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century**, South End Press, Boston, 1991.
Hallas, Duncan, **The Comintern**, Bookmarks, London, 1985.
@@ -1632,7 +1648,7 @@ Hallas, Chris Harman and Leon Trotsky, **Party and Class**, Bookmarks, London,
Harding, Neil, **Leninism**, MacMillan Press, London, 1996.
-**Lenin's political thought**, vol. 1, Macmillan, London, 1977.
+**Lenin's political thought**, vol. 1, Macmillan, London, 1977.
Harman, Chris, **Bureaucracy and Revolution in Eastern Europe**, Pluto Press,
London, 1974.
@@ -1640,7 +1656,7 @@ London, 1974.
_"Party and Class"_, contained in Tony Cliff, Duncan Hallas, Chris Harman and
Leon Trotsky, **Party and Class**, Bookmarks, London, 1996,
-**How the revolution was lost** available at: http://www.marxists.de/statecap/harman/revlost.htm
+**How the revolution was lost** available at: <http://www.marxists.de/statecap/harman/revlost.htm>
Hastrup, Kirsten, **Culture and History in Medieval Iceland**, Clarendon
Press, Oxford, 1985.
@@ -1659,15 +1675,15 @@ Routledge, London, 1994.
Hayek, F. A. von, **The Essence of Hayek**, Chiaki Nishiyama and Kurt Leube
(Eds.), Hoover Institution Press, Stanford, 1984
-**Individualism and Economic Order**, Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1948
+**Individualism and Economic Order**, Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1948
_"1980s Unemployment and the Unions"_ contained in Coates, David and Hillard,
John (Eds.), **The Economic Decline of Modern Britain: The Debate between Left
and Right**, Wheatsheaf Books Ltd., 1986.
-**New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas**, Routledge & Kegan Paul. London/Henley, 1978\.
+**New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas**, Routledge & Kegan Paul. London/Henley, 1978.
-**Law, Legislation and Liberty**, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1982.
+**Law, Legislation and Liberty**, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1982.
Hayek, F. A. von (ed.), **Collectivist Economic Planning**, Routledge and
Kegan Paul, London, 1935.
@@ -1688,22 +1704,26 @@ Henwood, Doug, **Wall Street: How it works and for whom**, Verso, London,
_"Booming, Borrowing, and Consuming: The US Economy in 1999"_, **Monthly
Review**, vol. 51, no. 3, July-August 1999, pp.120-33.
-**After the New Economy**, The New Press, New York, 2003.
+**After the New Economy**, The New Press, New York, 2003.
-**Wall Street: Class Racket**, available at http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/WS_Brecht.html
+**Wall Street: Class Racket**, available at <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/WS_Brecht.html>
Herbert, Auberon, _"Essay X: The Principles Of Voluntaryism And Free Life"_,
**The Right And Wrong Of Compulsion By The State, And Other Essays**,
available at:
-http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/LFBooks/Herbert0120/CompulsionByState/HTMLs/0146_Pt11_Principles.html
+[http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/LFBooks/Herbert0120/CompulsionByState/H...](http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/LFBooks/Herbert0120/CompulsionByState/HTMLs/0146_Pt11_Principles.html
+"http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/LFBooks/Herbert0120/CompulsionByState/HTMLs/0146_Pt11_Principles.html"
+)
_"Essay III: A Politician In Sight Of Haven"_, **The Right And Wrong Of
Compulsion By The State, And Other Essays**, available at:
-http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/LFBooks/Herbert0120/CompulsionByState/HTMLs/0146_Pt04_Politician.html
+[http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/LFBooks/Herbert0120/CompulsionByState/H...](http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/LFBooks/Herbert0120/CompulsionByState/HTMLs/0146_Pt04_Politician.html
+"http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/LFBooks/Herbert0120/CompulsionByState/HTMLs/0146_Pt04_Politician.html"
+)
Herman, Edward S., **Beyond Hypocrisy**, South End Press, Boston, 1992.
-**Corporate Control, Corporate Power**, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981.
+**Corporate Control, Corporate Power**, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981.
_"Immiserating Growth: The First World"_, **Z Magazine**, January, 1994.
@@ -1725,10 +1745,10 @@ Hobsbawm, Eric, **Primitive Rebels: Studies in Archaic Forms of Social
Movements in the 19th and 20th Centuries**, 2nd Edition, W. W. Norton and Co.,
New Yprk, 1965.
-**Revolutionaries**, rev. ed., Abacus, London, 2007.
+**Revolutionaries**, rev. ed., Abacus, London, 2007.
Hodgskin, Thomas, **Labour Defended against the Claims of Capital**, available
-at: http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/hodgskin/labdef.txt
+at: <http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/hodgskin/labdef.txt>
Hollis, Martin and Edward Nell, **Rational Economic Man: A Philosophical
Critique of Neo-classic Economics**, Cambridge University Press, London, 1975.
@@ -1739,7 +1759,7 @@ not the end of history**, Routledge, London/New York, 1999.
Hoppe, Hans-Hermann, **Democracy: The God That Failed: The Economics and
Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order**, Transaction, 2001.
-**Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography**, available at: http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe5.html
+**Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography**, available at: <http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe5.html>
Holt, Richard P. F. and Pressman, Steven (eds.), **A New Guide to Post
Keynesian Economics**, Routledge, London, 2001.
@@ -1749,29 +1769,31 @@ Orthodoxy**, Oxford University Press, New York, 2005.
Hutton, Will, **The State We're In**, Vintage, London, 1996.
-**The World We're In**, Little, Brown, London, 2002.
+**The World We're In**, Little, Brown, London, 2002.
Hutton, Will and Giddens, Anthony (eds.), **On The Edge: living with global
capitalism**, Jonathan Cape, London, 2000.
ISG, **Discussion Document of Ex-SWP Comrades**, available at:
-http://www.angelfire.com/journal/iso/isg.html
+<http://www.angelfire.com/journal/iso/isg.html>
-**Lenin vs. the SWP: Bureaucratic Centralism Or Democratic Centralism?**, available at: http://www.angelfire.com/journal/iso/swp.html
+**Lenin vs. the SWP: Bureaucratic Centralism Or Democratic Centralism?**, available at: <http://www.angelfire.com/journal/iso/swp.html>
Jackson, Gabriel, **The Spanish Republic and the Civil War, 1931-1939**,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1965.
+Jackson, J. Hampden, **Marx, Proudhon and European Socialism**, English
+Universities Press, London, 1957.
+
Johnson, Martin Phillip, **The Paradise of Association: Political Culture and
Popular Organisation in the Paris Commune of 1871**, University of Michigan
Press, Ann Arbor, 1996
Kaldor, Nicholas, **Further Essays on Applied Economics**, Duckworth, London,
-1978\.
+1978. **The Essential Kaldor**, F. Targetti and A.P. Thirlwall (eds.), Holmes
+& Meier, New York, 1989.
-**The Essential Kaldor**, F. Targetti and A.P. Thirlwall (eds.), Holmes & Meier, New York, 1989.
-
-**The Economic Consequences of Mrs Thatcher**, Gerald Duckworth and Co. Ltd, London, 1983.
+**The Economic Consequences of Mrs Thatcher**, Gerald Duckworth and Co. Ltd, London, 1983.
Kaplan, Frederick I., **Bolshevik Ideology and the Ethics of Soviet Labour,
1917-1920: The Formative Years**, Peter Owen, London, 1969.
@@ -1803,13 +1825,12 @@ Elgar, Cheltenham, 2002
Kirzner, Israel M., _"Entrepreneurship, Entitlement, and Economic Justice"_,
pp. 385-413, in **Reading Nozick: Essays on Anarchy, State and Utopia**,
-Jeffrey Paul (ed.), Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1982.
-
-**Perception, Opportunity, and Profit**, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1979.
+Jeffrey Paul (ed.), Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1982. **Perception, Opportunity,
+and Profit**, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1979.
Klein, Naomi, **No Logo**, Flamingo, London, 2001.
-**Fences and Windows: Dispatches from the front lines of the Globalisation Debate**, Flamingo, London, 2002.
+**Fences and Windows: Dispatches from the front lines of the Globalisation Debate**, Flamingo, London, 2002.
Koenker, Diane P., _"Labour Relations in Socialist Russia: Class Values and
Production Values in the Printers' Union, 1917-1921,"_ pp. 159-193,
@@ -1823,12 +1844,12 @@ Press, Indiana, 1989.
Kohn, Alfie, **No Contest: The Case Against Competition**, Houghton Mufflin
Co., New York, 1992.
-**Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise and Other Bribes**, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1993\.
+**Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise and Other Bribes**, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1993.
Kollontai, Alexandra, **The Workers Opposition**, Solidarity, London, date
unknown.
-**Selected Writings of Alexandra Kollontai**, Allison and Busby, London, 1977.
+**Selected Writings of Alexandra Kollontai**, Allison and Busby, London, 1977.
Kowalski, Ronald I., **The Bolshevik Party in Conflict: the left communist
opposition of 1918**, Macmillan, Basingstoke, 1990.
@@ -1837,9 +1858,9 @@ Krause, Peter, **The Battle for Homestead, 1880-1892: politics, culture, and
steel**, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh/London, 1992
Krugman, Paul, **Peddling Prosperity: Economic Sense and Nonsense in the Age
-of Diminished Expectations**, NW Norton & Co., New York/London, 1994.
+of Diminished Expectations**, NW Norton & Co., New York/London, 1994.
-**The Conscience of a Liberal**, W.W. Norton & Co., New York/London, 2007.
+**The Conscience of a Liberal**, W.W. Norton & Co., New York/London, 2007.
Krugman, Paul and Wells, Robin, **Economics**, W. H. Freeman, New York, 2006.
@@ -1849,10 +1870,10 @@ University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1996.
Kuznets, Simon, **Economic Growth and Structure: Selected Essays**, Heineman
Educational Books, London, 1966.
-**Capital in the American Economy**, Princeton University Press, New York, 1961.
+**Capital in the American Economy**, Princeton University Press, New York, 1961.
Lange, Oskar and Taylor, Fred M., **On the Economic Theory of Socialism**,
-Benjamin Lippincott (ed.), University of Minnesota Press, New York, 1938\.
+Benjamin Lippincott (ed.), University of Minnesota Press, New York, 1938.
Laqueur, Walter (ed.), **Fascism: a Reader's Guide**, Harmondsworth, Penguin,
1979.
@@ -1860,9 +1881,12 @@ Laqueur, Walter (ed.), **Fascism: a Reader's Guide**, Harmondsworth, Penguin,
Lazonick, William, **Business Organisation and the Myth of the Market
Economy**, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991.
-**Competitive Advantage on the Shop Floor**, Havard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1990.
+**Competitive Advantage on the Shop Floor**, Havard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1990.
+
+**Organisation and Technology in Capitalist Development**, Edward Elgar, Brookfield, Vt, 1992.
-**Organisation and Technology in Capitalist Development**, Edward Elgar, Brookfield, Vt, 1992.
+Lea, John and Pilling, Geoff (eds.), **The condition of Britain: Essays on
+Frederick Engels**, Pluto Press, London, 1996.
Lear, John, **Workers, Neighbors, and Citizens: The Revolution in Mexico
City**, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 2001.
@@ -1876,19 +1900,19 @@ Oxford, 1981.
Lenin, V. I., **Essential Works of Lenin**, Henry M. Christman (ed.), Bantam
Books, New York, 1966.
-**The Lenin Anthology**, Robert C. Tucker (ed.), W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1975.
+**The Lenin Anthology**, Robert C. Tucker (ed.), W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1975.
-**Will the Bolsheviks Maintain Power?**, Sutton Publishing Ltd, Stroud, 1997.
+**Will the Bolsheviks Maintain Power?**, Sutton Publishing Ltd, Stroud, 1997.
-**Left-wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder**, Lawrence & Wishart, London, 1947.
+**Left-wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder**, Lawrence & Wishart, London, 1947.
-**The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government**, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1970.
+**The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government**, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1970.
-**Six Thesis on the Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government**, contained in **The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government**, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1970, pp. 42-45.
+**Six Thesis on the Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government**, contained in **The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government**, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1970, pp. 42-45.
-**The Threatening Catastrophe and How to Avoid It**, Martin Lawrence Ltd., undated.
+**The Threatening Catastrophe and How to Avoid It**, Martin Lawrence Ltd., undated.
-**Selected Works: In Three Volumes**, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1975.
+**Selected Works: In Three Volumes**, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1975.
Lenin, V. I., and Trotsky, Leon, **Kronstadt**, Monad Press, New York, 1986.
@@ -1898,6 +1922,10 @@ London, 1989.
Lichtenstein, Nelson and Howell, John Harris (eds.), **Industrial Democracy in
America: The Ambiguous Promise**, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992
+Lichtheim, George, **The origins of socialism**, Weidenfeld & Nicolson,
+London, 1969 **A short history of socialism**, Weidenfeld & Nicolson,
+London, 1970
+
List, Friedrich, **The Natural System of Political Economy**, Frank Cass,
London, 1983.
@@ -1931,24 +1959,24 @@ Martov, J., **The State and Socialist Revolution**, Carl Slienger, London,
Marx, Karl, **Capital: A Critique of Political Economy**, vol. 1, Penguin
Books, London, 1976.
-**Capital: A Critique of Political Economy**, vol. 3, Penguin Books, London, 1981.
+**Capital: A Critique of Political Economy**, vol. 3, Penguin Books, London, 1981.
-**Theories of Surplus Value**, vol. 3, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1971.
+**Theories of Surplus Value**, vol. 3, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1971.
-**A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy**, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1970.
+**A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy**, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1970.
Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederick, **Selected Works**, Progress Publishers,
Moscow, 1975.
-**The Marx-Engels Reader**, Second Edition, Robert C. Tucker (ed.), W.W. Norton & Co, London & New York, 1978.
+**The Marx-Engels Reader**, Second Edition, Robert C. Tucker (ed.), W.W. Norton & Co, London & New York, 1978.
-**The socialist revolution**, F. Teplov and V. Davydov (eds.) Progess, Moscow, 1978.
+**The socialist revolution**, F. Teplov and V. Davydov (eds.) Progess, Moscow, 1978.
-**Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy**, Lewis S. Feuer (ed.), Fontana/Collins, Aylesbury, 1984.
+**Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy**, Lewis S. Feuer (ed.), Fontana/Collins, Aylesbury, 1984.
_"Manifesto of the Communist Party"_, **Selected Works**, pp. 31-63.
-**Fictitious Splits In The International**, available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864iwma/1872-e.htm
+**Fictitious Splits In The International**, available at: <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864iwma/1872-e.htm>
Marx, Karl, Engels, Federick and Lenin, V.I., **Anarchism and Anarcho-
Syndicalism**, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1974.
@@ -1960,7 +1988,7 @@ McAuley, Mary, **Bread and Justice: State and Society in Petrograd
1917-1922**, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1991.
McElroy, Wendy, **Anarchism: Two Kinds**, available at:
-http://www.wendymcelroy.com/mises/twoanarchism.html
+<http://www.wendymcelroy.com/mises/twoanarchism.html>
McLay, Farguhar (ed.), **Workers City: The Real Glasgow Stands Up**, Clydeside
Press, Glasgow, 1988.
@@ -1968,7 +1996,7 @@ Press, Glasgow, 1988.
McNally, David, **Against the Market: Political Economy, Market Socialism and
the Marxist Critique**, Verso, London, 1993.
-**Another World Is Possible: Globalization & Anti-Capitalism**, Revised Expanded Edition, Merlin, 2006.
+**Another World Is Possible: Globalization & Anti-Capitalism**, Revised Expanded Edition, Merlin, 2006.
Mehring, Franz, **Karl Marx: The Story of his life**, John Lane, London, 1936.
@@ -1978,11 +2006,11 @@ capitalism**, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989.
Mill, John Stuart, **Principles of Political Economy**, Oxford University
Press, Oxford, 1994.
-**On Liberty and Other Essays**, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991.
-
-Miller, David, **Social Justice**, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1976.
+**On Liberty and Other Essays**, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991.
-**Market, State, and community: theoretical foundations of market socialism**, Clarendon, Oxford, 1989.
+Miller, David, **Social Justice**, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1976. **Market,
+State, and community: theoretical foundations of market socialism**,
+Clarendon, Oxford, 1989.
Miller, William Ian, **Bloodtaking and Peacemaking: Feud, Law and Society in
Saga Iceland**, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1990.
@@ -2001,9 +2029,9 @@ Books, Sussex, 1985.
Mises, Ludwig von, **Liberalism: A Socio-Economic Exposition**, Sheed Andres
and McMeek Inc., Kansas City, 1978.
-**Human Action: A Treatise on Economics**, William Hodge and Company Ltd., London, 1949.
+**Human Action: A Treatise on Economics**, William Hodge and Company Ltd., London, 1949.
-**Socialism: an economic and sociological analysis**, Cape, London, 1951.
+**Socialism: an economic and sociological analysis**, Cape, London, 1951.
Montagu, Ashley, **The Nature of Human Aggression**, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 1978.
@@ -2011,7 +2039,7 @@ Oxford, 1978.
Montgomery, David, **Beyond Equality: Labour and the Radical Republicans,
1862-1872**, Vintage Books, New York, 1967.
-**The Fall of the House of Labour: The Workplace, the state, and American labour activism, 1865-1925**, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987.
+**The Fall of the House of Labour: The Workplace, the state, and American labour activism, 1865-1925**, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987.
Moore, Michael, **Downsize This! Random Threats from an Unarmed America**,
Boxtree, London, 1997.
@@ -2033,9 +2061,9 @@ the modern state**, Cornell University Press, 1984.
Noble, David, **America by Design: Science, technology, and the rise of
corporate capitalism**, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1979.
-**Progress without People: In defense of Luddism**, Charles H. Kerr Publishing Ltd., Chicago, 1993.
+**Progress without People: In defense of Luddism**, Charles H. Kerr Publishing Ltd., Chicago, 1993.
-**Forces of Production: A Social History of Industrial Automation**, Oxford University Press, New York, 1984.
+**Forces of Production: A Social History of Industrial Automation**, Oxford University Press, New York, 1984.
Nove, Alec, **An economic history of the USSR: 1917-1991**, 3rd ed., Penguin,
Harmondsworth, 1992.
@@ -2052,9 +2080,9 @@ Routledge, London, 1998.
O'Neill, John, **Markets, Deliberation and Environment**, Routledge, Oxon,
2007.
-**The market: ethics, knowledge, and politics**, Routledge, London, 1998.
+**The market: ethics, knowledge, and politics**, Routledge, London, 1998.
-**Ecology, policy, and politics: human well-being and the natural world**, Routledge, London/New York, 1993.
+**Ecology, policy, and politics: human well-being and the natural world**, Routledge, London/New York, 1993.
Oppenheimer, Franz, **The State**, Free Life Editions, New York, 1975.
@@ -2062,13 +2090,13 @@ Ormerod, Paul, **The Death of Economics**, Faber and Faber Ltd., London, 1994.
Orwell, George, **Homage to Catalonia**, Penguin, London, 1989.
-**The Road to Wigan Pier**, Penguin, London, 1954.
+**The Road to Wigan Pier**, Penguin, London, 1954.
-**Nineteen Eighty-Four**, Penguin, Middlesex, 1982.
+**Nineteen Eighty-Four**, Penguin, Middlesex, 1982.
-**Orwell in Spain**, Penguin Books, London, 2001.
+**Orwell in Spain**, Penguin Books, London, 2001.
-**Inside the Whale and Other Essays**, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1986.
+**Inside the Whale and Other Essays**, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1986.
Pagano, U. and Rowthorn, R. E. (eds.), **Democracy and Efficiency in Economic
Enterprises**, Routledge, London, 1996.
@@ -2084,7 +2112,7 @@ Perrin, David A., **The Socialist Party of Great Britain: Politics, Economics
and Britain's Oldest Socialist Party**, Bridge Books, Wrexham, 2000.
Petras, James and Leiva, Fernando Ignacio, **Democracy and Poverty in Chile:
-The Limits to Electoral Politics**, Westview Press, Boulder, 1994\.
+The Limits to Electoral Politics**, Westview Press, Boulder, 1994.
Pipes, R., **Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime, 1919-1924**, Fontana Press,
London, 1995.
@@ -2093,7 +2121,7 @@ Pirani, Simon, **The Russian revolution in retreat, 1920-24: Soviet workers
and the new Communist elite**, Routledge, New York, 2008
Phillips, Kevin, **The Politics of Rich and Poor: Wealth and the American
-Electorate in the Reagan Aftermath**, Random House, New York, 1990\.
+Electorate in the Reagan Aftermath**, Random House, New York, 1990.
Polanyi, Karl, **The Great Transformation: the political and economic origins
of our time**, Beacon Press, Boston, 1957.
@@ -2114,9 +2142,9 @@ collapse of communism**, Edward Elgar, Northampton, 2002.
Rabinowitch, Alexander, **Prelude to Revolution: The Petrograd Bolsheviks and
the July 1917 Uprising**, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1991.
-**The Bolsheviks Come to Power: The Revolution of 1917 in Petrograd**, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1976.
+**The Bolsheviks Come to Power: The Revolution of 1917 in Petrograd**, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1976.
-**The Bolsheviks in Power: The first year of Soviet rule in Petrograd**, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 2007.
+**The Bolsheviks in Power: The first year of Soviet rule in Petrograd**, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 2007.
_"Early Disenchantment with Bolshevik Rule: New Data form the Archives of the
Extraordinary Assembly of Delegates from Petrograd Factories"_, **Politics and
@@ -2139,11 +2167,11 @@ Revolutionary Culture in Saratov, 1917-1921**, Princeton University Press,
Woodstock, 2002.
Rand, Ayn, **Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal**, New American Library, New York,
-1966\.
+1966.
-**The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z**, Harry Binswanger (ed.), Meridian, New York, 1986.
+**The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z**, Harry Binswanger (ed.), Meridian, New York, 1986.
-**The Virtue of Selfishness**, New American Library, New York, 1964.
+**The Virtue of Selfishness**, New American Library, New York, 1964.
Ransome, Arthur, **The Crisis in Russia 1920**, Redwords, London, 1992.
@@ -2155,13 +2183,13 @@ revolution, 1917-21**, UCL Press, London, 1996.
Reed, John, **Ten Days that shook the World**, Penguin Books, 1982.
-**Shaking the World: John Reed's revolutionary journalism**, Bookmarks, London, 1998.
+**Shaking the World: John Reed's revolutionary journalism**, Bookmarks, London, 1998.
Reekie, W. Duncan, **Markets, Entrepreneurs and Liberty: An Austrian View of
Capitalism**, Wheatsheaf Books Ltd., Sussex, 1984.
Reich, Wilhelm, **The Mass Psychology of Fascism**, Condor Book, Souvenir
-Press (E&A;) Ltd., USA, 1991.
+Press (E&A) Ltd., USA, 1991.
Reitzer, George, **The McDonaldization of Society: An Investigation into the
changing character of contemporary social life**, Pine Forge Press, Thousand
@@ -2175,7 +2203,7 @@ Richardson, Al (ed.), **In defence of the Russian revolution: a selection of
Bolshevik writings, 1917-1923**, Porcupine Press, London, 1995.
Ricardo, David, **The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation**, J.M.
-Dent & Sons/Charles E. Tuttle Co., London/Vermont, 1992\.
+Dent & Sons/Charles E. Tuttle Co., London/Vermont, 1992.
Ridgeway, James, **Blood in the Face: The Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, Nazi
Skinheads, and the Rise of a New White Culture**, Thunder's Mouth Press, 1990.
@@ -2190,15 +2218,15 @@ distribution**, The Blakiston, Philadephia, 1951.
Robinson, Joan, **The Accumulation of Capital** (2nd Edition), MacMillan, St.
Martin's Press, 1965.
-**Contributions to Modern Economics**, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1978.
+**Contributions to Modern Economics**, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1978.
-**Collected Economic Papers**, vol. 4, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1973.
+**Collected Economic Papers**, vol. 4, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1973.
-**Collected Economic Papers**, vol. 5, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1979.
+**Collected Economic Papers**, vol. 5, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1979.
Rodrik, Dani, **Comments on 'Trade, Growth, and Poverty by D. Dollar and A.
-Kraay**, available at: http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~drodrik/Rodrik%20on
-%20Dollar-Kraay.PDF
+Kraay**, available at: <http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~drodrik/Rodrik%20on
+%20Dollar-Kraay.PDF>
Rollins, L.A., **The Myth of Natural Rights**, Loompanics Unlimited, Port
Townsend, 1983.
@@ -2214,43 +2242,45 @@ _"Workers' Control on the Railroads and Some Suggestions Concerning Social
Aspects of Labour Politics in the Russian Revolution"_, pp. D1181-D1219, **The
Journal of Modern History**, vol. 49, no. 2.
+Rosmer, Alfred, **Lenin's Moscow**, Bookmarks, London, 1987.
+
Rosnick, David and Weisbrot, Mark, **Are Shorter Work Hours Good for the
Environment? A Comparison of U.S. and European Energy Consumption**, available
-at: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/energy_2006_12.pdf
+at: <http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/energy_2006_12.pdf>
Rothbard, Murray N., **The Ethics of Liberty**, Humanities Press, Atlantic
Highlands, N.J., 1982.
-**For a New Liberty**, MacMillan, New York, 1973.
+**For a New Liberty**, MacMillan, New York, 1973.
_"Praxeology: The Methodology of Austrian Economics"_ in **The Foundation of
-Modern Austrian Economics**, pp. 19-39, Dolan, Edwin G. (ed.), Sheed & Ward,
-Inc., Kansas, 1976.
+Modern Austrian Economics**, pp. 19-39, Dolan, Edwin G. (ed.), Sheed &
+Ward, Inc., Kansas, 1976.
-**Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature and Other Essays**, Libertarian Press Review, 1974.
+**Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature and Other Essays**, Libertarian Press Review, 1974.
_"Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State,"_ in **Secession, State
and Liberty**, David Gordon (ed.), Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick,
1998.
-**Power and Market**, Institute for Humane Studies, Menlo Park, 1970.
+**Power and Market**, Institute for Humane Studies, Menlo Park, 1970.
-**Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market**, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, 2004.
+**Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market**, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, 2004.
_"Society Without A State"_, pp. 191-207, **Anarchism: Nomos XIX**, J. Roland
Pennock and John W. Chapman (eds.), New York University Press, New York, 1978.
-**America's great depression**, Van Nostrand, Princeton/London, 1963.
+**America's great depression**, Van Nostrand, Princeton/London, 1963.
-**Conceived in Liberty** (in four volumes), Arlington House Publishers, New Rochell, 1975.
+**Conceived in Liberty** (in four volumes), Arlington House Publishers, New Rochell, 1975.
-**The Logic of Action II: Applications and Criticism from the Austrian School**, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Lyme, 1997.
+**The Logic of Action II: Applications and Criticism from the Austrian School**, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Lyme, 1997.
-**Classical Economics: An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought**, Edward Elgar, Brookfield, 1995.
+**Classical Economics: An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought**, Edward Elgar, Brookfield, 1995.
-**Konkin on Libertarian Strategy**, available at: http://www.anthonyflood.com/rothbardkonkin.htm
+**Konkin on Libertarian Strategy**, available at: <http://www.anthonyflood.com/rothbardkonkin.htm>
-**Are Libertarians Anarchists?**, available at: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html
+**Are Libertarian’s ‘Anarchists’?**, available at: <http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html>
Rousseau, J-J, **The Social Contract and Discourses**, Everyman, London, 1996.
@@ -2271,9 +2301,9 @@ Sakwa, Richard, **Soviet Communists in Power: a study of Moscow during the
Civil War, 1918-21**, Macmillan, Basingstoke, 1987.
Sawyer, Malcolm C., **The Economics of Michal Kalecki**, MacMillan,
-Basingstoke, 1985\.
+Basingstoke, 1985.
-**The Economics of Industries and Firms: theories, evidence and policy** (2nd ed.), Croom Helm, London, 1985.
+**The Economics of Industries and Firms: theories, evidence and policy** (2nd ed.), Croom Helm, London, 1985.
Schapiro, Leonard, **The Origin of the Communist Autocracy: Political
Opposition in the Soviet State: The First Phase, 1917-1922**, Frederick A.
@@ -2297,32 +2327,32 @@ Schumacher, E.F., **Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if people
mattered**, Vintage, London, 1993.
Schweickart, David **Against Capitalism**, Cambridge, Cambridge University
-Press, 1993\.
+Press, 1993.
-**After Capitalism**, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, inc., Lanham, 2002.
+**After Capitalism**, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, inc., Lanham, 2002.
Sen, Amartya, **Resources, Values and Development**, Basil Blackwell, Oxford,
-1984\.
+1984.
-**Development as Freedom**, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999.
+**Development as Freedom**, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999.
-Senior, Nassau, **An Outline of the Science of Political Economy**, Alan &
+Senior, Nassau, **An Outline of the Science of Political Economy**, Alan &
Unwin, London, 1951
Serge, Victor, **Memoirs of a Revolutionary 1901-41**, Oxford University
Press, Oxford, 1963.
-**Revolution in Danger: Writings from Russia, 1919-1921**, Redwords, London, 1997.
+**Revolution in Danger: Writings from Russia, 1919-1921**, Redwords, London, 1997.
-**Year One of the Russian Revolution**, Bookmarks, Pluto Press and Writers and Readers, London/New York, 1992.
+**Year One of the Russian Revolution**, Bookmarks, Pluto Press and Writers and Readers, London/New York, 1992.
-**The Serge-Trotsky Papers**, D. J. Cotterill (ed.), Pluto Press, London, 1994
+**The Serge-Trotsky Papers**, D. J. Cotterill (ed.), Pluto Press, London, 1994
Service, Robert, **The Bolshevik Party in Revolution: A Study of
Organisational change**, Macmillan, London, 1979.
Silk L., and Vogel, D., **Ethics and Profits: The Crisis of Confidence in
-American Business**, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1976\.
+American Business**, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1976.
Sirianni, Carmen, **Workers' Control and Socialist Democracy**, Verso/NLB,
London, 1982.
@@ -2330,21 +2360,21 @@ London, 1982.
Shanin, Teodor, **The Awkward Class: Political Sociology of Peasantry in a
Developing Society: Russia 1910-1925**, Oxford University Press, London, 1972.
-Skidelsky, Robert (ed.), **Thatcherism**, Chatto & Windus, London, 1988.
+Skidelsky, Robert (ed.), **Thatcherism**, Chatto & Windus, London, 1988.
Skidmore, Thomas E. and Smith, Peter H., **Modern Latin America**, Second
Edition, Oxford University Press, 1989.
Smith, Adam, **The Wealth of Nations**, Everyman's Library, London, 1991.
-**The Wealth of Nations**, book 5, contained in **An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations: A Selected Edition**, Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York, 1998.
+**The Wealth of Nations**, book 5, contained in **An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations: A Selected Edition**, Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York, 1998.
Smith, S.A., **Red Petrograd: Revolution in the Factories 1917-1918**,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983.
Solvason, Birgir T. Runolfsson, **Ordered Anarchy, State and Rent-seeking: The
Iceland Commonwealth, 930-1262**, available at
-http://www.hag.hi.is/~bthru/ritgerd.htm
+<http://www.hag.hi.is/~bthru/ritgerd.htm>
Sorel, Georges, **Reflections on Violence**, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1999.
@@ -2370,13 +2400,16 @@ Steinbeck, John, **The Grapes of Wrath**, Mandarin, London, 1990.
Stewart, Michael, **Keynes in the 1990s: A Return to Economic Sanity**,
Penguin Books, London, 1993.
-**Keynes and After**, 3rd edition, Penguin Books, London, 1987.
+**Keynes and After**, 3rd edition, Penguin Books, London, 1987.
Stiglitz, Joseph, **Globalisation and its Discontents**, Penguin Books,
London, 2002.
Stretton, Hugh, **Economics: A New Introduction**, Pluto Press, London, 2000.
+Suny, Ronald Grigor (ed.), **The Structure of Soviet History: Essays and
+Documents**, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003
+
Swain, Geoffrey, **The Origins of the Russian Civil War**, Longman, London/New
York, 1996.
@@ -2395,8 +2428,8 @@ Augustine's Press, 1997.
Thomas, Hugh, **The Spanish Civil War**, Hamish Hamilton, London, 1986.
-Thomas, Paul, **Karl Marx and the Anarchists**, Routledge & Kegan Paul plc,
-London, 1985.
+Thomas, Paul, **Karl Marx and the Anarchists**, Routledge & Kegan Paul
+plc, London, 1985.
Tomlins, Christopher L., **Law, Labor, and Ideology in the Early American
Republic**, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1993.
@@ -2404,7 +2437,7 @@ Republic**, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1993.
Thompson, E.P., **The Making of the English Working Class**, Penguin Books,
London, 1991.
-**Customs in Common**, Penguin Books, London, 1993.
+**Customs in Common**, Penguin Books, London, 1993.
Thompson, Noel, **The Real Rights of Man: Political Economies for the Working
Class, 1775-1850**, Pluto Press, London, 1998.
@@ -2415,83 +2448,89 @@ Porcupine Press, London, 1995.
Trotsky, Leon, **History of the Russian Revolution**, in three volumes,
Gollancz and Sphere Books, London, 1967.
-**Writings of Leon Trotsky: Supplement (1934-40)**, Pathfinder Press, New York, 1979.
+**Writings of Leon Trotsky: Supplement (1934-40)**, Pathfinder Press, New York, 1979.
+
+**Writings 1936-37**, Pathfinder Press, New York, 1978.
-**Writings 1936-37**, Pathfinder Press, New York, 1978.
+**Writings 1933-34**, Pathfinder Press, New York, 2003.
-**Terrorism and Communism**, Ann Arbor, 1961.
+**Writings 1932**, Pathfinder Press, New York, 1999.
-**The Revolution Betrayed: What is the Soviet Union and where is it going?**, Faber and Faber Ltd, London, 1937.
+**Writings 1930-31**, Pathfinder Press, New York, 2002.
-**Leon Trotsky Speaks**, Pathfinder, New York, 1972.
+**Writings 1930**, Pathfinder Press, New York, 2003.
-**How the Revolution Armed: the military writings and speeches of Leon Trotsky**, vol. 1, New Park Publications, London, 1979.
+**Terrorism and Communism**, Ann Arbor, 1961.
-**How the Revolution Armed: the military writings and speeches of Leon Trotsky**, vol. II, New Park Publications, London, 1979.
+**The Revolution Betrayed: What is the Soviet Union and where is it going?**, Faber and Faber Ltd, London, 1937.
-**How the Revolution Armed: the military writings and speeches of Leon Trotsky**, vol. IV, New Park Publications, London, 1979.
+**Leon Trotsky Speaks**, Pathfinder, New York, 1972.
-**Stalin: An Appraisal of the man and his influence**, in two volumes, Panther History, London, 1969.
+**How the Revolution Armed: the military writings and speeches of Leon Trotsky**, vol. 1, New Park Publications, London, 1979.
-**The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International**, contained in **How Solidarity can change the world**, Alliance for Workers' Liberty, London, 1998\.
+**How the Revolution Armed: the military writings and speeches of Leon Trotsky**, vol. II, New Park Publications, London, 1979.
-**First Year Years of the Communist International**, (in 2 volumes), New Park Publications, London, 1974.
+**How the Revolution Armed: the military writings and speeches of Leon Trotsky**, vol. IV, New Park Publications, London, 1979.
-**The Third International After Lenin**, Pioneer Publishers, New York, 1957.
+**Stalin: An Appraisal of the man and his influence**, in two volumes, Panther History, London, 1969.
-**The Challenge of the Left Opposition (1923-25)**, Pathfinder Press, New York, 1975.
+**The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International**, contained in **How Solidarity can change the world**, Alliance for Workers' Liberty, London, 1998.
-**The Challenge of the Left Opposition (1926-27)**, Pathfinder, New York, 1980.
+**First Year Years of the Communist International**, (in 2 volumes), New Park Publications, London, 1974.
-**On Lenin: Notes towards a Biography**, George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd., London, 1971.
+**The Third International After Lenin**, Pioneer Publishers, New York, 1957.
+
+**The Challenge of the Left Opposition (1923-25)**, Pathfinder Press, New York, 1975.
+
+**The Challenge of the Left Opposition (1926-27)**, Pathfinder, New York, 1980.
+
+**On Lenin: Notes towards a Biography**, George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd., London, 1971.
_"Lessons of October"_, pp. 113-177, **The Essential Trotsky**, Unwin Books,
London, 1963.
-**Leon Trotsky on China**, Monad Press, New York, 2002
+**Leon Trotsky on China**, Monad Press, New York, 2002
-**In Defense of Marxism**, Pathfinder, New York, 1995.
+**In Defense of Marxism**, Pathfinder, New York, 1995.
-**Writings 1936-37**, Pathfinder Press, New York, 2002.
+**Platform of the Opposition**, available at: <http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1927-plo/ch01.htm>
-**Platform of the Opposition**, available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1927-plo/ch01.htm
+**The Lessons of October**, available at: <http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1924-les.htm>
-**The Lessons of October**, available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1924-les.htm
+**How Did Stalin Defeat the Opposition?**, available at: <http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1935-sta.htm>
-**How Did Stalin Defeat the Opposition?**, available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1935-sta.htm
+**Work, Discipline, Order**, available at: <http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1918-mil/ch05.htm>
-**Work, Discipline, Order**, available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1918-mil/ch05.htm
+**More Equality!** available at: <http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1919-mil/ch12.htm>
-**More Equality!** available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1919-mil/ch12.htm
+**The Revolution Betrayed**, available at: <http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/index.htm>
-**The Revolution Betrayed**, available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/index.htm
+**The Class Nature of the Soviet State**, available at: <http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/sovstate.htm>
-**The Class Nature of the Soviet State**, available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/sovstate.htm
+**The Path of the Red Army**, available at: <http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1918-mil/ch02.htm>
-**The Path of the Red Army**, available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1918-mil/ch02.htm
+**The Moralists and Sycophants against Marxism**, contained in **Their Morals and Ours**, pp. 53-66, Pathfinder, New York, 1973.
-**The Moralists and Sycophants against Marxism**, contained in **Their Morals and Ours**, pp. 53-66, Pathfinder, New York, 1973.
+**The Makhno Movement**, available at: <http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1919-mil/ch49.htm>
-**The Makhno Movement**, available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1919-mil/ch49.htm
-
-**Stalinism and Bolshevism**, available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1937/1937-sta.htm
+**Stalinism and Bolshevism**, available at: <http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1937/1937-sta.htm>
Turner, Adai, **Just Capital: The Liberal Economy**, Pan Books, London, 2002.
Utton, M. A., **The Political Economy of Big Business**, Martin Robinson,
-Oxford, 1982\.
+Oxford, 1982.
Wade, Robert, **Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the role of
government in East Asian Industrialisation**, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, 1990.
Walford, George, **George Walford on Anarcho-Capitalism**, available at
-http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/walford-on-anarcap.html
+<http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/walford-on-anarcap.html>
Wallerstein, Immanuel, **Geopolitics and Geoculture**, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1991.
-**The Capitalist World System** (vol. 1),
+**The Capitalist World System** (vol. 1),
Walras, L, **Elements of Pure Political Economy**, Allen and Unwin, London,
1954.
@@ -2507,32 +2546,32 @@ cannot save the environment. A socialist politics can**, Privately Published,
1990.
Weisbrot, Mark, **Globalisation for Whom?**, available at:
-http://www.cepr.net/Globalization.html
+<http://www.cepr.net/Globalization.html>
Weisbrot, Mark, Baker, Dean, Kraev, Egor and Chen, Judy, **The Scorecard on
Globalization 1980-2000: Twenty Years of Diminished Progress**, available at:
-http://www.cepr.net/publications/globalization_2001_07_11.htm
+<http://www.cepr.net/publications/globalization_2001_07_11.htm>
Weisbrot, Mark, Baker, Dean, Naiman, Robert and Neta, Gila, **Growth May Be
Good for the Poor -- But are IMF and World Bank Policies Good for Growth?**
-available at: http://www.cepr.net/publications/econ_growth_2001_05.htm
+available at: <http://www.cepr.net/publications/econ_growth_2001_05.htm>
Weisbrot, Mark and Rosnick, David, **Another Lost Decade?: Latin America's
Growth Failure Continues into the 21st Century**, available at:
-http://www.cepr.net/publications/latin_america_2003_11.htm
+<http://www.cepr.net/publications/latin_america_2003_11.htm>
Wilkinson, Richard and Pickett, Kate, **The Spirit Level: Why More Equal
-Societies Almost Always Do Better**, Allen Lane, London, 2009\.
+Societies Almost Always Do Better**, Allen Lane, London, 2009.
Williams, Gwyn A., **Proletarian Order: Antonio Gramsci, factory councils and
the origins of Italian Communism, 1911-1921**, Pluto Press, London, 1975.
-**Artisans and Sans-Culottes: Popular Movements in France and Britain during the French Revolution**, Edward Arnold, London, 1981.
+**Artisans and Sans-Culottes: Popular Movements in France and Britain during the French Revolution**, Edward Arnold, London, 1981.
Wilson, H., **The Labour Government 1964-1970**, London, 1971.
Wilkinson, Richard and Pickett, Kate, **The Spirit Level: Why More Equal
-Societies Almost Always Do Better**, Allen Lane, London, 2009\.
+Societies Almost Always Do Better**, Allen Lane, London, 2009.
Winn, Peter (ed.), **Victims of the Chilean Miracle: Workers and Neoliberalism
in the Pinochet Era, 1973-2002**, Duke University Press, Durham and London,
@@ -2550,3 +2589,8 @@ money approach**, Aldershot, Elgar, 1990.
Zinoviev, Grigorii, **History of the Bolshevik Party: A Popular Outline**, New
Park Publications, London, 1973.
+[‹ Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to
+Bolshevism?](/afaq/append46.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/index.html
+"Go to parent page" ) [An Anarchist FAQ in pdf format ›](/afaq/pdf.html "Go to
+next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/book.md b/markdown/book.md
index 541595ac5f0170e6e1c140686ede0e4b744301a5..142fbad4a299ed94a2038d083f8e22baab8ba72c 100644
--- a/markdown/book.md
+++ b/markdown/book.md
@@ -1,57 +1,68 @@
# An Anarchist FAQ now published!
-**AK Press** ([UK](http://www.akuk.com/)/[USA](http://www.akpress.org/)) has now published volume 1 of **An Anarchist FAQ** (ISBN: 978-1902593906).
+**AK Press** ([UK](http://www.akuk.com/)/[USA](http://www.akpress.org/)) has now published volumes 1 and 2 of **An Anarchist FAQ**: [Buying An Anarchist FAQ](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/buying-an-anarchist-faq) (ISBN: 978-1902593906)
-## Volume 1
-
-[An Anarchist FAQ: After 10 years](10years.html)
-
-[Introduction](intro.html)
-
-[Introduction to Volume 1](vol1intro.html)
+Volume 1 was published by AK Press in 2008 while Volume 2 was published in
+2012. Both volumes are available from AK Press in America and in the UK:
-### [Section A: What is Anarchism?](secAcon.html)
+AK Press (America)
-An overview of what anarchism stands for, where it comes from and what
-anarchists have done. Presents a summary of the major schools of anarchism as
-well as important anarchist and related thinkers.
+|
-### [Section B: Why do anarchists oppose the current system?](secBcon.html)
+[Volume 1](http://www.akpress.org/ananarchistfaqakpress.html)
-Why anarchists are against hierarchy, capitalism and the state. What they are
-and how they affect liberty. On the negative nature and impact of social
-hierarchies and economic classes.
+|
-### [Section C: What are the myths of capitalist economics?](secCcon.html)
+[Volume 2](http://www.akpress.org/anarchistfaq2.html)
+
+---|---|---
+
+AK Press (Britain)
-Why capitalist economics is an ideology, not a science. Why anarchists think
-capitalism is exploitative. Exposes the extremely negative effects of trying
-to run a society along the lines recommended in economics textbooks.
+|
-### [Section D: How do statism and capitalism affect society?](secDcon.html)
+[Volume 1](http://akuk.com/non-fiction/economics/an-anarchist-faq-
+volume-1/prod_5527.html)
-How economics and politics cannot be separated and outlines the impact of each
-on the other. It indicates how wealth influences society and discusses the
-media, imperialism, nationalism, state intervention and technology.
+|
-### [Section E: What do anarchists think causes ecological
-problems?](secEcon.html)
+[Volume 2](http://akuk.com/non-fiction/an-anarchist-faq-
+volume-2/prod_6635.html)
+
+
-An overview of the roots of the ecological crisis and why anarchists reject
-many commonly proposed solutions as inadequate (when they do not make it
-worse).
-
-### [Section F: Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?](secFcon.html)
-
-No, it is not. If you know about anarchism and its history, you will already
-know why.
+## Volume 1
-### [Appendix: The Symbols of Anarchy](append2.html)
+ * [An Anarchist FAQ: After 10 years](10years.html)
+ * [Introduction](intro.html)
+ * [Introduction to Volume 1](vol1intro.html)
+ * [Section A: What is Anarchism?](secAcon.html)
+ * [Section B: Why do anarchists oppose the current system?](secBcon.html)
+ * [Section C: What are the myths of capitalist economics?](secCcon.html)
+ * [Section D: How do statism and capitalism affect society?](secDcon.html)
+ * [Section E: What do anarchists think causes ecological problems?](secEcon.html)
+ * [Section F: Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?](secFcon.html)
+ * [Appendix: The Symbols of Anarchy](append2.html)
-This explains why anarchists carry Black and Black and Red Flags and use the
-circled-A. What they mean and where they originate from.
+
## Volume 2
-Volume 2 (sections G to J) is sheduled for publication in 2010
+ * [Introduction to Volume 2](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/vol2intro.html)
+ * [Section G: Is individualist anarchism capitalistic?](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secGcon.html)
+ * [Section H: Why do anarchists oppose state socialism?](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secHcon.html)
+ * [Section I: What would an anarchist society look like?](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secIcon.html)
+ * [Section J: What do anarchists do?](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secJcon.html)
+ * [Bibliography](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/biblio.html)
+
+It must also be noted that the sections within this volume have been slightly
+edited to ensure that it approximates volume 1 in size. This has involved
+trimming around a tenth of the material. In addition, the published
+bibliography only lists works that are in the print version.
+
+[‹ An Anarchist FAQ](/afaq/index.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/index.html "Go to parent page" ) [What's New in the FAQ?
+›](/afaq/new.html "Go to next page" )
diff --git a/markdown/contact.md b/markdown/contact.md
index a5a8525685ceda85b2f88d32546544d94dc79d40..0c67d08ff672b1916664ccc0b94edf808b7ed966 100644
--- a/markdown/contact.md
+++ b/markdown/contact.md
@@ -1,21 +1,31 @@
+
+
+An Anarchist FAQ Webpage Contacts
+
## An Anarchist FAQ Webpage Contacts
-This web-site is the creation of many anarchists across the globe and is a
-classic example of the power of freedom, equality and mutual aid.
+This web-site is the creation of many anarchists across the globe and
+is a classic example of the power of freedom, equality and mutual aid.
-It is produced by a [small collective of people](intro.html) who work on the
-FAQ when we can (mostly in our free time, after work). This means that any
-e-mail sent may take a while to be replied to. We apologise for any delay, but
-we are not a corporate funded think-tank or full-time members of a party
-apparatus. We hope you understand.
+It is produced by a [small collective of people](intro.html)
+who work on the FAQ when we can (mostly in our free time, after work).
+This means that any e-mail sent may take a while to be replied to. We
+apologise for any delay, but we are not a corporate funded think-tank
+or full-time members of a party apparatus. We hope you understand.
-If you want to contact some of those responsible, then send email to
-[anarchistfaq@yahoo.co.uk
+If you want to contact some of those responsible, then send email to
+[anarchistfaq@yahoo.co.uk](mailto:anarchistfaq@yahoo.co.uk)
* * *
-[](index.html)
-Click on the flag to return to _**"An Anarchist FAQ"**_ index page
+
+Click [here](index.html) to return to _**"An Anarchist FAQ"**_ index page
* * *
+
+
+[‹ What Anarchists Say about An Anarchist FAQ](/afaq/quotes.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/intro.html "Go to parent page" ) [Section A - What
+is Anarchism? ›](/afaq/secAcon.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/downloads.md b/markdown/downloads.md
deleted file mode 100644
index 985a81d24ec1b1539c59c4ed5f1538126a85ea63..0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
--- a/markdown/downloads.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
-## An Anarchist FAQ Webpage Downloads
-
-Downloadable html, pdf, word and text versions
-
-For downloadable html, word and text versions of the current FAQ, [ click
-here](http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/mirror.html).
-
-For uncompressed text versions of the current FAQ, [ click
-here](http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/text/)
-
-For pdf format versions of the current FAQ, [click here](pdf.html)
-
-* * *
-
-[](index.html)
-Click on the flag to return to _**"An Anarchist FAQ"**_ index page
-
-* * *
-
diff --git a/markdown/index.md b/markdown/index.md
index 5d12f6754e5335494f97bbc30e7646441e1ac240..6fbef1e37b2fa6547ee5b2928a66d09c585c3873 100644
--- a/markdown/index.md
+++ b/markdown/index.md
@@ -1,44 +1,49 @@
# _An Anarchist FAQ Webpage_
-### Version 14.0
-
-
+### Version 15.0
* * *
This web page holds an anarchist FAQ. Its aim is to present what anarchism
really stands for and indicate why you should become an anarchist.
-# [Volume 1](book.html) of _**An Anarchist FAQ**_ has been published!
+# [Volumes 1 and 2](book.html) of _**An Anarchist FAQ**_ have been published!
+
+#
### [What Anarchists Say about _An Anarchist FAQ_](quotes.html)
-## [An Anarchist FAQ blog](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/blogs/afaq)
+## [An Anarchist FAQ blog](../../../../../../blogs/afaq)
* * *
**_An Anarchist FAQ_** can be accessed using these easy to remember urls:
-[www.anarchistfaq.org](http://www.anarchistfaq.org/) |
-[www.anarchismfaq.org](http://www.anarchismfaq.org/) |
+[www.anarchistfaq.org](http://www.anarchistfaq.org/)
+
+|
+[www.anarchismfaq.org](http://www.anarchismfaq.org/)
+
+---|---
+
[www.anarchyfaq.org](http://www.anarchyfaq.org/)
|
[www.anarchistfaq.org.uk](http://www.anarchistfaq.org.uk/)
----|---
-
* * *
## [What's New in the FAQ?](new.html)
* * *
+#
+
# An Anarchist FAQ
-**Version 14.0** \-- 08-MAR-2010
+**Version 15.0** \-- 18-MAR-2014
###
@@ -85,9 +90,27 @@ is also available for [download in pdf format](pdf.html).
* * *
-[](links.html)
-Click on the flag for links to other anarchist web-pages
-Links last updated on 11-NOV-2006
-
-* * *
+ * [An Anarchist FAQ now published!](/afaq/book.html)
+ * [What's New in the FAQ?](/afaq/new.html)
+ * [An Anarchist FAQ Introduction](/afaq/intro.html)
+ * [Section A - What is Anarchism?](/afaq/secAcon.html)
+ * [Section B - Why do anarchists oppose the current system?](/afaq/secBcon.html)
+ * [Section C - What are the myths of capitalist economics?](/afaq/secCcon.html)
+ * [Section D - How do statism and capitalism affect society?](/afaq/secDcon.html)
+ * [Section E - What do anarchists think causes ecological problems?](/afaq/secEcon.html)
+ * [Section F - Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?](/afaq/secFcon.html)
+ * [Section G - Is individualist anarchism capitalistic?](/afaq/secGcon.html)
+ * [Section H - Why do anarchists oppose state socialism?](/afaq/secHcon.html)
+ * [Section I - What would an anarchist society look like?](/afaq/secIcon.html)
+ * [Section J - What do anarchists do?](/afaq/secJcon.html)
+ * [Appendix : Anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism](/afaq/append1.html)
+ * [Appendix - The Symbols of Anarchy](/afaq/append2.html)
+ * [Appendix : Anarchism and Marxism](/afaq/append3.html)
+ * [Appendix - The Russian Revolution](/afaq/append4.html)
+ * [Bibliography for FAQ](/afaq/biblio.html)
+ * [An Anarchist FAQ in pdf format](/afaq/pdf.html)
+ * [Non-English versions of the FAQ](/afaq/translations.html)
+ * [An Anarchist FAQ links](/afaq/links.html)
+
+[An Anarchist FAQ now published! ›](/afaq/book.html "Go to next page" )
diff --git a/markdown/intro.md b/markdown/intro.md
index 9bccf5e4f30731742b9b50680f7a68c2aa784fb6..ec8c589f3162fb1daa9fffb414ff3c72dd3da596 100644
--- a/markdown/intro.md
+++ b/markdown/intro.md
@@ -1,5 +1,3 @@
-
-
# Introduction
_"Proletarians of the world, look into the depths of your own beings, seek out
@@ -164,12 +162,13 @@ Chuck Munson
Pauline McCormack
Nestor McNab
Kevin Carson
-Shawn Wilber
+Shawn Wilbur
+Nicholas Evans
and our comrades on the anarchy, oneunion and organise! mailing lists.
-**_"An Anarchist FAQ"_**, **Version 14.0**
-Copyright (C) 1995-2010 The Anarchist FAQ Editorial Collective:
+**_"An Anarchist FAQ"_**, **Version 1****5.0**
+Copyright (C) 1995-2014 The Anarchist FAQ Editorial Collective:
Iain McKay, Gary Elkin, Dave Neal, Ed Boraas
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under
@@ -180,3 +179,13 @@ Software Foundation.
See the Licenses page at <http://www.gnu.org/> for more details.
+ * [An Anarchist FAQ after ten years](/afaq/10years.html)
+ * [An Anarchist FAQ: Introduction to Volume 1](/afaq/vol1intro.html)
+ * [An Anarchist FAQ: Introduction to Volume 2](/afaq/vol2intro.html)
+ * [What Anarchists Say about An Anarchist FAQ](/afaq/quotes.html)
+ * [An Anarchist FAQ Webpage Contacts](/afaq/contact.html)
+
+[‹ What's New in the FAQ?](/afaq/new.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/index.html "Go to parent page" ) [An Anarchist FAQ after ten years
+›](/afaq/10years.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/links.md b/markdown/links.md
index 6e7f0848ce4f40df5906780d046f6a0d468743a5..6fb1f567f65f8b9eac026cb2018f22168984de74 100644
--- a/markdown/links.md
+++ b/markdown/links.md
@@ -1,57 +1,53 @@
# Other Anarchist Web-pages
-
-
###
Here are links to other web-sites with anarchist material in them :
-* [ Anarchist News](alinks.html#news)
-
-* [ Anarchist Web-pages (English)](alinks.html#webpages)
-
-* [ Anarchist Web-pages (Non-English)](alinks.html#nonwebpages)
-
-* [ Anarcha-Feminist Webpages](alinks.html#anarchafem)
-
-* [ Anarchist blogs](alinks.html#blogs)
-
-* [ Anarchist and Libertarian Socialist Organisations](alinks.html#anarchorg)
-
-* [ Anarcho-Syndicalist and Syndicalist Web-pages](alinks.html#synpages)
-
-* [ Anarcho-Syndicalist and Revolutionary Unions and Organisations](alinks.html#syndicates)
-
-* [ Anarchist and Anarcho-Syndicalist Web-Page Rings](alinks.html#rings)
-
-* [ Anarchist and Libertarian Papers and Magazines](alinks.html#papers)
-
-* [ Anarchist and Libertarian Books and Pamphlets](alinks.html#books)
+ * [ Anarchist News](alinks.html#news)
+ * [ Anarchist Web-pages (English)](alinks.html#webpages)
+ * [ Anarchist Web-pages (Non-English)](alinks.html#nonwebpages)
+ * [ Anarcha-Feminist Webpages](alinks.html#anarchafem)
+ * [ Anarchist blogs](alinks.html#blogs)
+ * [ Anarchist and Libertarian Socialist Organisations](alinks.html#anarchorg)
+ * [ Anarcho-Syndicalist and Syndicalist Web-pages](alinks.html#synpages)
+ * [ Anarcho-Syndicalist and Revolutionary Unions and Organisations](alinks.html#syndicates)
+ * [ Anarchist and Anarcho-Syndicalist Web-Page Rings](alinks.html#rings)
+ * [ Anarchist and Libertarian Papers and Magazines](alinks.html#papers)
+ * [ Anarchist and Libertarian Books and Pamphlets](alinks.html#books)
+ * [ Sites on Famous Anarchists](alinks.html#people)
+ * [ Anarchist Publishers, Bookshops, Infoshops and Social Centres](alinks.html#shops)
+ * [ Anarchist and Radical Music and Art](alinks.html#music)
+ * [ Sites on Anarchist History](alinks.html#history)
+ * [ Sites with useful Anarchist Resources](alinks.html#resources)
-* [ Sites on Famous Anarchists](alinks.html#people)
-
-* [ Anarchist Publishers, Bookshops, Infoshops and Social Centres](alinks.html#shops)
-
-* [ Anarchist and Radical Music and Art](alinks.html#music)
-
-* [ Sites on Anarchist History](alinks.html#history)
-
-* [ Sites with useful Anarchist Resources](alinks.html#resources)
+
---
Here are links for other net-based anarchist resources
-* [ Anarchist Newsgroups](alinks.html#anarchonews)
+ * [ Anarchist Newsgroups](alinks.html#anarchonews)
+ * [ Anarchist Related Newsgroups](alinks.html#othernews)
+ * [ Anarchist and Syndicalist Mailing Lists](alinks.html#mail)
-* [ Anarchist Related Newsgroups](alinks.html#othernews)
-* [ Anarchist and Syndicalist Mailing Lists](alinks.html#mail)
+
---
Here are links which may be of interest to anarchists
-* [ Sites on Anarchist Related Topics](arlinks.html#other)
+ * [ Sites on Anarchist Related Topics](arlinks.html#other)
+
---
+
+
* * *
+ * [Other Anarchist Web-pages](/afaq/alinks.html)
+ * [Sites of interest to Anarchists](/afaq/arlinks.html)
+
+[‹ Non-English versions of the FAQ](/afaq/translations.html "Go to previous
+page" ) [up](/afaq/index.html "Go to parent page" ) [Other Anarchist Web-pages
+›](/afaq/alinks.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/mirrors.md b/markdown/mirrors.md
deleted file mode 100644
index f3e0bac3f7153664514efcb9dd22e8d60a7c980f..0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
--- a/markdown/mirrors.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,64 +0,0 @@
-## An Anarchist FAQ Webpage Mirrors
-
-### _An Anarchist FAQ_ main site:
-
-[www.anarchistfaq.org](http://www.anarchistfaq.org/)
-[www.anarchismfaq.org](http://www.anarchismfaq.org/)
-[www.anarchyfaq.org](http://www.anarchyfaq.org/)
-
-* * *
-
-The FAQ is now mirrored at the following sites (which we know of)
-
-* * *
-
-_**Original site:**_
-[
-http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/)
-
-_**Other sites:**_
-Some of these mirror sites may contain older versions of **_"An Anarchist
-FAQ"_**
-[ http://anarchism.ws/faq/](http://anarchism.ws/faq/)
-[
-http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/](http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/)
-[ http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/](http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/)
-[
-http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html)
-[ http://www.anarchism.ca/faq/](http://www.anarchism.ca/faq/)
-[
-http://www.ocproject.org/scaf/faq/index.html](http://www.ocproject.org/scaf/faq/index.html)
-[ http://www.illuminati.ch/anarchy ](http://www.illuminati.ch/anarchy)
-[
-http://tofuwurst.staticky.com/anarchy/](http://tofuwurst.staticky.com/anarchy/)
-[ http://chat.carleton.ca/~sgoodhew/anarchy/mirrors/anarchist_faq/index.html](
-http://chat.carleton.ca/~sgoodhew/anarchy/mirrors/anarchist_faq/index.html)
-[ http://www.secret-paradise.com/anarcho/](http://www.secret-
-paradise.com/anarcho/)
-[
-http://www.throneworld.com/dgarrison/index.html](http://www.throneworld.com/dgarrison/index.html)
-[
-http://www.geocities.com/hope_liberty_association/faq/index.html](http://www.geocities.com/hope_liberty_association/faq/index.html)
-[ http://www.anarchy.be/](http://www.anarchy.be/)
-[
-http://www.almostnotcrazy.org/b/anarchist_faq/index.html](http://www.almostnotcrazy.org/b/anarchist_faq/index.html)
-[ http://www.radio4all.org/afaq/](http://www.radio4all.org/afaq/)
-[ http://www.anarchy.be/faq/index.html](http://www.anarchy.be/faq/index.html)
-[ http://www.vamosamontarla.com/](http://www.vamosamontarla.com/)
-<http://anarcho.willhaven.org/>
-<http://www.inventati.org/anarchism/>
-[http://www.anarchistfaq.de/]( http://www.anarchistfaq.de/)
-[
-http://www.cat.org.au/afaq/index.html](http://www.cat.org.au/afaq/index.html)
-[ http://www.nvg.org/~rchg/anarchy/](http://www.nvg.org/~rchg/anarchy/)
-<http://anarchy.silesianet.pl/faq>
-[ http://www.anarchism.ca/faq/](http://www.anarchism.ca/faq/)
-<http://www.etext.org/Politics/Spunk/library/intro/faq/sp001547/index.html>.
-
-* * *
-
-[](index.html)
-Click on the flag to return to _**"An Anarchist FAQ"**_ index page.
-
-* * *
-
diff --git a/markdown/new.md b/markdown/new.md
index 3c5f7a78d4c3d5aa59f637ffb3388ae9eb37dd38..f83b9e31478d12a38deef0bd8bc5810f1f5a5e9a 100644
--- a/markdown/new.md
+++ b/markdown/new.md
@@ -17,8 +17,43 @@ We hope that this makes it clear to visitors!
# What's New in the FAQ?
-Version| Date| What's New |
+Version | Date | What's New
+---|---|---
+
+15.0
+
+|
+
+18-MAR-2014
+
+|
+
+[Reply to errors and distortions in David McNally's pamphlet "Socialism from
+Below"](append31.html)
+Complete revision and expansion of the appendix _Reply to errors and
+distortions in David McNally's pamphlet "Socialism from Below"_. This is to
+include a significant expansion on refuting his account of Proudhon's ideas as
+well as more information on both anarchism and Bolshevism.
+This revision is the first since the publication of the second volume of the
+FAQ.
+
+14.0
+
+|
+
+20-NOV-2012
+
+|
+
+[Introduction to Volume 2](vol2intro.html)
+Introduction to Volume 2 of _An Anarchist FAQ_
+
+This revision is done to indicate that volume 2 has been published. It does
+not signify a change of the main text of the work.
+
+
+
14.0
|
@@ -57,8 +92,6 @@ Zinn.
This revision was made as part of getting the second volume of the FAQ ready
for publication. That is now complete.
----|---|---
-
13.4
|
@@ -174,7 +207,7 @@ for publication.
|
[An Anachist FAQ: Volume 1](book.html)
-**An Anarchist FAQ**, at long last, has now been published by AK Press. Volume 1 (introductions, sections A to F, plus the appendix on the symbols of Anarchy) is now available (ISBN: 978-1902593906)
+**An Anarchist FAQ**, at long last, has now been published by AK Press. Volume 1 (introductions, sections A to F, plus the appendix on the symbols of Anarchy) is now available (ISBN: 978-1902593906)
[Section H](secHcon.html)
Significant revision of the section on the anarchist critique of Marxism.
@@ -274,5 +307,9 @@ about anarchism and anarchists but written by non-libertarians.
This is part of the process of getting the FAQ ready for being published by AK
Press. Volume one (sections A to F, plus the introductions and appendix on the
symbols of anarchy) is now ready for publication. We will announce the exact
-date soon.
+date soon.
+
+[‹ An Anarchist FAQ now published!](/afaq/book.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/index.html "Go to parent page" ) [An Anarchist FAQ Introduction
+›](/afaq/intro.html "Go to next page" )
diff --git a/markdown/oldernew.md b/markdown/oldernew.md
deleted file mode 100644
index 4a20e8b19406779915d91aeb198b5973cac8335b..0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
--- a/markdown/oldernew.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,825 +0,0 @@
-# Introduction
-
-Here is a list of all the new additions to the FAQ from (approximately) the
-beginning of February 1997. This should make it far easier for the return
-visitor to find out what has changed since the last visit.
-
-Also it is worthwhile to explain how the version number of the FAQ changes. If
-we are including a new section (filling an incomplete section, for example) or
-including a new sub-section in an existing section (for example, adding A.2.20
-to section A.2) then the version number is increased by one (from version 2.2
-to version 3, for example). If we are updating an old section with new
-information or an improved argument, then the current version is increased by
-0.1 (for example, from version 2.2 to 2.3).
-
-As far as new anarchist and libertarian links are concerned, we will add them
-when we get enough to make an update worthwhile. These updates have no effect
-on the FAQ version number as we don't want to inflate it higher than the
-content deserves.
-
-We hope that this makes it clear to visitors!
-
-# What's New in the FAQ?
-
-Version| Date | What's New | 10.0| 18-MAR-04 | [Section H](secHcon.html)
-Reorganisation of section H. Some sections have been moved around (for
-example, section H.5 on the Makhnovist movement is now [section
-H.11](secH11.html) and section H.8 on vanguardism is now [section
-H.5](secH5.html)). In addition, sections from [section H.6](secH6.html) (what
-was section H.4) have been added. Some changes have been made to other
-sections. For example the section on Kronstadt (now [section
-H.7](secH7.html)), the section on various Bolshevik Oppositions ([section
-H.10](secH10.html)) and the critique of Engels' essay on Authority is now a
-new section ([section H.4](secH4.html)) instead of being part of [section
-H.1](secH1.html).
-
-The following subsections of section H.6 are now available:
-
-[Section H.6](secH6.html)
-Introduction to section H.6
-[Section H.6.3](secH6.html#sech63)
-Surely the Russian Revolution proves that vanguard parties work?
-[Section H.6.4](secH6.html#sech64)
-Was Lenin's "State and Revolution" applied after October?
-[Section H.6.5](secH6.html#sech65)
-Did the Bolsheviks really aim for Soviet power?
-[Section H.6.6](secH6.html#sech61)
-What happened to the soviets after October? | 9.10| 09-JAN-04 | [Section
-H.9](secH9.html)
-New section on how Marxist and Leninist ideology helped cause the degeneration
-of the Russian Revolution. Why only rejecting the centralised, state
-capitalist Bolshevik vision can lead to real socialism.
-
-[Section H.10](secH10.html)
-New section on the better know oppositions within Bolshevism: The "Left
-Communists" of 1918, the "Workers' Opposition" of 1920/1 and the "Left
-Opposition" of 1923-7. Explains why they were not real oppositions and what
-that says about the essence of Leninism. Talks about the little know "Workers'
-Group" (a real opposition as it argued for workers political and economic
-freedom) and what its repression by Lenin and Trotsky says about the essence
-of Bolshevism. | 9.9| 26-AUG-03 | [Section H.7](secH7.html)
-New section on why the Russian Revolution failed. Covers most of the common
-Leninist explanations of why Bolshevism became authoritarian and shows why
-they are flawed. Includes replies to such classics as the "declassing" of the
-working class and lots more. | 9.8| 27-JAN-03 | [Section H.5](secH5.html)
-[Section H.5.4](secH5.html#sech54)
-[Section H.5.5](secH5.html#sech55)
-[Section H.5.6](secH5.html#sech56)
-[Section H.5.8](secH5.html#sech58)
-[Section H.5.10](secH5.html#sech510)
-Additions to various sub-sections to section H.5 (**_"What was the Kronstadt
-Rebellion?"_**). These additions are from recently published Soviet Archive
-documents.
-
-[Section B.4](secB4.html)
-A slight addition on company towns to the section on **_How does capitalism
-affect liberty?_**
-
-[Section H.2.2](secH2.html#sech22)
-Addition of an Emma Goldman quote to the section on _**"Do anarchists reject
-"class conflict" as "the motor of change" and "collective struggle" as the
-"means"?"**_. This quote reiterates that Goldman, like all social anarchists,
-placed collective class struggle at the core of her politics.
-
-[Section A.5.5](secA5.html#seca55)
-Slight change to the section on _**"Anarchists in the Italian Factory
-Occupations"**_ to include a quote by Gramsci on the Communist's disgraceful
-position on the anti-fascist Arditi del Popolo organisation.
-
-[Section G](secGint.html)
-[Section G.2](secG2.html)
-[Section G.2.1](secG2.html#secg21)
-[Section G.2.2](secG2.html#secg22)
-A few additions to clarify a few points on the ideas of individualist
-anarchism, its support of "free markets" and why it is anti-capitalist.
-
-| 9.7| 27-JUNE-02 | [Section H.3](secH3.html)
-New section on the "myths of Marxism." Covers the contradictions in the
-Marxist and Leninist theories of the state, whether the state is simply an
-instrument of class rule and whether anarchists and Marxists want the same
-thing. In addition, covers whether Marxists seek to place power in the hands
-of workers' organisation and their position on "workers' control." Plus lots
-more.
-
-[Section H.8](secH8.html)
-New section on why anarchists oppose Leninist vanguard parties. Discusses
-their anti-socialist and elitist tendencies and explains why they are
-"bureaucratic centralist" rather than "democratic centralist." Plus lots more.
-| 9.6| 29-MAY-02 | [Section H.5](secH5.html)
-A few additions to the section on the Kronstadt Rebellion, to include
-Fedotoff-White's book **The Growth of the Red Army**
-
-[Appendix - The Symbols of Anarchy](append2.html)
-A few minor changes to the appendix on anarchist symbols. | 9.5| 5-FEB-02 |
-[Section H.6](secH6.html)
-New section on the Makhnovist movement. The Makhnovist movement was an
-anarchist influenced peasant partisan army which fought in the Ukraine for
-working class freedom and autonomy against the tyrannts of the right and left.
-The Makhnovists show that there was a viable alternative to the
-authoritarianism of the Bolsheviks and that Bolshevik ideology played a key
-role in the degeneration of the revolution. This section summarises the
-military history of the movement, its constructive social ideas and its
-attempts to apply them. In addition it refutes common allegations against the
-Makhnovists (such as they were anti-Semitic, worked with the Whites, were
-Nationalists, anti-town and so on).
-
-| 9.4| 7-DEC-01 | [Section H.2](secH2.html)
-New section on how Marxists have distorted anarchist ideas.
-
-[Section I.3](secI3.html)
-[Section I.4](secI4.html)
-[Section I.5](secI5.html)
-[Section I.8](secI8.html)
-[Marxists and Spanish Anarchism](append32.html)
-[Reply to errors and distortions in the SWP's "Marxism and
-Anarchism"](append34.html)
-[Reply to errors and distortions in John Fisher's "Why we must further Marxism
-and not Anarchism"](append35.html)
-Minor updates of these sections and appendices to make the quotes Peirats'
-**CNT in the Spanish Revolution** and Christies' **We, the Anarchists!**
-consistent with the newly published book versions. | 9.3| 27-OCT-01 |
-[Section H.1](secH1.html)
-New section on how anarchists have opposed state socialism (including Marxism)
-from the start. Indicates Stirner's and Proudhon's opposition to state
-socialism and gives a short summary of Bakunin's critique of Marxism.
-Discusses the key differences between anarchism and Marxism. Also indicates
-why Engels' infamous essay "On Authority" does not refute anarchism. | 9.2|
-01-SEP-01 | [Section A.5.4](secA5.html#seca54)
-Extensive revision and expansion of the section on **_"Anarchists in the
-Russian Revolution."_** More details on the Makhnovist movement as well as the
-degeneration of the revolution under the Bolshevik government.
-
-[Section A.5.5](secA5.html#seca55)
-Expansion of the section on _**"Anarchists in the Italian Factory
-Occupations."_** Indicates the key role anarchists played in this movement.
-
-[Section A.5.7](secA5.html#seca57)
-Slight revision to include a reference to the Situationists and their
-influence in the May, 1968 events in Paris.
-
-[Section D.5](secD5.html)
-Extensive revision of _**"What causes imperialism?"**_. Provides an anarchist
-analysis of what causes imperialism, how it has changed over time and how
-"globalisation" is just another, more modern, form of it.
-
-[Did Trotsky keep alive Leninism's _"democratic
-essence"_?](append31.html#app15)
-A new section to [Reply to errors and distortions in David McNally's pamphlet
-_"Socialism from Below"_.](append31.html) This section discusses Trotsky's
-support for party dictatorship during the 1920s and 1930s, so showing the
-inaccuracy of McNally's account of his ideas **and** putting in question his
-assertions about Leninism's _democratic essence."_
-
-[Marxists and Spainish Anarchism](append32.html)
-Slight addition to [section 6](append32.html#app6) on the Asturias uprising
-and the addition of Trotsky's suggestion that the CNT leaders take
-_"dictatorship for themselves"_ to [section 20](append32.html#app20).
-
-| 9.1| 27-JUN-01 | [Anarchism and Marxism](append3.html)
-New reply to another (highly inaccurate) Trotskyist attack on anarchism. We
-show how the "New Youth" article [ "Why we must further Marxism and not
-Anarchism"](append3.html#app35) is little more than a series of inventions and
-does not present an honest account of anarchist ideas. We also indicate the
-authoritarian nature of Trotskyist politics. | 9.0| 01-MAY-01 | [Section
-I](secIcon.html)
-Massive revision and extension to section I (**_"What would an anarchist
-society look like?"_**). New sub-sections, new and improved arguments, ideas,
-facts and quotes. Find out about the kind of society anarchists want and fight
-for. | 8.7| 17-MAR-01 | [Section H.5](secH5.html)
-New section on the Kronstadt Uprising against the Communists in 1921. It
-presents an indepth discussion and analysis of the rising and places it in the
-context of the revolution. It refutes Leninist claims that it was a White
-conspiracy, counter-revolutionary or expressed the exasperation of the
-peasants. It shows the continuity of the the revolutionary sailors and their
-politics in 1917 with the revolt of 1921 and discusses what the suppression of
-the revolt tells us about the politics of Leninism.
-
-[Section H -- Introduction](secHint.html)
-Slight change to include a quote by Lenin noting that the Council/Anti-
-Parliamentarian Communists were close to anarchism.
-
-| 8.6| 14-DEC-00 | [The Symbols of Anarchy](append2.html)
-Slight revision on the histories of the Black and Red-and-Black Flags.
-Includes Louise Michels comments on both the Black and Red flags and why the
-Black Flag ("the flag of strikes") may have become an anarchist symbol. Also
-shows that anarchists used the red-and-black flag in Mexico in the 1870s.
-
-[Anarchism and Marxism](append3.html)
-Slight revisions to two parts of this appendix. Now quotes from the Paris
-Commune's "Declaration to the French People" in our discussion of _ [ Why is
-Marxist "class analysis" of anarchism contradictory?](append31.html#app12) _
-This makes clearer the anarchistic nature of the Commune. In addition, the
-comment by Marx that revolution _"from below"_ was _"nonsense"_ has been added
-to the section on [why SWP/ISO use of the expression _"Socialism from below"_
-is dishonest](append31.html#app14). Also a discussion of the Bolshevik
-hostility towards workers' councils in the 1905 Russian Revolution as another
-example of the [ineffectiveness of the "vanguard" parties like the
-SWP.](append34.html#app1)
-
-| 8.5| 27-OCT-00 | [Anarchism and Marxism](append3.html)
-Slight revisions of each of the existing appendices to fix minor typing
-errors. Plus a reply to the recent British SWP article on ["Marxism and
-Anarchism"](append3.html#app34) in which we discuss the errors in the article
-and indicate that the disgraceful behaviour of the SWP in the recent "Battle
-of Prague" shows that the SWP are hypocrites as well as why such behaviour
-flows naturally from their authoritarian politics. | 8.4| 19-JUL-00 |
-[Section B.4.5](secB4.html#secb45)
-Expansion on why capitalism cannot "leave you alone". Includes information on
-self-management schemes and why they management stop them and what this
-implies for capitalism. Plus it discusses the ambiguity of the slogan "leave
-me alone" in a hierarchical society.
-
-[Section J.5.12](secJ5.html#secj512)
-Expansion on why capitalism selects against workers' self-management even
-though it is usually more productive and efficient than wage labour. The
-hierarchical nature of the company ensures that such experiments do not grow
-and expand.
-
-[Section F.1](secF1.html)
-Slight expansion of _**"Are 'anarcho'-capitalists really anarchists?"_** Adds
-the point we make elsewhere that they cannot be considered as anarchists
-because capitalist property, like the state, is hierarchical.
-
-[Anarchism and Marxism](append3.html)
-Two new additions to this appendix. The first one is on _** [Marxists and
-Spanish Anarchism](append3.html#app32)_** in which we discuss various claims
-made by Marxists (particularly Trotskyists) about the history and politics of
-the Spanish anarchist movement. The second is a [reply to a Marxist
-diatribe](append3.html#app33) against the various "direct action" and anti-
-globalisation events and organisations, particularly **Reclaim the Streets**
-in London. In addition, [section 12](append31.html#app12) of the appendix on
-the pamphlet _**"Socialism from Below"_** has been expanded to include more
-details about anarchist involvement during the Russian Revolution and their
-links with the masses as well as details of the politics of Parisian workers
-of the 1860s. | 8.3| 13-APR-00 | [Section B.2](secB2.html)
-Expansion and revision on the section _**"Why are anarchists against the
-state?"**_. Indicates that the state bureaucracy has its own interests and so
-the state is not only the tool of the economically dominant class. Also
-indicates the role of the state as protector of the system **as a whole** and
-how it does this.
-
-[Section J.1](secJ1.html)
-Revision of the section on _**"Are Anarchists involved in social
-struggles?"_**.
-
-[Section D.1](secD1.html)
-[Section D.2](secD2.html)
-[Section D.11](secD11.html)
-Slight expanision of each of these sections.
-
-[Anarchism and Marxism](append3.html)
-Revision to fix various minor typos.
-
-| 8.2| 18-MAR-00 | [Anarchism and Marxism](append3.html)
-New appendix for replies to on-line anti-anarchist webpages and works.
-Currently contains an indepth reply to the SWP/ISO pamphlet _**"Socialism from
-Below."**_ We expose their _"The Myth of Anarchist Libertarianism"_ to be a
-mish-mash of lies, half-truths and nonsense and indicate why Marxism is
-**not** _Socialism from Below_ and why anarchism is.
-
-[Section C.1](secC1.html)
-Revision and expansion of our critique of marginalism and general equilibrium
-theory.
-
-[Section J.2.10](secJ2.html#secj210)
-Slight expansion on why the claim that anarchism is apolitical because it
-rejects electioneering is false.
-
-[Section J.3.7](secJ3.html#secj37)
-Slight expansion on Bakunin's ideas on the tactics of anarchist groups and why
-Marxist accounts of them are false.
-
-[Section J.7.2](secJ7.html#secj72)
-Slight change to the end of the section on _** Is social revolution
-possible?_** Stresses that people change themselves when they change the world
-and that libertarian characteristics are generated by struggle and so co-
-operative/libertarian tendencies are a product of struggle, not idealised
-notions with little basis in reality.
-
-[Section E.7](secE7.html)
-Slight expansion on why Green Consumerism cannot stop ecological destruction.
-Expands on the use of PR firms, _"greenwashing"_ and how apparently "green"
-firms may not be.
-
-[Section F.1.3](secF1.html#secF13)
-[Section F.2.2](secF2.html#secF22)
-Slight revision of these sections.
-
-| 8.1| 19-JAN-00 | [Section A.2.9](secA2.html#seca29)
-Expansion on the section on _**"What sort of society do anarchists want?"**_
-Clarifies the important difference between delegates and representatives. The
-former is the basis for eliminating government, the latter is a form of
-government.
-
-[Section A.5](secA5.html)
-Slight expansion to introduction of this sub-section to hight that anarchists
-aim for a _**revolution from below_** and that our examples of _**Anarchy in
-Action_** are expressions of this.
-
-[Section A.5.1](secA5.html#seca51)
-Expansion of the section on _**"The Paris Commune"_** to include more
-information on its anarchistic elements and to provide more anarchist analysis
-of it.
-
-[Section A.5.2](secA5.html#seca52)
-Expansion of the section on the **_"Haymarket Martyrs"**_ to include more of
-the history of the event, details of the _**"Chicago Idea"_** which inspired
-them as well as why anarchists still consider it important.
-
-[Section J.5](secJ5.html)
-Slight modification to **_"What alternative social organisations do anarchists
-create?"_**
-
-[Appendix 1](append12.html)
-Slight changes to the appendix on _**"Anarchism and 'Anarcho'-capitalism"_**
-
-| 8.0| 14-DEC-99 | [Section G](secGcon.html)
-Revision and expansion of section G which is on the Individualist Anarchists.
-In addition to new arguments in existing sections on why they were libertarian
-**_socialists_** and **not** fore-fathers of "anarcho"-capitalism, there are
-three new sub-sections:
-[G.1.1 Why is the social context important in evaluating Individualist
-Anarchism?](secG1.html#secg11)
-[G.2.1 What about their support of the free market?](secG2.html#secg21);
-[G.2.2 What about their support of "private property"?](secG2.html#secg22);
-
-[Section C.2.6](secC2.html#secc26)
-[Section C.2.7](secC2.html#secc27)
-Addition of a couple of Proudhon quotes on why interest is exploitative and
-unjustifiable.
-
-[Section H -- Introduction](secHint.html)
-New section. Introduction to the section on why Anarchists are opposed to
-Marxism and other forms of state socialism. Also refutes some of the silly
-anti-anarchist assertions by Marxists.
-
-[Section J.7](secJ7.html)
-New section on _**What do anarchists mean by social revolution?_**. Find out
-what anarchists mean when they talk about social revolution, what it would
-involve and why most anarchists think it is required (and also why some
-anarchists reject it).
-
-| 7.8| 11-NOV-99 | [Section A.1.4](secA1.html#seca14)
-Slight change to the section on _**Are anarchists socialists?**_
-
-[Section A.1.5](secA1.html#seca15)
-Expansion of the section on _**Where does anarchism come from?_**. While still
-stressing that anarchism is a product of working class struggle against the
-modern state and capitalism (and for freedom and equality), it also notes that
-anarchistic tendencies have existed in society before anarchism existed as a
-specific political theory.
-
-[Section A.2.7](secA2.html#seca27)
-Expansion to the section on _** Why do anarchists argue for self-
-liberation?_** in order to stress that it is the process of rebellion, of
-self-liberation, that holds the key to a free society.
-
-[Section A.2.9](secA2.html#seca29)
-Addition of Kropotkin quote to the section on _**What sort of society do
-anarchists want?_**
-
-[Section A.2.14](secA2.html#seca214)
-Revision to the section on _**Why is voluntarism not enough?_** to include a
-few quotes and to clarify a few things.
-
-[Section A.2.19](secA2.html#seca219)
-Very slight addition to the section on _**What ethical views do anarchists
-hold?_** to include how inequality erodes ethical behaviour.
-
-[Section B.7.1](secB7.html#secb71)
-Inclusion of more information on classes to the section on _**But do classes
-actually exist?_**. International comparisions show that the US has more
-poverty and the smallest middle class compared to social democratic states in
-Europe. Not surprisingly, as its more free market based.
-
-[Section B.7.3](secB7.html#secb73)
-Slight expansion of the section on _**What do anarchists mean by "class
-consciousness"?_**
-
-[Section C.2](secC2.html)
-Slight expansion of the section on _** Where do profits come from?_**
-
-[Section D.10](secD10.html)
-Expansion of the section on _** How does capitalism affect technology?_**. In
-a hierarchical society, technology cannot be truly neutral -- as anarchists
-have been aware of since Proudhon -- and will be used to enchance the power
-and profit of the bosses.
-
-[Section F.5](secF5.html)
-Expansion of the section on why privatising everything will not increase
-freedom. Discover why a right-libertarian society implies the end of freedom
-of travel and the end of other civil liberties such as freedom of speach.
-
-[Section J.2](secJ2.html)
-Expansion of the section on **_What is Direct Action?_**. Find out why
-anarchists support direct action, why we are against voting and what our
-alternative is to electioneering.
-
-[An Anarchist FAQ Bibilography](biblio.html)
-The bibliography for the books we reference in the FAQ has been considerably
-added to.
-
-| 7.7| 14-JUL-99 | [Section J.4](secJ4.html)
-New section on _**What trends in society aid anarchist activity?**_ This
-section includes discussion of the importance of social struggle and the myth
-that its counter-production. In addition, it discusses anarchist use of the
-Internet, popular discontent with the state and big business as well as
-economic crisis.
-
-[Appendix - Anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism](append1.html)
-Revision and expansion on our reply and critique to Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist
-Theory FAQ." Explains why "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist and not part
-of the anarchist tradition.
-
-[An Anarchist FAQ Bibilography](biblio.html)
-Incomplete bibliography for the books we reference in the FAQ. It will be
-added to as time permits.
-
-[Section A.1.1](secA1.html#seca11)
-Slight revision to the section on _**What does "anarchy" mean?_** to stress
-that anarchy means far more than just "no government."
-
-[Section A.3.1](secA3.html#seca31)
-[Section A.3.2](secA3.html#seca32)
-Expansion to the discussion on the differences between social and
-individualist anarchists, as well as between different kinds of social
-anarchist.
-
-[Section A.5.5](secA5.html#seca55)
-Expansion of the section on _**Anarchists in the Italian Factory
-Occupations_**. Includes more details of the Anarchist struggle against
-fascism and refutes claims that Italian Fascism was somehow related to
-anarcho-syndicalism.
-
-[Section A.2.18](secA2.html#seca218)
-Expansion and revision of the infamous _**"propaganda by the deed"_** period
-of anarchist history.
-
-[Section F.8](secF8.html)
-Slight changes to the section on the role of the state in creating capitalism
-in the first place.
-
-[Section A](secAcon.html)
-Minor changes in section A.
-
-[Section B](secBcon.html)
-Minor changes in section B.
-
-| 7.6| 23-APR-99 | [Section J.3](secJ3.html)
-New section on _**What kinds of organisation do anarchists build?**_. This
-section discusses the different kinds of organisations anarchists create and
-what role they play in anarchist theory, as part of society and in the class
-struggle. Anarcho-syndicalism is also discussed, as is why many anarchists are
-not anarcho-syndicalists. Also covered is Bakunin's ideas on the role of
-revolutionary organisations.
-
-[Appendix - The Symbols of Anarchy](append2.html)
-New appendix on the history of the common anarchist symbols: the black flag,
-the red-and-black flag and the circled-A | 7.5| 15-MAR-99 |
-
-[Section C.8](secC8.html)
-Expansion of section on the role of credit and state control of money in the
-business cycle. Discusses Monetarism and free banking and why they fail to
-stop the business cycle.
-
-[Section C.11](secC11.html)
-Slight revision and expansion on the section which discusses why Chile shows
-that free-market capitalism does not benefit everyone and that it was no
-"economic miracle".
-
-[Section A.2.2](secA2.html#seca22)
-Slight modification to the section on **_"Why do anarchists emphasise
-liberty?"_**.
-
-[Section A.2.5](secA2.html#seca25)
-Extension on **_"why anarchists are in favour of equality?"**_ to clarify a
-few points.
-
-[Section A.2.8](secA2.html#seca28)
-More arguments explaining why it is impossible to be an anarchist without
-opposing hierarchy, including the hierarchy associated with private property.
-
-[Introduction](intro.html)
-Slight up-date of the introduction.
-
-| 7.4| 17/12/98 |
-
-[Section C.7](secC7.html)
-Expansion, revision and reorganisation of section on _**"What causes the
-capitalist business cycle?"_**. Includes new facts and figures and expands on
-original arguments. Why boom and bust is inherent in capitalism and the role
-of class struggle, investment and the price mechanism in it.
-
-[Section C.9](secC9.html)
-Expansion, revision and reorganisation of section on _** Would laissez-faire
-policies reduce unemployment, as "free market" capitalists claim?_**.
-Reorganisation includes new subsections on empirical evidence that suggests
-high wages are associated with low unemployment and why "flexible" labour
-markets do not seem to be the solution to unemployment.
-
-[Section C.3](secC3.html)
-Revision on _** What determines the distribution between profits and wages
-within companies?_**, stressing the importance of organisation and collective
-struggle in increasing wages by increasing bargaining power and indicating
-that rising productivity can be associated with lower wages, in contradiction
-to the claims of capitalist economics.
-
-| 7.3| 08/12/98 |
-
-[Section A.3.3](secA3.html#seca33)
-Revision and expansion of _**"What types of Green anarchism are there?"_**,
-indicating the links between ecological and anarchist thought, the different
-types of green anarchism there are and where they agree and disagree.
-
-[Section A.3.4](secA3.html#seca34)
-Revision and expansion of **_"Is anarchism pacifistic?"_** in which we discuss
-why many anarchists are pacifists and why anarchism has close links with
-pacifist ideas. It also indicates why most anarchists are not pacifists.
-
-[Section A.1.4](secA1.html#seca14)
-Revision of the section on _**"Are Anarchists Socialists?_** to clarify a
-couple of points and provide a few more quotes from Individualist anarchists.
-
-[Section B.4.3](secB4.html#secb43)
-Revision of the section on _**"No one forces you to work for them"_** which
-indicates that this refrain of supporters of capitalism misses the point.
-
-[Section G.6](secG6.html)
-Slight expansion on **_"What are the ideas of Max Stirner?_** in relation to
-his _**Union of Egoists_** and why it implies self-management, not hierarchy.
-
-[Section C.5.1](secC5.html#secc51)
-Inclusion of a few quotes by Peter Kropotkin on how Big Business gets more
-profits. Big isn't beautiful, but it helps you make more profits! | 7.2|
-22/05/98 | [Section C.1](secC1.html)
-[Section C.2](secC2.html)
-Revision and expansion of the anarchist critique of capitalist economics and
-why exploitation (unpaid labour) is the root source of profits, interest and
-rent.
-
-[Section C.10](secC10.html)
-Expansion of the section on why "free market" capitalism will not benefit all,
-_especially_ the poor.
-
-[Section C Introduction](secCint.html)
-[Section C.9](secC9.html)
-Slight changes to these two sub-sections of section C. | 7.1| 27/03/98 |
-[Section A.3.5](secA3.html#seca35)
-Revision and expansion of _**"What is Anarcha-Feminism?"**_. Includes a few
-more quotes and a discussion on why anarchists and anarcha-feminism are
-critical of mainstream feminism.
-
-[Section A.2.11](secA2.html#seca211)
-Expansion of the section explaining why most anarchists support direct
-democracy and consider it as the complement to free association and individual
-freedom.
-
-[Section A.2.13](secA2.html#seca213)
-Slight expansion on the section explaining why anarchists reject
-"individualism" and "collectivism" as two sides of the same (capitalist) coin.
-
-[Section A.1](secA1.html)
-[Section A.2.2](secA2.html#seca22)
-[Section A.2.12](secA2.html#seca212)
-[Section A.5.2](secA5.html#seca52)
-Slight revisions to all the above sections.
-
-[Section J.5](secJ5.html)
-Slight revisions for grammar. | 7.0| 10/03/98 | [Section
-A.3.7](secA3.html#seca37)
-New sub-section on **_Are there religious anarchists?_** Includes information
-on various forms of religious anarchism with particular reference to Tolstoy.
-
-[Section A.3.8](secA3.html#seca38)
-New sub-section on **_What is "anarchism without adjectives"?**_. Gives the
-history of this form of anarchism, what it is and why it came about.
-
-[Section A.4](secA4.html)
-Slight revision of this section on **_Who are the major anarchist thinkers_**
-to include information on religious anarchism.
-
-[Section C.11](secC11.html)
-Slight arrangement of sections C.11 and C.12 on the "free market" capitalist
-experiment in Pinochet's Chile. C.12 is now included as a subsection of C.11.
-
-[Section C.12](secC12.html)
-New section C.12 on Hong Kong and why it does not show the benefits of
-laissez-faire capitalism as is often claimed.
-
-[Section F](secFcon.html)
-Extensive revision of section F on why "anarcho"-capitalism is not a form of
-anarchism. Expanded, revised and spell checked.
-
-[Replies to the FAQ](replies.html)
-New appendix which will list webpages that reply to the FAQ. Currently it
-includes a reply to reply on section F.1 done by an "anarcho"-capitalist.
-
-| 6.8| 07/01/98 | [Section J.5](secJ5.html)
-New sub-section on **_"What alternative social organisations do anarchists
-create?_**. Includes information about community organising, industrial
-unionism and networking, mutual/co-operative credit systems, producer co-
-operatives (and why capitalism is inefficient), libertarian education and
-schools, a discussion on Libertarian Municipalism and anarchist views on state
-and private welfare and self-managed alternatives to both. Essential reading
-if you are interested in _**anarchy in action**_
-
-[Section A.1](secA1.html)
-Slightly revised sub-section on **_"What is Anarchism?"_**.
-
-[Section B.1.4](secB1.html#secb14)
-Slight revision on the section on racism, sexism and homophobia and why they
-exist to include a summary of a study into the effects of racism in the USA.
-The study indicates that racism makes all working people worse off, including
-the "white" workers who are often said to benefit from it.
-
-| 6.7| 18/12/97 | [Section G.6](secG6.html)
-Slight revision to the section on Max Stirner and his ideas.
-
-Sections [J introduction, [J.1](secJ1.html), [J.2](secJ2.html) and
-[J.6](secJ6.html)
-Minor revision on these sections of J for spelling and grammar
-
-| 6.6| 15/12/97 | [Section B.7](secB7.html)
-Slight revision to include more details on the concentration of wealth within
-the ruling class.
-
-Sections [C.4, [C.5](secC5.html) and [C.6](secC6.html)
-Major revision on the sections on Big Business and oligopoly. Why it develops,
-its impact on society and why and how it enriches the few at the expense of
-the many.
-
-[Section D](secDcon.html)
-Revised, expanded and spell checked section D on **_How does capitalism and
-statism effect society**_. Even more arguments and facts against capitalism
-and statism.
-
-| 6.5| 28/10/97 | Slight corrections to sections [A](secAcon.html),
-[B](secBcon.html) and [C](secCcon.html)
-
-| 6.4| 03/09/97 | [Section J.6](secJ6.html)
-Anarchist ideas on and methods for bringing up children.
-
-[Section B](secBcon.html)
-Revised, expanded and spell checked section B on **_Why do anarchists oppose
-the current system**_. Even more arguments and facts against capitalism and
-statism.
-
-Section C [Introduction](secCintro.html), [C.2](secC2.html),
-[C.6](secC6.html), [C.7.2](secC7.html#secc72) and [C.9](secC9.html)
-Slightly revised and expended sections on capitalist economics.
-
-Sections [ F](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/secFcon.html)
-and [G](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/secGcon.html) have
-been moved to another geocities address for space reasons.
-
-| 6.3| 17/07/97 | [Section C](secCcon.html)
-Revised, expanded and spell checked section C on **_The Myths of Capitalist
-Economics_**. Even more quotes from your favourite anarchists and
-libertarians!. Even more arguments and facts against capitalism!
-
-[Section E](secEcon.html)
-Revised and spell checked section e on **_What do anarchists think causes
-ecological problems?_**.
-
-[Section G](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/secGcon.html)
-Renamed, improved, expanded, revised and spell checked section G on **_Is
-individualist anarchism capitalistic?_** \- the short answer being "no"!
-Indicates how and why individualist anarchism was opposed to capitalism
-**plus** why social anarchists are critical of the theory.
-
-| 6.2| 23/05/97 | [Section J.1](secJ1.html)
-Newly completed sub-section. Find out why social struggle is important to
-anarchists and how anarchists take part in it. For anarchists, social struggle
-is the key from getting from capitalism to anarchy.
-
-[Section A](secAcon.html)
-Revised section A on **_What is Anarchism?_**. Improved and updated arguments
-and evidence, plus spell checked, and so on!
-
-Section J - [introduction](secJintro.html) and [ J.2](secJ2.html)
-Spell checked and slightly revised. | 6.1| 01/05/97 | [Section
-J.2](secJ2.html)
-Newly completed sub-section. Find out all about _**direct action**_, why
-anarchists support it, why we reject electioneering as a means of change and
-why we do not vote.
-
-Minor update of section [B.3](secB3.html) to include a couple of nice Proudhon
-quotes on how _**"property is despotism."**_
-
-Minor updates of sections [C.2](secC2.html) and
-[F.2.1](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/secF2.html#secf26) to
-make the quotes from Proudhon's **What is Property** consistent in terms of
-edition. All quotes now from B.R. Tucker's translation, Bellamy Library
-edition, London.
-
-Minor updates to sections [I.3](secI3.html), [I.3.1](secI3.html#seci31),
-[I.3.4 ](secI3.html#seci34), [I.3.5, [I.4.4 ](secI4.html#seci44) and
-[I.4.13](secI4.html#seci413) in order to make the possible nature and workings
-of an anarchist "economy" clearer.
-
-Minor update to section [I.8.7](secI8.html#seci87) on the Aragon rural
-collectives and how they were the product of the radicalisation of the
-population during the 1930s. | 6.0| 26/03/97 | [Section
-B.3.4](secB3.html#secb34)
-New sub-section. Analysis of the claims that private property, particularly in
-land, can be justified in terms of self-ownership. Also indicates the
-authoritarian nature of private property and the way Robert Nozick ignores the
-liberty of the dispossessed in his attempts to justify appropriation of land.
-If land ownership cannot be justified, then capitalism is based upon stolen
-goods.
-
-[Section B.7.1](secB7.html#secb71)
-This section on classes is slightly expanded to give details of income
-mobility within capitalism. Argues that even high income mobility cannot
-justify a class system and presents evidence that income mobility is moderate
-at best.
-
-[Section
-F.2.2](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/secF2.html#secf28)
-New sub-section. Short discussion on why we should reject the right-
-Libertarian "entitlement theory of justice." The means do not justify the
-ends, and if the ends involve authoritarian social relationships, inequalities
-in liberty, wealth and power, even "civilised" slavery, then the theory
-stinks.
-
-[Appendix](append1.html)
-New appendix on Anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism. As well as including the
-old section F.10, this appendix contains new work - a reply to the claim that
-[the Individualist Anarchists were not part of the socialist
-movement](append11.html#app1), a discussion on [What socialism actually stands
-for](append11.html#app2), analysis on whether [Proudhon](append11.html#app3)
-and [ Tucker](append11.html#app4) were socialists or capitalists, a reply to
-claims that ["anarcho"capitalism is a form of anarchism](append11.html#app5)
-and a discussion on why [anarchism cannot be defined using
-dictionaries.](append11.html#app6)
-
-| 5.1| 10/03/97| Minor updates to sections [C.11](secC11.html) and
-[C.12](secC11.html#secc111) on the Chilean "economic miracle." Why did it
-require mass murder, dictatorship and state terror to create "free market"
-capitalism in Chile and what was its actual results? | 5.0| 28/02/97 |
-[Section D.5](secD5.html)
-A slight update expanding upon the anarchist analysis of imperialism and how
-it has developed over time.
-
-[Section C.7](secC7.html)
-An updated analysis of the capitalist business cycle. Argues that the class
-struggle both outside and inside the workplace has an impact in creating the
-business cycle. Old version ignored social struggle outside the workplace and
-put too much emphasis on technological innovation by big business. This has
-been corrected.
-
-Sections [C.8.1](secC8.html#secc81),[C.8.2](secC8.html#secc82) and
-[C.8.3](secC8.html#secc83)
-Anarchist analysis of the rise of social Keynesianism and its fall into a
-combination of free markets and Pentagon-style Keynesianism. Even reformed
-capitalist is not immune to the struggle for freedom against hierarchy and the
-objective limits of capitalism.
-
-[Section F.1](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/secF1.html)
-Expanded arguments on why "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist. Contains an
-excellent quote by Noam Chomsky on what he considers would happen if it was
-tried in practice. Also contains the new sub-sections
-[F.1.2](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/secF1.html#secf12) and
-[F.1.3](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/secF1.html#secf13) on
-how libertarian right-libertarian theory is (not very!) and how most right-
-Libertarians reject the scientific method in favour of dogma, respectively.
-
-[Section G.5](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/secG5.html)
-An updated analysis of the ideas of Individualist Anarchist Benjamin Tucker.
-More quotes from Tucker on the socialistic nature of his ideas and his support
-for labour struggle.
-
-[Section I.7.4](secI7.html#seci74)
-Expanded analysis on why capitalism does not protect individuality and why
-competition puts out the flame of individuality and rebellion.
-
-[Section J - Introduction](secJintro.html)
-Introduction to the section on _**"What do Anarchists do?"_**. Gives a short
-overview of the anarchist approach to social struggles and why its so
-important for creating an anarchist future. Plus updated [contents
-page](secJcon.html) \- what to look forward to in the near future!
-
-| 4.1| 14/02/97| Minor updates to sections [A.1.5](secA1.html#seca15),
-[A.2.9](secA2.html#seca29), [I.5.8](secI5.html#seci58) and
-[I.6.1](secI6.html#seci61). | | 4.0| 10/02/97 | [Introduction](intro.html)
-At long last an introduction to the FAQ and its history. Also names the guilty
-parties.
-
-**What's New?**
-This "What's New" page will be a welcome addition to regular visitors to the
-FAQ.
-
-[Section
-F.2.1](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/secF2.html#secf26)
-Do Libertarian-capitalists support slavery? Yes is the answer and find out why
-this indicates that right-libertarians are not libertarians at all.
-
-[Section F.9](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/secF9.html)
-Update with new evidence of the nature of Medieval Iceland and why it
-indicates that private property produces statism. More reasons why Medieval
-Iceland demonstrates how "anarcho-"capitalism will not work in practice. |
-3.3| 06/02/97 | [Section
-F.6](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/secF6.html)
-New analysis on how the "anarcho"-capitalist system of private states will
-become a public state. Builds on and extends original argument.
-
diff --git a/markdown/oldnew.md b/markdown/oldnew.md
deleted file mode 100644
index 4f3e63a5de46c9b024588dbc9c9465a1c0c04eee..0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
--- a/markdown/oldnew.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,338 +0,0 @@
-# Introduction
-
-Here is a list of all the new additions to the FAQ. An list of older changes
-can found [here](oldernew.html).
-
-The version number of the FAQ changes as follows. A major change results in
-then the version number is increased by one (from version 10.2 to version 11,
-for example). If a minor change is being made then the current version is
-increased by 0.1 (for example, from version 10.2 to 10.3).
-
-As far as new anarchist and libertarian links are concerned, we will add them
-when we get enough to make an update worthwhile. These updates have no effect
-on the FAQ version number as we don't want to inflate it higher than the
-content deserves.
-
-We hope that this makes it clear to visitors!
-
-# What's New in the FAQ?
-
-Version| Date| What's New |
-
-11.10
-
-|
-
-01-MAY-2007
-
-|
-
-[Section E](secEcon.html)
-Major revision of section E (_**"What do anarchists think causes ecological
-problems?"_**). Massively expanded and improved, with many new sub-sections
-and arguments.
-
-[Section C.12](secC12.html)
-Major revision of section C.12. Think Hong Kong is an example of "free market"
-capitalism? Think again...
-
-This is part of the process of getting the FAQ ready for being published by AK
-Press.
-
----|---|---
-
-11.9
-
-|
-
-01-MAR-2007
-
-|
-
-[Section D](secDcon.html)
-Major revision of section D (_**"How does statism and capitalism affect
-society?"_**) to fix typos and expand and improve some of the sections.
-
-[Section D.1.4](secD1.html#secd14)
-New sub-section on why laissez-faire capitalism is not without state
-intervention.
-
-[Section D.1.5](secD1.html#secd15)
-New sub-section on whether anarchists support state intervention or not.
-
-[Section D.11](secD11.html)
-New section discussing if politics and economics can be separated from each
-other, using the example of Pinochet's Chile. The original section D.11 has
-now become a sub-section of [section D.9](secD9.html).
-
-[Section C.10](secC10.html)
-Major revision of section C.10, including new subsections on neo-liberalism,
-growth, labour's share in nation income and lots more.
-
-[Section C.11](secC11.html)
-Major revision of section C.11, including new subsections. Find out the true
-failure of the first experiment in neo-liberalism, Pinochet's Chile.
-
-This is part of the process of getting the FAQ ready for being published by AK
-Press.
-
-11.8
-
-|
-
-11-NOV-2006
-
-|
-
-[Section C.3](secC3.html)
-Revision of section C.3
-
-[Section C.4](secC4.html)
-Revision of section C.4
-
-[Section C.5](secC5.html)
-Revision of section C.5
-
-[Section C.6](secC5.html)
-Revision of section C.6
-
-[Section A](secAcon.html)
-Slight changes to section A, fixing typos and making a few slight additions
-here and there (e.g., some new additions on Tolstoy's religious anarchism).
-
-[Section B](secBcon.html)
-Slight changes to section B, fixing typos and making a few slight additions
-here and there (mostly to section B.1).
-
-[Section C](secCcon.html)
-Slight changes to the introduction, C.1 and C.2, fixing typos and making a few
-slight additions here and there.
-
-[Appendix 2](append2.html)
-Slight addition to the appendix on the symbols of Anarchy.
-
-This is part of the process of getting the FAQ ready for being published by AK
-Press.
-
-11.7
-
-|
-
-19-JUL-2006
-
-|
-
-# [Tenth Anniversary of An Anarchist FAQ!](10years.html)
-
-[Section C](secCint.html)
-Revised introduction to Section C
-
-[Section C.1](secC1.html)
-Totally revised and expanded revision of section C.1, now entitled _**"What is
-wrong with Economics?"**_. Explains why mainstream economics is not a science
-and not value free as well as how it presents a radically false picture of
-capitalism.
-
-[Section C.2](secC2.html)
-Totally revised and expanded revision of section C.2, now entitled _**" Why is
-capitalism exploitative?"**_. Explains why anarchists, like other socialists,
-think capitalism is exploitative. It also critiques many of the standard
-mainstream economics defences of profit, interest and rent (such as marginal
-productivity theory, waiting, risk and innovation).
-
-[Section C.9.1](secC9.html#secc91)
-Addition to the section on _**"Would cutting wages reduce unemployment?"**_ to
-note that there is no theoretical or empirical reason to support the standard
-economic assertion of an upward sloping supply curve for labour and so its
-arguments on what causes unemployment (i.e. wages being too high).
-
-This is part of the process of getting the FAQ ready for being published by AK
-Press.
-
-11.6
-
-|
-
-13-MAY-2006
-
-|
-
-[Section F](secFcon.html)
-New, smaller, section on "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchism. This is an
-edited version of the original section F (which has been put into an
-appendix).
-
-[Appendix -- Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?](append13.html)
-The old section F (with some very slight changes here and there).
-
-This is part of the process of getting the FAQ ready for being published by AK
-Press. Not only does this change mean that the AK Press proof-readers have
-less to look at, it puts "anarcho"-capitalism more into context. If it were
-not for some academics taking their claims at face value, this section would
-not even be needed.
-
-11.5
-
-|
-
-22-APR-2006
-
-|
-
-[Section F.7](secF7.html)
-New section on the history of "anarcho"-capitalism and how it always (rightly)
-rejected the term "anarchist." Discusses how a "right-wing anarchism" is
-impossible (it would just be rule by the rich).
-
-[Section F.11](secF11.html)
-The old section F.7 (on "Natural Law")
-
-[Section F.9](secF9.html)
-Yet more evidence on why Viking Iceland was not an "anarcho"-capitalist
-system. As far as it was anarchic, it was not capitalist. As it became
-capitalistic, it became statist.
-
-[Section F.1](secF1.html)
-A rewrite of the first section to summarise the rest of the section F to show
-how "anarcho"-capitalism's own definition of the state refutes its claim to be
-anarchist.
-
-[Section F.1.4](secF1.html#secf14)
-Some of what was originally in section F.1, plus some new bits and pieces on
-how individualist anarchism is **not** really related to "anarcho"-capitalism.
-
-[Section F.2.6](secF2.html#secf26)
-A few changes on right "libertarian" support for voluntary slavery and how its
-exposes its contradictions.
-
-[Section F --Introduction](secFint.html)
-Slight change to the introduction to Section F
-
-[Section F.1.3](secF1.html#secf13)
-A few additions on the non-scientific nature of most kinds of right-wing
-libertarianism and how it produces authoritarian politics.
-
-This is part of the process of getting the FAQ ready for being published by AK
-Press. The next stage will be moving section F into an appendix and replacing
-it with a much more edited version. This because "anarcho"-capitalism is not
-important and it takes up too much space in an FAQ about anarchism.
-
-11.4
-
-|
-
-15-FEB-2006
-
-|
-
-[Appendix -- The symbols of Anarchy](append2.html)
-Revision of the appendix on the symbols of anarchy to fix typos and improve
-it. This is part of the process of getting the FAQ ready for being published
-by AK Press.
-
-11.3
-
-|
-
-31-JAN-2006
-
-|
-
-[Section A](secAcon.html)
-Minor changes to section A to change the references for Murray Bookchin's "The
-Ecology of Freedom" to the most recent edition, including new works by
-Voltairine de Cleyre and Lucy Parsons, and make a few minor additions here and
-there (mostly to sections A.2, A.2.1, A.2.18, A.3, A.3.1, A.3.5, A.3.8, A.4,
-A.5.2, and A.5.5).
-
-11.2
-
-|
-
-19-JUL-2005
-
-|
-
-[Section B](secBcon.html)
-Major revision of section B to fix typos and improve some of the sections.
-This is part of the process of getting the FAQ ready for being published by AK
-Press.
-
-[Section B.1.6](secB1.html#secb16)
-New sub-section on how hierarchy can be overcome.
-
-[Section B.2.6](secB2.html#secb26)
-New sub-section on how the state can be an independent power within society
-
-[Section B.3.5](secB3.html#secb35)
-New sub-section on why state owned property is basically the same as private
-property.
-
-[Section B.7.2]( secB7.html#secb72)
-New sub-section on social mobility in capitalism and why it does not make
-class or inequality irrelevant. The rest of section B.7 has been reorganised
-to take the new section into account.
-
-[Section A](secAcon.html)
-Slight changes to section A to change the references for Murray Bookchin's
-"Post-Scarcity Anarchism" and Martha A. Ackelsberg's "Free Women of Spain" to
-the most recent edition and make a few minor additions here and there (mostly
-to section A.4).
-
-11.1
-
-|
-
-10-JAN-2005
-
-|
-
-[Section A](secAcon.html)
-Slight changes to section A to fix a few typos, change the references for
-Rudolf Rocker's "Anarcho-Syndicalism" to the most recent edition and make a
-few minor additions here and there (mostly to section A.1).
-
-11.0
-
-|
-
-03-OCT-2004
-
-|
-
-[Section A](secAcon.html)
-Revision of section A to fix typos and improve some of the sections. This is
-part of the process of getting the FAQ ready for being published by AK Press.
-
-[Section A.2.20](secA2.html#seca220)
-New section on why most anarchists are atheists. Discusses the anti-anarchist
-nature of religion as well as its social role in aiding the powerful and
-making the oppressed accept their lot in life.
-
-[Section A.3.9](secA3.html#seca39)
-New section on "anarcho-primitivism," explaining what it stands for and why
-most anarchists reject it.
-
-[Section A.4.1](secA4.html#seca41)
-[Section A.4.2](secA4.html#seca42)
-[Section A.4.3](secA4.html#seca43)
-[Section A.4.4](secA4.html#seca44)
-New sub-sections on thinkers who are close to anarchism but are not, in fact,
-anarchists. They include liberals, socialists and marxists as well as others
-not so easily categorised.
-
-[Section H.3.15](secH3.html#sech315)
-New section on why the Leninist argument that "objective factors" rather than
-Bolshevik ideology caused the failure of the Russian revolution.
-
-[Section H.3.16](secH3.html#sech316)
-New section which summarises the impact of Bolshevik ideology on the outcome
-of the Russian revolution.
-
-[Appendix: The Symbols of Anarchy](append2.html)
-Slight additions to the history of the Black Flag.
-
-[Appendix: The Russian Revolution](append4.html)
-New appendix for the various sub-sections of section H which discuss the
-Russian Revolution (namely sections H.6 to 11).
-
diff --git a/markdown/pdf.md b/markdown/pdf.md
index fc291f8545e1aadcb7daeb3f73ea4b7ab5bc3b3f..e0ef9679c2de45f1e1ad084886227e6ba266c04a 100644
--- a/markdown/pdf.md
+++ b/markdown/pdf.md
@@ -1,62 +1,82 @@
+
+
+"An Anarchist FAQ" in pdf format
+
# "An Anarchist FAQ" in pdf format
-To view and print out the file you will need to have Adobe Document Reader on
-your computer. This is free software that now comes on many computers and with
-many CD's. If you do not already have it you can [ download it from the Adobe
-site.](http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html) [or [ click here
-for a faster text only
+To view and print out the file you will need to have
+Adobe Document Reader on your computer. This is free
+software that now comes on many computers and with
+many CD's. If you do not already have it you can
+[
+download it from the Adobe
+site.](http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html)
+[or
+[
+click here for a faster text only
page](http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/alternate.html)]
-## [Introduction](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/intro.pdf)
+## [Introduction](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/intro.pdf)
## [An Anarchist FAQ after ten
-years](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/10years.pdf)
+years](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/10years.pdf)
-## [Introduction to Volume 1](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/vol1intro.pdf)
+## [Introduction to Volume 1](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/vol1intro.pdf)
-## Section A -- [What is Anarchism?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/sectionA.pdf)
+## Section A --
+[What is Anarchism?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/sectionA.pdf)
-## Section B -- [Why do anarchists oppose the current
-system?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/sectionB.pdf)
+## Section B --
+[Why do anarchists oppose the current
+system?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/sectionB.pdf)
-## Section C - [What are the myths of capitalist
-economics?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/sectionC.pdf)
+## Section C -
+[What are the myths of capitalist
+economics?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/sectionC.pdf)
-## Section D - [How does statism and capitalism affect
-society?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/sectionD.pdf)
+## Section D -
+[How does statism and capitalism affect
+society?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/sectionD.pdf)
-## Section E - [What do anarchists think causes ecological
-problems?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/sectionE.pdf)
+## Section E -
+[What do anarchists think causes ecological
+problems?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/sectionE.pdf)
-## Section F - [Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of
-anarchism?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/sectionF.pdf)
+## Section F -
+[Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of
+anarchism?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/sectionF.pdf)
-## Section G - [Is individualist anarchism
-capitalistic?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/sectionG.pdf)
+## Section G -
+[Is individualist anarchism
+capitalistic?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/sectionG.pdf)
-## Section H - [Why do anarchists oppose state
-socialism?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/sectionH.pdf)
+## Section H -
+[Why do anarchists oppose state
+socialism?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/sectionH.pdf)
-## Section I - [What would an anarchist society look
+## Section I -
+[What would an anarchist society look
like?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/sectionI.pdf)
-## Section J - [What do anarchists
-do?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/sectionJ.pdf)
+## Section J -
+[What do anarchists do?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/sectionJ.pdf)
## _Appendices_
## [Anarchism and
-"Anarcho"-capitalism](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append1.pdf)
+"Anarcho"-capitalism](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append1.pdf)
###
- 1. [Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory FAQ" version 5.2 _](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append11.pdf)
+ 1. [Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory FAQ" version 5.2
+](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append11.pdf)
+
2. [Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory FAQ" version 4.1.1](http://www.innfoshop.org/faq/append12.pdf)
- 3. [Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?_](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append13.pdf)
+ 3. [Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append13.pdf)
-## [The Symbols of Anarchy](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append2.pdf)
+## [The Symbols of Anarchy](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append2.pdf)
-## [Anarchism and Marxism](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append3.pdf)
+## [Anarchism and Marxism](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append3.pdf)
###
@@ -66,7 +86,7 @@ do?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/sectionJ.pdf)
4. [Reply to errors and distortions in the SWP's _"Marxism and Anarchism"_](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append34.pdf)
5. [Reply to errors and distortions in John Fisher's _"Why we must further Marxism and not Anarchism"_](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append35.pdf)
-## [The Russian Revolution](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append4.pdf)
+## [The Russian Revolution](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append4.pdf)
###
@@ -74,10 +94,18 @@ do?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/sectionJ.pdf)
2. [What was the Kronstadt Rebellion?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append42.pdf)
3. [What caused the degeneration of the Russian Revolution?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append43.pdf)
4. [How did Bolshevik ideology contribute to the failure of the Revolution?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append44.pdf)
- 5. [Were any of the Bolshevik oppositions a real alternative?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append45.pdf)
+ 5. [Were any of the Bolshevik oppositions a real
+alternative?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append45.pdf)
+
6. [Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism?](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append46.pdf)
-## [Bibliography](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/biblio.pdf)
+## [Bibliography](http://www.infoshop.org/faq/biblio.pdf)
[Click here to return to the index page.](index.html)
+
+
+[‹ Bibliography for FAQ](/afaq/biblio.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/index.html "Go to parent page" ) [Non-English versions of the FAQ
+›](/afaq/translations.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/quotes.md b/markdown/quotes.md
index 28705a3c8a7bcbf23c6953d4a190b2b8726cecab..1755fd211c3fc369ec328f25af4a844be428647b 100644
--- a/markdown/quotes.md
+++ b/markdown/quotes.md
@@ -1,65 +1,85 @@
+
+
+What Anarchists Say about An Anarchist FAQ
+
+
# What Anarchists Say about An Anarchist FAQ
-_"At long last An Anarchist Frequently Asked Questions (AFAQ) has moved from
-the Internet onto the printed page . . . it is likely to be the primary source
-anarchists turn too for information about anarchist theory and history . . . .
-It is accessible, not laden with jargon but also built on ten years and more
-of solid research . . . The structure of the book is such that it is easy to
-dip into . . . this [is a] comprehensive resource. The prefix to the book is
-'_An'_ Anarchist FAQ. The collective is too modest. This is _the_ place to go
-to find out about anarchist ides, theory and practice. It is accessible and
-based on sound research. Thoroughly recommended."_ ([Richard Griffin,
-**Freedom**](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/freedom-review-of-an-
-anarchist-faq)).
+_"At long last An Anarchist Frequently Asked Questions (AFAQ)
+has moved from the Internet onto the printed page . . . it is
+likely to be the primary source anarchists turn too for
+information about anarchist theory and history . . . . It is
+accessible, not laden with jargon but also built on ten years
+and more of solid research . . . The structure of the book is
+such that it is easy to dip into . . . this [is a] comprehensive
+resource. The prefix to the book is '_An'_ Anarchist FAQ. The
+collective is too modest. This is _the_ place to go to find
+out about anarchist ides, theory and practice. It is accessible
+and based on sound research. Thoroughly recommended."_
+([Richard Griffin, **Freedom**](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/freedom-
+review-of-an-anarchist-faq)).
+
+_"the primary source of information about anarchism on the
+world wide web . . . a foundation stone for laying down the idea
+of anarchism as the viable alternative that we should work towards
+achieving."_ (_"Workers Solidarity"_, **Workers Solidarity
+Movement**)
+
+_"this invaluable resource is highly recommended for anyone
+wishing to delve further or gain a better understanding of anarchism
+as a practice, living, socially relevant ideology."_
+(_"Direct Action"_, **Solidarity Federation**)
-_"the primary source of information about anarchism on the world wide web . .
-. a foundation stone for laying down the idea of anarchism as the viable
-alternative that we should work towards achieving."_ (_"Workers Solidarity"_,
-**Workers Solidarity Movement**)
+_"The anarchist FAQ has been one of the standout achievements of
+the last decade in terms of its rigorous treatment of every aspect of
+the theory. Its translation from screen to print is long overdue."_
+(**Freedom**)
-_"this invaluable resource is highly recommended for anyone wishing to delve
-further or gain a better understanding of anarchism as a practice, living,
-socially relevant ideology."_ (_"Direct Action"_, **Solidarity Federation**)
+_"the most comprehensive resource available . . . for a discussion
+on anarchism is An Anarchist FAQ"_ (Flint Jones, **NEFAC**)
-_"The anarchist FAQ has been one of the standout achievements of the last
-decade in terms of its rigorous treatment of every aspect of the theory. Its
-translation from screen to print is long overdue."_ (**Freedom**)
+_"The Anarchist FAQ collective are to be congratulated on producing
+this excellent book. Always intended to be used by anarchists as an
+organising tool, the FAQ will also be useful to newcomers to anarchism
+and to those who already think of themselves as anarchists, but who would
+like to deepen their understanding of anarchist politics. The FAQ format
+makes it really easy to dip into in order to find answers to all those
+questions that anarchists are often asked by sceptics and critics (of
+right and left) as well as by other activists who are sympathetic but
+just don't know much about anarchism, or have been influenced by the
+many misrepresentations of anarchism put about by Leninists and the
+capitalist media. So The Anarchist FAQ succeeds in being a very
+accessible introduction to anarchism, whilst being at the same time
+detailed, wide-ranging, properly researched and authoritative. Highly
+recommended!"_ (David Berry author of **A History of the French
+Anarchist Movement, 1917-1945**)
-_"the most comprehensive resource available . . . for a discussion on
-anarchism is An Anarchist FAQ"_ (Flint Jones, **NEFAC**)
+_"Thanks for a fabulous job on this. What an amazing project! . . . All
+best wishes to all of you, and again, congratulations on a excellent work."_
+(Mark Leier, author of **Bakunin: The Creative Passion**)
-_"The Anarchist FAQ collective are to be congratulated on producing this
-excellent book. Always intended to be used by anarchists as an organising
-tool, the FAQ will also be useful to newcomers to anarchism and to those who
-already think of themselves as anarchists, but who would like to deepen their
-understanding of anarchist politics. The FAQ format makes it really easy to
-dip into in order to find answers to all those questions that anarchists are
-often asked by sceptics and critics (of right and left) as well as by other
-activists who are sympathetic but just don't know much about anarchism, or
-have been influenced by the many misrepresentations of anarchism put about by
-Leninists and the capitalist media. So The Anarchist FAQ succeeds in being a
-very accessible introduction to anarchism, whilst being at the same time
-detailed, wide-ranging, properly researched and authoritative. Highly
-recommended!"_ (David Berry author of **A History of the French Anarchist
-Movement, 1917-1945**)
+_"monumental and essential FAQ dedicated to anarchism"_
+(Norman Baillargeon, **L'order moins le pouvoir: Histoire et
+actualité de l'anarchisme**)
-_"Thanks for a fabulous job on this. What an amazing project! . . . All best
-wishes to all of you, and again, congratulations on a excellent work."_ (Mark
-Leier, author of **Bakunin: The Creative Passion**)
+_"The Anarchist FAQ should be one of the first stops for anyone
+studying anarchism. It's an extensive compilation of material,
+painstakingly indexed, of anarchist history, theory and practice.
+Just tracing the tantalising block quotes to their original sources,
+via the amazing bibliography--which alone is worth the price of the
+book--will take you a long way toward an education on any of the
+subject headings. On a personal note, I benefited greatly from
+stumbling across the FAQ near the beginning of my own journey
+into anarchism." _ (Kevin Carson author of **Studies in
+Mutualist Political Economy**)
-_"monumental and essential FAQ dedicated to anarchism"_ (Norman Baillargeon,
-**L'order moins le pouvoir: Histoire et actualite de l'anarchisme**)
+_""Found it very detailed and informative and I'm sure it will prove to be an
+excellent reference book for those interested in the subject and for those
+who wish to defend anarchism."_ (John Couzin, anarchist from Glasgow)
-_"The Anarchist FAQ should be one of the first stops for anyone studying
-anarchism. It's an extensive compilation of material, painstakingly indexed,
-of anarchist history, theory and practice. Just tracing the tantalising block
-quotes to their original sources, via the amazing bibliography--which alone is
-worth the price of the book--will take you a long way toward an education on
-any of the subject headings. On a personal note, I benefited greatly from
-stumbling across the FAQ near the beginning of my own journey into anarchism."
-_ (Kevin Carson author of **Studies in Mutualist Political Economy**)
+
-_""Found it very detailed and informative and I'm sure it will prove to be an
-excellent reference book for those interested in the subject and for those who
-wish to defend anarchism."_ (John Couzin, anarchist from Glasgow)
+[‹ An Anarchist FAQ: Introduction to Volume 2](/afaq/vol2intro.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/intro.html "Go to parent page" ) [An Anarchist FAQ
+Webpage Contacts ›](/afaq/contact.html "Go to next page" )
diff --git a/markdown/replies.md b/markdown/replies.md
deleted file mode 100644
index 16208e8c3d65658627b21c464effba1a678d2276..0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
--- a/markdown/replies.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,1660 +0,0 @@
-# A response to a Response to "Left-Anarchist" Criticisms of Anarcho-
-Capitalism
-
-This is a reply to the anti-anti-"anarcho"-capitalist FAQ which used to be
-found at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7895 by Chris Wilson (it
-no longer is and, in fact, Mr. Wilson now considers himself an anarchist and
-"anarcho"-capitalism an oxymoron!). It aims to _"correct the
-misrepresentations of anarcho-capitalism (and 'right-wing' libertarianism in
-general) made by the anarcho-socialists [sic!] who run the Anarchist FAQ
-webpage, and to counter the criticisms the authors make which happen to be
-legitimate"_ which are claimed to be in old section F of our FAQ.
-
-The author claims that _"[m]uch of the anarcho-socialist FAQ is severely
-distortive of the position that the authors wish to refute, and the authors
-provide little textual evidence in support of their preconceived notions of
-anarcho-capitalism."_ This has been the first such attempt since the FAQ went
-on-line in early 1996. If we did produce _"mostly strawmen arguments which do
-not truly address the actual positions that anarcho-capitalists hold"_ then no
-"anarcho"-capitalist before Wilson thought it worthwhile to let us know.
-
-The author claims that his _"FAQ aims to correct these errors, and to set the
-record straight for once."_ That is his right. However, when he first
-approached us with his criticism we said that we were in the process of
-revising that section and that we would like to hear his comments in order to
-correct any mistakes or strawmen we may have accidentally placed in our FAQ
-(after all, this section contains some of the oldest work on the FAQ and it
-came from our experiences of discussing with "anarcho"-capitalists on-line so
-mistakes could easily creep in). Instead of providing us with feedback, he
-decided to place his critique on-line (which again is his right). Here we
-reply is his criticism's of the old section F.
-
-The new [section F](secFcon.html) should also be consulted, which was being
-revised as Wilson created his critique of the old section F.
-
-# Section F.1 (Are "Anarcho"-Capitalists Really Anarchists?)
-
-This section of the FAQ has been extensively revised and so much of the
-comments made are to text now found in other sections. The new section
-[F.1](secF1.html) is far more explicit on why "anarcho"-capitalism is not part
-of the anarchist tradition. However, it is worthwhile to discuss the old
-version.
-
-Mr Wilson starts off by noting us _"that this FAQ does not begin by giving a
-general explanation of what anarcho-capitalism is. The authors instead decided
-to launch right into their rebuttal, without first informing the reader of
-their opposition's position."_ Yes, very true. We assumed that the reader
-would be familiar enough with the concept so that such a general explanation
-would not be required. In section [B](secBcon.html), for example, we discuss
-general capitalist attitudes towards, say, property, wage labour and so as
-"anarcho"-capitalism bases itself on these concepts it would be unnecessary to
-repeat them again.
-
-He then quotes our FAQ:
-
-> So-called "anarcho"-capitalists only oppose the centralised state, not the
-hierarchical-authoritarian capitalist workplace. Thus it is absurd for them to
-call themselves anarchists, because the capitalist workplace is where the
-majority of people have their most frequent, direct, personal, and unpleasant
-experiences of authoritarianism.
-
-And comments:
-
-> _"More accurately, anarcho-capitalists oppose the governing of a person's
-behaviour by other persons without that first person's prior consent. A-C'ers
-do not support the centralised state because it holds a geographical monopoly
-upon the use of force, which infringes upon the individual sovereignty of
-those living within that area. Regardless of whether the state is a
-representative democracy or a dictatorship, it necessarily violates the
-conditions that make consent a possibility. Specifically, the state thrives on
-a policy of coercion, which consists of initiating interference with the
-actions and will of individuals and benefiting at their expense."_
-
-So, in other words, "consent" is required and that makes authoritarianism
-okay. Thus capitalist hierarchy is fine because workers agree to it but state
-hierarchy is bad because citizens do not "consent". But as we argue in the new
-section F.2.3 ([Can "anarcho"-capitalist theory justify the
-state?](secF2.html#secf23)) in a liberal or democratic state citizens are free
-to move to another state. They can withdraw their "consent" just as a worker
-can withdraw their "consent" and look for another job. If consent is the key
-aspect of whether something is evil or not then the modern state is not an
-evil as it is based upon consent. No one forces you to stay in a given state.
-Thus "consent" is not enough in itself to justify hierarchy.
-
-In addition, we should not that the boss also interferes with the actions and
-will of individuals and benefits at their expense. Indeed, Murray Rothbard
-actually states that **if** the state legitimately owned the land it claims
-then it would be perfectly justified in "interfering" with those lived on its
-property in exactly the same way that any other property does! (see section
-[F.2.3](secF2.html#secf23)). His opposition to the state is simply that the
-property it claims was **unjustly** acquired, not that it restricts individual
-freedom.
-
-Thus, for "anarcho"-capitalists, the difference between restrictions on
-freedom created by property and those created by statism is that the former
-are caused by a "just" history (and so are fine) while the later are caused by
-an "unjust" history (and so are bad). However, given that the property regime
-we live in is deeply affected by past state actions (see section
-[F.8](secF8.html)), this criteria is phoney as capitalism shares a history of
-violence with the state. If state hierarchy is wrong, so is capitalist
-hierarchy -- if "history" is actually to account for anything rather than just
-as rhetoric to justify capitalist oppression.
-
-Wilson goes on to state that "anarcho"-capitalists _"do not wish to abolish
-the 'hierarchical-authoritarian capitalist workplace', because of the fact
-that doing so would place a restriction upon the number of alternatives people
-can choose to improve their situations without violating the liberty of
-others."_
-
-Sounds lovely and freedom enhancing does it not? Until you think about it more
-deeply. Then you realise that such glorification of choice is just a "dismal
-politics", where most of the choices are bad. After all, in "actually
-existing" capitalism the percentage of non-wage slaves in the workforce is
-around 10% (and this figure includes bosses and not just self-employed
-workers). The percentage of self-employed has steadily decreased from the dawn
-of capitalism which means that capitalism itself restricts the number of
-alternatives people have to choose from!
-
-And let us see what the _"hierarchical-authoritarian capitalist workplace"_
-involves. It is based upon the worker selling their liberty to gain entry to
-it. Why do they do that? Because the circumstances they face means that they
-have little choice but to do so. And these circumstances are created by the
-rights framework within society; in other words **capitalist** property
-rights. Wilson assumes that abolishing capitalist property rights will involve
-"violating the liberty of others" but it is clear that that maintaining these
-rights results in people "voluntarily" selling their liberty due to the
-circumstances created by these property rights. In other words, the
-enforcement of property rights involves the violation of liberty of those
-subject to the rules and regulations of the property owner. For example, the
-boss can ban numerous free actions, agreements and exchanges on his property
--- the joining of a union, free speech, freedom to wear what you like and so
-on.
-
-Wilson goes on to argue that _"a person enters into a bilateral exchange with
-another person out of an expectation that the benefits of the exchange will
-exceed its costs. . . . He [the capitalist] underwent the expense involved in
-purchasing and/or producing these capital goods, and if he does not consent to
-give them up to the workers, any forceful appropriation of them on behalf of
-the workers would be a violation of his autonomy."_
-
-So, just to be clear, if the worker has the option of selling her labour and
-starving to death then the worker "freely" sells her liberty. Any attempt to
-change the rights framework of society is a "violation" of the capitalist's
-"autonomy". The same could be said of the state. After all, the state has went
-to the expense of acquiring and protecting the land it claims. But, of course,
-this initial claim was invalid and so the state is to be opposed. But the
-capitalist class has profited from the state's use of force many a time and
-the economic circumstances it has helped create. After all, it was state
-enforcement of the "land monopoly" that created a pool of landless workers who
-had no choice but to enter into wage slavery. The capitalists enriched
-themselves at the expense of desperate people with no other options, with
-state aid to repress strikes and unions.
-
-If the state's claims of ownership are phoney, then so are the claims of
-capitalists.
-
-Wilson then laments that:
-
-> _"A worker who does not possess the same amount of wealth as an entrepreneur
-will often consent to what anarcho-socialists would call an 'unequal exchange'
-because of the fact that he forecasts that an improvement in his situation
-will result from it. To prevent this type of exchange from occurring would be
-to constrain the number of options available that one can choose to improve
-one's lot."_
-
-As noted above, it is capitalism that constrains the number of options
-available to "improve one's lot". But Wilson seems to be assuming that
-anarchists desire to somehow "ban" wage labour. But we made no such claim. We
-argued that we need to change the rights framework of society and take back
-that which has been stolen from us. After all, capitalists have used the state
-to enrich themselves at our expense for hundreds of years (indeed, as we argue
-in section [F.8](secF8.html) the state played a key role in the development of
-capitalism in the first place).
-
-As Nozick argues in **Anarchy, State, and Utopia**, only "justly" acquired
-property can be legitimately transferred. But under capitalism, property was
-not justly acquired (indeed, even Nozick's conceptual theory of land
-acquisition does not justify land ownership -- see [section
-B.3.4](secB3.html#secb34)). Thus we are not violating the liberty of
-capitalists if we take their property and modify the rights framework because
-it was not their property to begin with!
-
-Wilson goes on to argue that _"[d]espite the unpleasant rules that a worker
-may have to follow when on the job, the worker does it for the purpose of
-securing something greater in the end."_
-
-The same logic has been used to justify the state. Despite the unpleasant
-rules that a citizen may have to follow, they do it for the purpose of
-securing something greater in the end -- security, liberty, whatever. That is
-hardly a convincing argument and seems more to do with justifying and
-rationalising unfreedom than anything else.
-
-So what is the _"something greater"_? Usually to have enough money to buy
-food, shelter and so on. Most workers are a pay packet away from poverty. As
-the "something greater" is to be able to live, that suggests that workers do
-not "consent" freely to become a wage slave. They have little choice.
-
-Wilson goes on:
-
-> _"This is why anarcho-capitalists do not wish to abolish consensual
-hierarchy or a mutual acceptance of rules (which is what the anarcho-
-socialists call 'authoritarian' in this case). If people consent to such
-relationships, it's for the purpose of acquiring a higher degree of freedom
-that will exceed the degree of sacrifice that the transaction involves. They
-value the projected outcomes of the exchanges they make more than they value
-the result of not making the exchange at all."_
-
-And what is the result of not making the exchange? Poverty, starvation. Wow,
-some "choice". But anarchists do not wish to abolish consensual hierarchy. We
-wish to give people a real choice. This real choice is impossible under
-capitalism and so the vast majority sell their liberty. That Wilson ignores
-the circumstances that force people to wage labour says a lot.
-
-Now, anarchists have no problem with the _"mutual acceptance of rules"_. This
-does not need to be _"authoritarian"_ (no matter what Wilson claims we think).
-For example, in a co-operative the members create their own rules by mutual
-agreement and debate. That is not authoritarian. What **is** authoritarian is
-when one person says "I make the rules round here and you can love it or leave
-it". That is what the state does and it is what the capitalist does. It is
-authoritarian because the rules are imposed on the rest -- who then have the
-choice of following these rules or leaving. Thus the capitalist workplace is a
-dictatorship and so authoritarian.
-
-Moving on, Wilson disagrees with anarchist claims that capitalism is based
-upon exploitation and oppression. He states that _"[w]hat this FAQ does not
-mention (in this particular section) is that exploitation doctrine is based
-upon an economic theory of value, which is, shall we say, less than
-universally accepted by political theorists and economists today. This is the
-labour theory of value (LTV). . . "_
-
-Yes, it is true that most economists and political theorists do not accept the
-Labour Theory of Value. Most do not understand it and present strawmen
-arguments against it. But small but significant groupings of economists and
-political theorists do accept it (for example, individualist anarchists,
-Marxists, many social anarchists, many post-keynesianists). But the question
-arises, **why** is the LTV rejected? Simply because it argues that capitalism
-is based upon exploitation and that non-labour income is usury.
-Unsurprisingly, when it comes to supporting economic theories, the wealthy
-will pick those which justify their incomes and riches, not those which argue
-that they are illegitimate. Thus the LTV along with Henry George's ideas would
-not be selected within the "free marketplace of ideas" -- indeed the followers
-of George argue that neo-classical economics was deliberately funded by the
-wealthy to marginalise their ideas.
-
-So, to state that the LTV is a _"less than universally accepted"_ is like
-arguing that because democratic theory was "less than universally accepted" in
-Nazi Germany there must be something wrong with it. Wilson falls into the
-common fallacy that economic ideas are value free and do not reflect class
-interests.
-
-He goes on to state "anarcho"-capitalists do not _"accept that theory"_ (which
-comes as no surprise as they do not like to think about what goes on at the
-point of production that much) and even if we **do** accept the LTV that it is
-_"still not obvious that the 'profits = exploitation' conclusion follows from
-it. In his book Hidden Order, David Friedman makes an interesting point that
-'the laws of physics tell us that the sum total of energy can neither be
-increased, nor reduced. What we call 'production' is the rearrangement of
-matter and energy from less useful to more useful (to us) forms.' [David
-Friedman, Hidden Order, p 128] Production managers, just like manual
-labourers, do precisely this. They produce by rearranging matter through time
-and space, but rather than rearranging constituent parts to produce a good,
-they rearrange the goods themselves into the hands of customers (which manual
-labourers do not do)."_
-
-Funnily enough, the FAQ does not deny the importance of management and
-administration skills. No anarchist has ever maintained that workplaces do not
-need to be managed. Nor did we argue that "manual labour" was the only form of
-labour that added value. Quite the reverse in fact. What we **did** argue was
-that in a dictatorship those at the top will consider that **their**
-contribution added most value to a product and reward themselves
-appropriately. We argued that the higher up the management structure you go,
-the less value the labour adds to output. Indeed, the basic function of
-management is to organise labour in such a way as to maximise profits. That is
-why the hierarchical workplace exists. In the words of one economist:
-
-> _"Managers of a capitalist enterprise are not content simply to respond to
-the dictates of the market by equating the wage to the value of the marginal
-product of labour. Once the worker has entered the production process, the
-forces of the market have, for a time at least, been superseded. The effort-
-pay relation will depend not only on market relations of exchange but also. .
-. on the hierarchical relations of production - on the relative power of
-managers and workers within the enterprise."_ [William Lazonick, **Business
-Organisation and the Myth of the Market Economy**, pp. 184-5]
-
-Thus profits are maximised by maximising the labour workers do while
-minimising the amount paid to them. That is what the management structure
-exists for. That Wilson denies this suggests that he views the firm as some
-kind of "black-box" within which human social relationships and action are
-irrelevant. But this is not the case -- what does on in production is the key
-to profitability. As the early socialist Thomas Hodgskin put it:
-
-> _"Fixed capital does not derive its utility from previous, but present
-labour; and does not bring its owner a profit because it has been stored up,
-but because it is a means of obtaining a command over labour."_
-
-And nothing has changed. As Proudhon long ago argued, only labour is
-productive. Without labour capital would rust away. Thus the LTV is far more
-applicable that Wilson would like us to believe.
-
-Now, Wilson claims that "manual labourers" do not "rearrange the goods
-themselves into the hands of customers" but in a co-operative the workforce
-does just that. They elect managers and take part in the management structure.
-Wilson fails to notice that workers do not do that in capitalist firms because
-the management structure is top-down and is designed to disempower workers. So
-if workers do not do these tasks it is because management has the monopoly of
-(official) power and decides that **it** adds most value and deserves a higher
-reward. So, in other words, capitalist property rights create dictatorship and
-those in the dictatorship enrich themselves. Not a surprising outcome.
-
-Wilson then argues that "anarcho"-capitalists _"reject the labour theory of
-value in favour of marginal utility theory, which holds that prices are
-determined by the subjective preferences and plans of individuals."_
-
-Of course, the LTV also argues that prices are determined by the subjective
-preferences of individuals. In order to have exchange value, a commodity must
-have a use value to a customer. And, of course, exchange value does not equal
-price but is instead an abstraction of the fact that when a commodity is
-produced a specific set of costs have been spent on it. These costs are
-objective facts and determine whether a commodity makes a profit or not. In
-the long term, commodities would exchange at a price equivalent to the
-abstract exchange value but in the short term they vary according to supply
-and demand. As we argue in [section C](secCcon.html), the marginal utility
-theory ignores the fact that a commodity has an objective cost associated with
-it which is its exchange value. When it boils down to it, the profit which a
-product generates is what capitalists "subjectively value" and these profits
-are dependent on the productivity of labour (i.e. the more workers make in a
-given period for the same wage, the higher potential profits will be).
-
-Wilson goes on to state that _"[i]t's obvious that the author has little
-respect for the reasoned arguments published by free-market economists and
-political theorists in the last century. It's pretty insulting when somebody
-responds to a reasoned argument by scoffing at it and referring to it as
-'apologetics' or 'rationalisation', rather than giving it serious
-consideration."_ But, strangely enough, we discussed why we think the LTV is a
-better way of analysing capitalism that than those provided by "free-market
-economists and political theorists" and in our humble opinion, it is
-apologetics and rationalisations. Sorry if Mr Wilson does not agree, but then
-again he would not. For example, most of "anarcho"-capitalism seems to involve
-apologetics and rationalisations for the restrictions of individual liberty
-associated with capitalism. See, for example, section
-[F.2.1](secF2.html#secf21) in which Murray Rothbard rationalises away
-capitalist oppression even when it clearly has similarities with statist
-oppression. Similarly, many Stalinists and supporters of Nazism provided many
-"reasoned arguments" to indicate why the fact of dictatorship was essential.
-Just because currently capitalist ideology is widely accepted does not make it
-any less apologetics than these "reasoned arguments." Again, Wilson assumes
-that economic theory is value free rather than being the [ "economics of the
-rich"](http://204.181.81.182/zmag/articles/hermanjuly97.html) to use Edward
-Herman's cutting phrase.
-
-Wilson then states that _"[t]his paragraph is both a form of argument from
-intimidation and argument ad hominem, and hence we shall let it pass without
-further comment."_ Well, having discussed in [section C](secCcon.html) why we
-think that capitalism is exploitative we did not think we really had to repeat
-ourselves. And as far as arguments from intimidation and arguments ad hominem
-go, Wilson indulges himself in this later with his "parasite", "dictator" and
-other comments.
-
-He then quotes the FAQ:
-
-> "Anarcho"-capitalists, however, believe that capitalist companies will
-necessarily remain hierarchical even if the public state has been dissolved.
-This is because only hierarchical workplaces are "efficient" enough to survive
-in a 'free' market. This belief reveals the priority of their values:
-"efficiency" (the bottom line) is considered more important than eliminating
-the domination, coercion, and exploitation of workers. In addition, such
-hierarchies will need "defending" from those oppressed by them; and hence, due
-to its support of private property (and thus authority), "anarcho"-capitalism
-ends up retaining a state in its "anarchy," namely a private state whose
-existence its proponents attempt to deny simply by refusing to call it a
-state, like an ostrich hiding its head in the sand (see section F.6 for more
-on this and why "anarcho"-capitalism is better described as "private state"
-capitalism).
-
-And argues that _"[t]his is rhetoric, not argument. Apparently, the authors
-would rather rave on about their own beliefs, rather than give a fair
-representation of anarcho-capitalism. Notice that no assertion in the above
-quote is defended--not the assertion that capitalist production involves
-'domination, coercion, or exploitation', nor the assertion that ownership of
-private property is 'authoritarian'. Nor do we receive a definition for any of
-these slippery concepts. Nor do they bother to give a fair explanation as to
-why anarcho-capitalists disagree with them on these issues."_
-
-Now, lets see about these claims. Now, the reason why anarchists think that
-capitalist production involves _"domination, coercion, and exploitation"_ of
-workers was discussed at great length in sections [B](secBcon.html) and
-[C](secCcon.html) of the FAQ. Indeed, it is mentioned in passing in [section
-A](secAcon.html) on why anarchists are socialists and why anarchists support
-direct democracy. Apparently we should have repeated all our arguments again
-in order to meet Wilson's inability to look at the rest of the FAQ. Of course,
-perhaps, we should have placed links to the appropriate sections but given
-that we doubted that anyone would jump straight into section F.1 we did not.
-Now as far as a "fair explanation" as to why "anarcho"-capitalists disagree
-with real anarchists on these issues we indicate why capitalistic property is
-wrong (and we argued in section [B.3](secB3.html) and [B.1](secB1.html) why
-private property is "authoritarian" -- something, we should note, that
-"anarcho"-capitalists do not actually disagree with. They just argue that
-"consent" ensures that the authoritarian relationships it creates are not a
-restriction of liberty). Now, the aim of [section F](secFcon.html) of the FAQ
-was to explain why "anarcho"-capitalism was not a form of anarchism. And this
-is what we did. Hence Wilson's comments are misplaces, to say the least.
-
-Wilson then does on to argue that capitalist production _"does involve
-hierarchy, considering that the owners of the means of production must direct
-the disposal of their resources so that they don't go to waste."_ So, as
-noted, he agrees that capitalist private property **is** authoritarian (how
-could hierarchy be anything else?). Thus his laments that we just _"assert"_
-this fact is somewhat strange. He then tries to get out of this by noting
-that:
-
-_"the same situation will accrue under worker ownership. All production
-strategies and guidelines would be established by a system of majority vote,
-and so it's doubtful that any single individual will have a much greater
-influence in determining them than one would under a under an hierarchical
-capitalist corporation."_
-
-Really? But a key aspect of anarchist ideas of self-management is that
-capitalist corporations must be broken up and replaced by a confederation of
-self-managed workplaces. The workers in a given workplace would have extensive
-control over what affects them directly and the possibility of influencing the
-decisions of the wider issues that affect their industry. So it is nonsense to
-say that individuals will not have a greater influence than in a hierarchical
-capitalist firm. Unlike in a capitalist firm they are not just order takers
-(and lets not forget that this is what the worker is under capitalism). They
-can and do have control over many important aspects of their work. This can be
-seen when limited workers control is introduced into capitalist firms, so
-Wilson's claims are just an attempt to justify factory fascism.
-
-Talking of which, he celebrates this when he argues that:
-
-> _"The only difference that might possibly accrue as a result of worker
-ownership would be a higher degree of gridlock involved in determining company
-policy. With respect to a political institution, gridlock is good; it prevents
-any single individual from having too much power and from subsequently passing
-a great deal of tyrannical statute law. With respect to a business, gridlock
-is bad, because it prevents business from adapting to constantly changing
-market conditions."_
-
-Which is, of course, a fascist argument transferred from the political to the
-economic regime (which, of course, is something fascists also do). And, as Bob
-Black argued in [The Libertarian as
-Conservative](http://www.unicorn.com//lib/libertarian.html), it is also an
-argument put forward by Marx, Engels and Lenin. What strange bed-fellows
-right-libertarians have! Now, Wilson is attacking economic democracy because
-it creates "grid lock" (although, as all co-operatives indicate, it does
-nothing of the kind) which, he claims, is good in politics because "it
-prevents any single individual from having too much power". What "logic".
-Economic dictatorship **does** place "too much power" in the hands of the
-boss, that is why anarchists have always recognised that (to use Proudhon's
-words) that _"property is despotism"_.
-
-How strange. Identical social relationships switch from being bad to good
-purely on whether it is a capitalist that has power or a state official. Such
-is the power of "consent"!
-
-Wilson then moves onto bigger and better claims:
-
-> _"Some 'anarchists' claim that there will not be any competition between
-worker-owned firms under their version of 'anarchy', because all individual
-firms will be subordinated to the direction of a larger system of worker
-management. Of course, what this 'larger system of worker management' amounts
-to is an institution that falls neatly under the Weberian definition of a
-state. That isn't to say, of course, that the 'anarchists' who advocate this
-social arrangement aren't opposed to statism. On the contrary, they're
-vehemently opposed to the state provided that they and their comrades aren't
-in charge of it."_
-
-Yes, anarchists who favour workplace self-management **really** want to be "in
-charge" of a new state! What wonderful logic! Using this logic it would be
-simple to prove that Hitler was an anarchist (he argued for dictatorship but
-obviously he favoured anarchy just as the anarchists who argue for self-
-management desire dictatorship). Moreover, Wilson totally misrepresents
-anarchist ideas of workplace confederation. The "larger system of worker
-management" is based upon freely joining a confederation and the individual
-workplaces within it have as much autonomy as they agree they need. To claim
-that this is statist is just plain silly -- it is clearly an agreement between
-groups to work together.
-
-Now, let us look at the capitalist workplace or corporation. Within these the
-boss bans all competition within his/her property he/she does not desire. So
-if the anarchist system of confederation meets the Weberian definition of a
-state so does the capitalist firm! Indeed, as we argue in section
-[F.6.4](secF6.html#secf64), the property owner can "ban" workers from, say,
-joining a union or subscribing to specific "defence" firms. In other words,
-the "anarcho"-capitalist are vehemently opposed to the state provided that the
-capitalists are not in charge of it.
-
-So Wilson highlights the central fallacy of "anarcho"-capitalism, namely that
-private property some how does not meet the Weberian definition of the state.
-But, in fact, it clearly does. Something, a may note that Murray Rothbard (in
-his own way) recognised but did not consider important enough to draw the
-obvious conclusions from. Which presents us with the question: Is voluntary
-democracy more libertarian than voluntary dictatorship? Anarchists think that
-self-management has far more to do with liberty that hierarchy and so oppose
-capitalism. "Anarcho"-capitalists seem to think that dictatorship has no
-effect on liberty. Which is somewhat strange, to say the least.
-
-Wilson then goes on to state that _"worker ownership and even communal
-ownership of the means of production would be perfectly legitimate under
-anarcho-capitalism, provided that nobody violates anybody else's consent."_
-
-Which is ironic, as capitalism was created by violating the rights of working
-people to worker ownership/control and communal ownership (see section
-[F.8](secF8.html)). How that the capitalists have the upper hand, they can
-embrace "free competition" knowing that their advantage on the market will
-ensure that workers control will not spread (see sections
-[J.5.10](secJ5.html#secj510), [J.5.11](secJ5.html#secj511) and
-[J.5.12](secJ5.html#secj512)). Kind of like the thief who argues that you can
-take back what was stolen from you as long as you do not violate his consent
-(which he is not going to give)!
-
-So Wilson is simply acknowledging that under capitalism you have to buy the
-freedom which should be your birth right from those who have stolen it! How
-generous.
-
-Wilson then goes to agree with the FAQ by stating that management _"does set
-the terms of the use and disposal of company property (whoever the owners
-happen to be)"_ and so workers **are** subject to authoritarian social
-relationships and so are not free. But, he argues, _"according to what
-standard would the workers have a right to forcibly seize the means of
-production out of dissatisfaction with the situation?"_ There are many answers
-to this (answers which Mr Wilson does not present which means, to paraphrase
-his good self, "nor does he bother to give a fair explanation as to why
-anarchists disagree with them on this issue").
-
-If we take a Stirnerite point of view, we could argue that workers need no
-"right" to take them over. They desire them and desire freedom. That is good
-enough in itself. As the capitalists have no "right" to restrict the liberty
-of workers, workers have no "right" to stop that restriction. They do it
-anyway. Or we could take a Proudhonist viewpoint which argues that the land
-cannot be appropriated and so capitalists have no right to their capital as
-the initial appropriations were illegitimate and they have enriched themselves
-by the labour of others who have been placed in evil circumstances by
-capitalist property rights. Or we could argue along Bakuninist lines that
-freedom is what we value most and so society should be re-organised so that
-unnecessary domination is eliminated, particularly the domination that flows
-from unpaid labour.
-
-Of course Wilson assumes that capitalist "rights" to their property are beyond
-question. Let us turn the question on its head. By what right do capitalists
-have of oppressing workers and barring people from their property? If we take
-Rothbard's "Homesteading" conceptual theory (see section
-[F.4.1](secF4.html#secf41)) then it boils down to "finders keepers" and so
-humanity will always be enchained by the first people to appropriate land. So
-living people will see their liberty restricted because of past history.
-
-Wilson **does** present one "right", namely:
-
-> _"Because they use it while working on it? By this criterion, it's
-acceptable for one to seize anything that one is capable of using, without
-regard to those who already hold it in their possession. I would imagine that
-any anarcho-socialist who prefers an arrangement in which there is some form
-of peaceful social order would hold that certain predatory forms of behaviour
-are not acceptable, but to grant use-rights to anybody who is capable of using
-something is to encourage such forms of behaviour. If there are to be rights
-of usage at all, people must forgo the power involved in appropriating
-resources that are already in use by other people. If people do not forgo that
-particular freedom, then nobody will be able to secure access to the resources
-that they use, or to be able to exercise their freedom in relation to it. The
-physical objects and resources that one utilises for one's purposes would
-always be up for claim by the next person who comes along (and may the
-strongest man win!)."_
-
-Well, where to start. Anarchists argue that use-rights will ensure that
-workers self-management is secured. This is because whoever is currently using
-a resource (as a factory) has the right to take part in the management of that
-resource. Now, it kind of goes without saying that use rights are based upon
-respecting other people's use of resources. Thus it is not a case of Hobbesian
-"anarchy" in which people do not respect others. Thus people will "forgo the
-power" of taking what other people are using (except in emergencies, of
-course). Thus the "strongest" would not be able to kick tenants out of the
-house they are living in. So, use-rights simply means that when using
-something people manage its use. Workers in a workplace manage its use and
-anyone who newly joins the co-operative gets to take part in decision making.
-Use rights are the way of restricting domination by promoting self-management.
-
-Wilson argues that granting "use-rights" will encourage Hobbesian behaviour,
-which suggests that he thinks that people cannot live together peacefully
-without police forces and laws (well, then again, he **is** an
-"anarcho"-capitalist). It seems strange to think that an anarchist society
-would develop in which people would have so little respect for others. Given
-that the whole point of the expropriation of the capitalists was to maximise
-individual freedom and dignity, it is doubtful that people would start to
-violate those values. But Wilson is assuming that without police forces
-humanity would turn into a Hobbesian war of all against all but this has never
-been the case of communities based upon use rights (see Kropotkin's **Mutual
-Aid** for extensive evidence).
-
-Wilson, after misrepresenting anarchist ideas, now moves on to justifying
-capitalist domination:
-
-> _"Abiding by the rules and codes enforced on the job may be irritating at
-times, but an exchange is a relationship that one enters into voluntarily."_
-
-But the same could be said of the state. No one forces you to remain in any
-given state. There are plenty more to choose from. If you do not want to move
-then you have voluntarily consented to the social contract. So, abiding by the
-rules and codes enforced in the state may be irritating at times, but an
-exchange is a relationship that one enters into voluntarily. After all, as
-Rothbard himself argued, **if** the state had acquired its property "justly"
-then the "anarcho"-capitalist would have no problems with its laws, rules and
-codes (see section [F.2.3](secF2.html#secf23)).
-
-By stressing "consent" and ignoring the relationships generated by the
-contract, "anarcho"-capitalism ends up justifying state-like structures. If
-the current system of states was replaced by, say, 500 large companies, would
-that make the rules and codes any different from state laws? Of course not.
-
-Wilson argues that _"if one does not think that the value offered by the other
-party is sufficient to cover the cost of the transaction, then one should not
-make the exchange in the first place."_
-
-How true. The woman who agrees to sleep with her boss to keep her job, the
-drowning man who agrees to pay a passing boatman $5 million to be saved, the
-landless peasant who agrees to work in a sweatshop for 14 hours a day all
-"freely" make an exchange. After all, if they do not what they face is even
-worse than the options of the "exchange". Who can deny that they all think
-that the "value" offered by the other party makes it worthwhile to enter into
-the exchange? And who but an "anarcho"-capitalist will deny that these
-exchanges are evil ones which violate the liberty and dignity of the party in
-unfortunate circumstances?
-
-To concentrate on "exchange" is simply to blind oneself to relations of
-domination and oppression.
-
-Wilson then goes on to wax-lyrical on the "mentality" of the strawman he has
-created above:
-
-> _"The opinion that one has the right to appropriate from others at whim
-without their consent whenever one is dissatisfied with one's situation is the
-doctrine of a thief or a dictator. He who accepts this doctrine possesses the
-mentality of a parasite and a free-rider, not the mentality of a person who is
-willing to respect the sovereignty of other people (i.e., a person fit to live
-in a civilised society)."_
-
-Now, do anarchists say that we support appropriation from others "at whim"?
-No, anarchists argue that we support appropriations that stop unnecessary
-domination and oppression. Thus we argue for the appropriation of the
-capitalist class because, firstly, their goods are stolen property and,
-secondly, they create relations of domination and dictatorship between people.
-It was only a matter of time before Wilson started going on about "free-
-riders" and "parasites" and we are surprised it has taken this long for him to
-do so. It is somewhat ironic, to say the least, that supporters of capitalism
-argue that anarchists are "parasites". Far from it. Anarchists desire to end
-the system where capitalists are parasites upon the working class. Similarly,
-we desire to end capitalist property because it does not respect the
-sovereignty of other people (workers do not have the right of self-management
-within capitalist workplaces and circumstances force them to sell their
-liberty to others in order to survive).
-
-Actually, it is Wilson who expresses the mentality of a dictator when he
-attacks use-rights. You can just imagine a feudal lord or aristocrat arguing
-that just because someone lives on their land, it does not give them any right
-to determine the laws they are subject to. That rests with the owner, namely
-the lord or state. Indeed, we have shades of Locke in Wilson's argument. Locke
-argued that only the wealthy should pass laws within civil society. The poor,
-while being subject to them, do not have a say in them. They are included
-within, but not part of, civil society. Wilson's diatribe against use rights
-exposes the elitist roots of "anarcho"-capitalism and that this regime will
-universal monarchy and dictatorship in the name of "liberty" (after all, it
-will be the property owner who determines the laws and rules which those who
-just happen to work or life there are subject to).
-
-Now, as far as people able to "live in a civilised society" goes it is pretty
-clear that a rights system that can result in famine, hierarchy and extreme
-poverty is hardly "civilised". Indeed, until the rise of capitalism the idea
-that people had a right to life was a common one. All that changed and now we
-face the option "work or starve". How **very** civilised. And, of course, how
-"civilised" is a system which ensures that the majority has to sell their
-liberty to others? If civilisation is the progress of individual liberty, then
-capitalism is not a form of civilisation.
-
-Wilson then quotes the FAQ:
-
-> And, of course, inequalities of power and wealth do not restrict themselves
-to workplaces nor is the damage of hierarchy upon individuals and their
-liberty limited to working hours. Both have a deep impact on the rest of
-society, expanding into all areas of life and restricting liberty everywhere.
-
-and asks:
-
-> _"Evidence? If people enter into relationships that they perceive as leading
-to improvements over their initial situation, it's difficult to see how
-liberty can be restricted as a result. One can make errors of judgement when
-making these decisions, but one of the conditions of living in a free society
-is that one possess the freedom to make mistakes (even disastrous ones!) and
-to learn from them."_
-
-Evidence? Section [B.1](secB1.html) has evidence on the wider effects of
-capitalism. That inequalities of wealth and power have a deep impact on the
-rest of society is a truism (see section [F.3](secF3.html) for some
-discussion). Now Wilson claims that _"people enter into relationships that
-they perceive as leading to improvements over their initial situation, it's
-difficult to see how liberty can be restricted as a result"_ which is
-wonderful!
-
-Let as see, workers enter into relationships they perceive as leading to
-improvements over their initial situation (their initial situation is that
-they will starve to death unless they get money; unsurprisingly they enter
-into the wage slave relationship). As a result of this relationship, profits
-accumulate in the hands of the few. This increases inequality within society
-and, after all, money is power. Thus "bilateral exchanges" can result in
-restrictions of liberty for those involved and externalities in terms of
-inequality which affect other people (see sections [F.2](secF2.html) and
-[F.3](secF3.html)). Increasing inequality means that the few have increased
-clout and so can hang out longer then the less well off. This means that the
-less well off compromise faster and deeper than they would otherwise do. These
-compromises increase inequalities and so the process continues, with the few
-increasing their power within society and the amount of land/resources they
-own.
-
-Yes, indeed, people can make errors of judgement and the freedom to make
-mistakes is essential, but neither of these facts means that we should support
-capitalism. If making decisions is the thing we value then supporting a system
-which actively restricts decision making (for example, in work) is somewhat
-strange. Similarly, to support a system which promotes inequalities which end
-up restricting out options to (effectively) choosing which boss will govern us
-hardly promotes choice. So, in a free society, we must take responsibility for
-our decisions but capitalism so restricts these decisions as to make a mockery
-of freedom. That is why anarchists oppose it.
-
-Wilson then says that it is _"interesting to note that the first person the
-FAQ quotes in its section on anarcho-capitalism is an anarcho-socialist who
-understands the position being critiqued about as well as the authors of the
-FAQ."_ Actually, Chomsky gets to the root of the problem with
-"anarcho"-capitalism, it is just "anarchism for the rich" and would soon
-result in extensive restrictions of liberty for the majority. It is clear that
-Wilson does not understand this basic point and so ignores it.
-
-He then states:
-
-> _"So much for providing textual evidence in support of the position being
-critiqued. But then again, fair representation of the opposition is obviously
-not one of the intentions behind the FAQ."_
-
-But, as Wilson himself as indicated, we have not needed to provide textual
-support of the position being critiqued. He himself as acknowledged that
-"anarcho"-capitalism has no problem with capitalist hierarchy and has indeed
-went out of his way to justify factory fascism. Perhaps he will ask us to
-provide textual evidence that "anarcho"-capitalism supports capitalism? And
-the intention of the FAQ? To argue why "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist,
-something Wilson has done so in his critique.
-
-Wilson quotes the FAQ:
-
-> It is clear, then, that "anarcho"-capitalists are not really anti-
-authoritarians, because they would allow authoritarianism to persist where it
-has the most direct impact on ordinary people: in the workplace.
-
-and comments:
-
-> _"It's not clear from the FAQ at all, considering that it doesn't once site
-a work written by an anarcho-capitalist in this section, nor does it give a
-considerate explication of anarcho-capitalist viewpoints."_
-
-Well, why cite a work on "anarcho"-capitalism which states that they support
-capitalism? Perhaps we should also cite a work by Marxists which states they
-support Marxism? As Wilson himself makes clear, our argument that
-"anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists because they support capitalist
-hierarchy is correct. He agrees that "anarcho"-capitalists **are
-capitalists**! Now, as far as a "considerate explication" of
-"anarcho"-capitalist viewpoints go we have argued that they are not anarchists
-because they support capitalist hierarchy. As Wilson agrees, they do support
-them. We discussed why we fought that capitalist claims that workers "consent"
-to wage labour were phoney in section [B.4](secB4.html) and so did not go into
-details here. Thus we **did** present the case that capitalist hierarchy was
-fine because workers "consent" to it (and that, after all, is Wilson's
-"defence" of capitalist hierarchy).
-
-In other words, Wilson "critique" is bogus as he fails to place the section he
-is critiquing in context.
-
-Wilson then states that:
-
-> _"It's much more clear that it would be authoritarian to prevent 'capitalist
-acts among consenting adults' (Nozick's term), because people enter in these
-relations to improve their lot."_
-
-But, as noted above, anarchists have no desire to prevent wage labour in an
-anarchist society. Thus Wilson totally misrepresents anarchist ideas. Moreover
-it is **capitalism** that actively restricts the number of relationships that
-people can enter into to improve their lot, **not** anarchism. Similarly,
-Nozick's argument fails to acknowledge that these "acts" generate
-authoritarian social relationships and creates circumstances in which the
-majority have little choice but to "consent" to capitalist acts (i.e. wage
-labour).
-
-Moreover, within the capitalist workplace the capitalist can and does prevent
-socialist acts among consenting adults (for example, the forming of a union,
-self-managed work, and so forth). So it is much more clear that capitalism is
-authoritarian simply because it creates relations of domination between the
-property owning class and the working class. Wilson fails to understand this
-because he makes an idol of "consent", an idol which can and has been used to
-define the state (after all, no one forces you to live in a given state).
-
-Thus Wilson's defence of "freedom" indicates a definition of freedom which is
-little more than the justification of relationships of domination and
-authority (see section [F.2](secF2.html) for more on this).
-
-He quotes the FAQ again:
-
-> But anarchism is, by definition, anti-authoritarian (see sections A.1 and
-A.2.8). Thus "anarcho"-capitalists have illegitimately appropriated the prefix
-"anarcho" to describe themselves. In reality they are bogus anarchists.
-
-and states, _"[i]n reality, the authors of the anarcho-socialist FAQ are
-offering no more than a bogus critique."_ Which is funny, as Wilson has agreed
-with our analysis. Yes, he acknowledges, capitalist workplaces **are**
-hierarchical. Yes, "anarcho"-capitalists have no problem with them because
-they are "voluntary". Of course, he fails to note the objective conditions
-facing those who "consent" and makes no attempt to discover whether
-"anarcho"-capitalism would reinforce these pressures or not (just as he fails
-to note we addressed this issue of "consent" in section [B.4](secB4.html) of
-the FAQ).
-
-So is this a "bogus critique"? No, far from it. While we have totally revised
-this section of the FAQ in order to make the differences between anarchism and
-"anarcho"-capitalism clearer, it cannot be said that it is "bogus". After all,
-Wilson has agreed with our analysis. He just thinks that "consent" makes
-unfreedom okay. But for anarchists the circumstances which we face are
-essential for determining whether something is truly consented to. As Wilson
-takes capitalism and capitalist property rights as given and unchangeable, his
-objections are question begging in the extreme.
-
-Thus, far from being a "bogus critique" Wilson indicates well why
-"anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists. Indeed, their theory is little more
-than an attempt to justify capitalist domination and cloak it with the title
-"liberty". As Wilson himself shows.
-
-## A Critique of Section F.1.2 (How libertarian is right-Libertarian theory?)
-
-Wilson starts off by insults:
-
-> _"Unfortunately, the authors aren't in any position to assess whether or not
-libertarianism is based upon critical thought, considering that they
-themselves haven't exercised the critical thought necessary to understand the
-position they're attempting to critique."_
-
-Strong words. The truth of this statement will be discussed below. He notes
-that _"As for 'theory based upon assumptions', we will see during the course
-of this FAQ that once we look at these assumptions, they'll appear to be much
-more sound than the anarcho-socialists [sic!] have let on."_
-
-Which, of course, is acknowledging that right-libertarianism **is** built upon
-assumptions! It is just that these assumptions are considered "sound" by
-"anarcho"-capitalists.
-
-He then states that:
-
-> _"As far as 'change and the ability to evolve' go, 'right' [sic!]
-libertarians do not have any problems with it in itself. There are many forms
-of changes that most anarcho-capitalists avidly support (such as technological
-development), but they do not advocate change for its own sake, nor do they
-advocate just any form of change. Change is not desirable if it somehow
-compromises the individual integrity and autonomy of individuals; that cannot
-be stressed enough."_
-
-How true. "Anarcho"-capitalists do stress technological change. After all,
-that is one of needs of capitalism. But the point is that right-libertarians
-do not stress change within society's rights framework. They assume that
-capitalist property rights are unchangeable, regardless of how they compromise
-_"individual integrity and autonomy of individuals."_ That Wilson starts off
-by using an example of technology (which has often been used to control
-workers and compromise their autonomy, by the way) is an example of this. As
-we will see, the assumption that capitalist property rights are unchangeable
-is one that is commonplace within right libertarianism (and we wonder why
-Wilson puts right in quotes. Does he not know that "libertarian" was first
-used by anarchists in the 1880s and that right-libertarianism has stolen the
-name?).
-
-He quotes the FAQ as follows:
-
-> Right-Libertarianism is characterised by a strong tendency of creating
-theories based upon a priori theorems. Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State and
-Utopia makes no attempt to provide a justification of the property rights his
-whole theory is based upon. Indeed he states that "we shall not formulate [it]
-here." [Anarchy, State and Utopia, p. 150] Moreover, it is not formulated
-anywhere else by Nozick either. And if it is not formulated, what is there to
-defend? His whole theory is based upon assumptions.
-
-And argues that _"[i]t's true that Nozick builds his argument upon certain
-starting 'assumptions' that go undefended within the course of the book. What
-the authors do not say is that Nozick's main 'assumption' is that
-'[i]ndividuals have rights, and [that] there are certain things no person or
-group may do to them (without violating their rights).' [Anarchy, State, and
-Utopia, p. ix] This 'assumption' isn't one that turns out to be all that
-implausible."_
-
-Quite. And the question now becomes, what rights do we assume that they have?
-Do people have a right to be free? Not according to Nozick, as his self-
-ownership thesis ensures that people will be subject to authoritarian social
-relationships if they "consent" to them. Similarly, many people think that
-individuals should have a right to life but that is not one that Nozick
-accepts. From his perspective, if you are starving to death then it would be a
-worse evil to tax a millionaire $1 than to tax the millionarie and use that $1
-to feed you (see [ section F.4](secF4.html) for example, or the new [ section
-F.1.2](secF1.html#secf12)).
-
-Now, the assumption is "plausible" but that was not the assumption we focused
-upon. Nozick assumes his property rights system, the whole basis of his
-theory. Thus his theory of transfer is based upon his theory of appropriation
-of property, a theory which he clearly states he will not provide us with!
-Somewhat strange that the crux of his whole theory is just not provided. After
-all, if his argument for appropriating land is proven false then his whole
-entitlement theory also falls (indeed, as we argue in section
-[B.3.4](secB3.html#secb34), such a defence can be put together from Nozick's
-work and it does not provide such support). So to just assume its truth is
-amazing. That Wilson fails to even acknowledge the importance of this omission
-is not surprising, after all it would mean that our argument was correct --
-Nozick assumed **the** key aspect of his theory and that his whole book is
-built upon an unproven assumption. Little wonder he does off on a tangent and
-does not address the point we make.
-
-Wilson then continues with Nozick's "rights" assumption by stating that
-_"[t]hough this is a moral intuition that Nozick doesn't defend in ASU, it is
-a sufficiently broad-based intuition to be held securely by a rational person.
-Is the intuition that people have rights one that the authors of the FAQ would
-deny? If they don't accept the premise that there ought to be certain
-obligatory side-constraints upon human behaviour for the purpose of preserving
-the autonomy of people (i.e., rights), that would seem to suggest that they
-have a rather weak commitment to the ideal of human freedom."_
-
-Quite what to make of this is difficult to tell. After all, what (say) Marx,
-Hitler, J.S. Mill, Bakunin, Stirner and so on would consider as "intuitive"
-rights and what Nozick would consider as such is open to much debate. A
-rational person would, perhaps, consider the consequences of these rights and
-determine whether they actually **did** ensure a strong commitment of the
-ideal of human freedom. If, for example, Nozick's rights resulted in a society
-of large scale (voluntary) slavery due to minority control of resources then
-that society would hardly be based on a commitment to human freedom.
-
-Thus a rational person rather than following a train of logic which resulted
-in massive violations of human liberty would decide to change the rights
-framework they supported. Such a process could be seen at work in J.S. Mill
-who realised that under capitalism workers could be in a situation little than
-slavery. Thus an abstract commitment to liberty may result in circumstances
-that violated the liberty of the many. Thus to claim that anarchists have a
-_"rather weak commitment to the ideal of human freedom"_ is nonsense. It is
-rather the right libertarian whose definition of freedom is such so weak as to
-make a mockery of freedom in practice.
-
-And notice that Wilson has still not addressed the issue of the assumption of
-capitalist property rights and instead decided to imply that anarchists are
-into violating the rights of others (these rights, of course, being
-undefined).
-
-Wilson then goes on:
-
-> _"Perhaps they reject Nozick's starting moral premise because it hasn't been
-rationally validated. The truth is: Neither has any basic moral premise.
-Hume's dictum that it is impossible to derive a normative statement from a set
-of descriptive statements (assuming that they're free of normative content)
-still holds, and I challenge the anarcho-socialists to demonstrate that their
-most basic normative premises can validated in a way that doesn't rely upon
-intuition."_
-
-Or perhaps not. Perhaps we reject Nozick's starting premise because it cannot
-deliver what it promises, namely a free society of free individuals.
-
-Wilson continues:
-
-> _"It should also be mentioned that although Nozick assumes premises as basic
-as the one that people have rights, he does not simply assume the form they
-must take or their form of application. On the contrary, he argues for his
-libertarian conception of rights via a critical analysis of other political
-conceptions of justice as well as his own, and he does so rigorously and
-brilliantly."_
-
-Actually, quote a lot of ink (and electrons) has been used to indicate that
-Nozick's "rigorous" and "brilliant" "critical analysis" is nothing of the
-kind. For example, his (in)famous "Wilt Chamberlain" argument that "liberty
-upsets patterns" is based on the very capitalist property rights he is
-defending. Thus his example is question begging in the extreme. Indeed, many
-authors have recognised that his analysis is little more than a justification
-of capitalist domination and that it fails to acknowledge that the
-consequences of his theory could result in a society in which the major have
-little or no option but to follow the orders of the few (for a decisive
-critique of Nozick which shows how weak his theory is see Will Kymlicka's
-**Contemporary Political Philosophy**).
-
-Wilson again:
-
-> _"Notice that the authors of the FAQ offer no criticisms of Nozick's actual
-arguments, but simply dismiss him as quickly as possible. They quote isolated
-sections of text for their own purposes of "refutation", and completely fail
-to engage the sections of ASU that really matter. Many political philosophers
-have expressed serious disagreement with Nozick over the past few decades, but
-unlike the authors of the anarcho-socialist FAQ, they have critically engaged
-Nozick's views because they recognised that if they were to advocate a non-
-libertarian political theory, Nozick's objections would have to be answered."_
-
-Funnily enough, we have quoted Nozick and his arguments many times and have
-attempted to answer his "objections" (for example, sections B.3.4, J.5.11,
-J.5.12, F.2 and I.4.12). As for "criticisms" of his "actual arguments" you can
-find them there. What this section of the FAQ was discussing was the starting
-basis of Nozick's arguments, namely in assumptions. And as Wilson
-acknowledges, Nozick does build his system on assumptions. Now, given that
-Nozick's whole argument is based on providing a justification for property
-rights then this section "really matters". If he provides no arguments for
-private property then the rest of his system is nonsense (after all, as the
-initial appropriation was unjust, then all the other transfers are unjust as
-well). So for Nozick is state he will not provide it is important. That Wilson
-does not recognise this is strange to say the least.
-
-After presenting a list of other right-libertarian theorists (although see
-Will Kymlicka's **Contemporary Political Philosophy** for an excellently
-critique of many of these theories along with Nozick) he then states that _"we
-will eventually arrive at section F.7, which does an excellent job demolishing
-a fictitious strawman of the admittedly elusive concept of 'natural law'. This
-FAQ will demonstrate why the anarcho-socialist FAQ doesn't actually refute a
-moral theory that many libertarians buy into"_ although section F.7 does not
-refute a strawman unless it is a strawman created by supporters of "Natural
-Law" themselves.
-
-Wilson then disagrees with Murray Bookchin's arguments against "the law of
-identity" arguing that identity _"doesn't merely account for an entity's
-current state of being. The concept of 'identity' easily accounts for
-existential change by subsuming the attribute of potentiality. This criticism
-attacks Aristotle's first law of logic while ignoring his conception of the
-material cause."_
-
-This is strange. If we assume "potentiality" then we are arguing that "A can
-**potentially** be A", not that "A is A". Water can "potentially" be both
-steam and ice, does that mean "water is steam" or "water is ice"? If you argue
-that "A is A" and then modify it to acknowledge that "A can perhaps be A
-sometime in the future" is somewhat strange. Either the law of identity states
-that "A is A" or it does not. Adding on "potentiality" just indicates how
-limited the law of identity actually is.
-
-He then quotes the FAQ:
-
-> In other words, right-Libertarian theory is based upon ignoring the
-fundamental aspect of life - namely change and evolution.
-
-And argues that the authors _"have in no way demonstrated this. They're simply
-pulling arguments out of a hat with out heed to whether or not they actually
-apply to the position they're trying to critique."_
-
-Now, we argued that must of right-libertarian theory was built upon
-assumptions. Indeed, Wilson agrees with us. We argued that by using
-assumptions and deducing things from these assumptions means that you fail to
-take into account change (this can be clearly seen from Rothbard's claims on
-"Natural law" quoted in [ section F.7](secF7.html)). Thus, using "natural
-rights" as Nozick, Rand and Rothbard do is to use the law of identity and
-this, as Bookchin noted, fails to take into account change. Thus we are not
-"pulling arguments out of a hat" but trying to draw out the implications of
-the methodology used. Now, Wilson is free to consider that these points do not
-apply to the positions in question, but obviously we do not agree with him. If
-you start with certain assumptions about "Man" and then deduce conclusions
-from these assumptions then you fail to see now these assumptions can change
-in use. For example, the assumption of self-ownership is all fine and well but
-in practice it can become the means of denying liberty, not protecting it (see
-section [B.4](secB4.html) and [F.2](secF2.html)). Also, to assume "Man's
-nature" is unchanging (as Rothbard et al do) is itself to force capitalist
-assumptions onto the history of the human race.
-
-Wilson then quotes the FAQ again:
-
-> Unfortunately for right-Libertarians (and fortunately for the rest of
-humanity), human beings are not mechanical entities but instead are living,
-breathing, feeling, hoping, dreaming, changing living organisms.
-
-And states:
-
-> _"Where precisely have 'right' libertarians denied any of this, and how is
-this supposed to be a rebuttal to 'right' libertarian theory?"_
-
-It is true that right-libertarians do pay lip service to human beings as
-living organisms but in much of their ideology they deny it. Thus Rothbard,
-for example, argues that "natural law" is unchanging, which is to state that
-human beings do not change. What inspires people changes. What people think is
-right and wrong changes. Thus a theory that uses the law of identity ("natural
-rights" and so forth) fails to take this into account and so there is a
-mechanical core to the theory. A core which can be seen from the mechanical
-attempts to justify capitalist property rights in ways that can create
-terrible consequences (see sections F.4, F.4.2, F.2.3 and F.2.7 for example).
-Indeed, Robert Anton Wilson in **Natural Law** makes a similar point, namely
-that right libertarianism is infected with "robot ideologists" and this
-undermines liberty with dogma.
-
-So a theory which mechanically argues, for example, that "slave contracts" are
-an expression of liberty is simply nonsense. That is how it is supposed to be
-a rebuttal to right-libertarian theory -- that it places the theory above
-common-sense and justifies extreme unfreedom in the name of liberty.
-
-Wilson goes on to argue that _"[a]s of so far, the authors have only given a
-single short and out-of-context example of Nozick's as evidence that 'right'
-libertarians do not base their theory upon facts, and I have already shown how
-that example is utterly misleading. Right now, the authors are doing no more
-than shooting down imaginary positions and citing Bookchin quotes that give
-bad arguments against the law of identity."_
-
-Now, was the Nozick example "out-of-context"? Wilson has not even addressed
-the example and instead concentrated on another assumption of Nozick's (namely
-that people have rights -- an intuitive argument which produces some very non-
-intuitive outcomes, we must note). As far as "bad arguments against the law of
-identity" goes we have indicated that this is not the case and that Rothbard
-and Rand base their arguments on said law. So, just to be clear, as "evidence"
-we presented Nozick, Rand and Rothbard as right-libertarian thinkers who base
-themselves on assumptions. Far more evidence than Wilson suggests we present.
-
-Wilson then quotes the FAQ again:
-
-> From a wider viewpoint, such a rejection of liberty by right-libertarians is
-unsurprising. They do, after all, support capitalism. Capitalism produces an
-inverted set of ethics, one in which capital (dead labour) is more important
-that people (living labour).
-
-And argues that:
-
-> _"This makes very little sense. If a business owner both purchased capital
-and hired labours to help him produce, there is no economic reason why one
-would necessarily be more important than the other."_
-
-Actually there is as capital investments are far more valuable than individual
-workers. You can easily fire a worker, it is somewhat harder to dismantle a
-workplace with millions of dollars of capital within it. It can also be seen
-when capitalists hire workers to labour in unsafe and dangerous conditions as
-it gives them a competitive edge that would be eroded if they invested in safe
-working conditions. So, there are plenty of economic reasons why capital is
-more important than labour -- and history (and current practice) proves this
-argument again and again. That Wilson cannot see this says a lot about his
-ideology.
-
-Moving on Wilson argues:
-
-> _"The marginal utility of a capital good or a worker would depend upon its
-marginal product, i.e., the level of output that increases as a result of an
-additional input. Perhaps the authors find something vulgar about this because
-certain people are assigning 'utility' to other people. But this means nothing
-more than that people obtain a measure of subjective value from the presence
-or activities of a person."_
-
-Or to translate from marginalist speak, the capitalist employs a worker
-because he/she has a **use value** for the capitalist; namely that they
-produce more goods than they get paid for in wages (the exchange value of
-goods produces is higher than the exchange value of the worker). We have no
-problem with individual's subjectively valuing other individuals but we do
-have a problem with exploitation. And this is what the "marginal utility"
-theory was invented to deny. But it is clear that the capitalist will only
-"value" a worker who produces more than they get paid -- i.e. performs unpaid
-labour. If this condition is not meet, then they are fired.
-
-Wilson argues that _"[t]his doesn't imply that people are necessarily being
-misused, and libertarians hold that they aren't, provided that the value one
-derives from the presence or activities of another doesn't entail that that
-person's actions are determined in a way that doesn't involve his/her
-consent."_
-
-Which brings us straight back to "consent". So, if the state taxes you then
-this is wrong because you do not "consent" to it. However, as noted above, you
-are free to leave a state at any time and seek out a state closer to your
-desires -- just as the worker is free to seek out a new capitalist. Since the
-worker does not do this, "anarcho" capitalists assume that the worker
-"consents" to the rules and orders of her boss. That the same argument can be
-applied to the state is one that is hotly denied by "anarcho"-capitalists (see
-[section F.2.3](secF2.html#secf23)).
-
-Now it could be argued that ordering people about is "misusing" them, after
-all you are subjecting them to your will. Similarly, when the boss orders the
-worker into dangerous conditions that too could be classed as "misuse". But
-"consent" is the key and for anarchists capitalism is marked by inequalities
-that make "consent" purely formal (just as the "consent" associated with the
-liberal state is purely formal). We discuss this in sections [F.2](secF2.html)
-and [F.3](secF3.html) and so will not do so here.
-
-Wilson continues and quotes the FAQ again:
-
-> This can be seen when the Ford produced the Pinto. The Pinto had a flaw in
-it which meant that if it was hit in a certain way in a crash the fuel tank
-exploded. The Ford company decided it was more "economically viable" to
-produce that car and pay damages to those who were injured or the relatives of
-those who died than pay to change the invested capital. The needs of capital
-came before the needs of the living.
-
-He argues:
-
-> _"This is an invalid application of the odd statement the authors made
-above, as well as being an odd and nonsensical statement in its own right.
-Capital doesn't have needs. Only the living have needs, and the cited case is
-one in which one group of people perceived it as being to their advantage to
-sell unsafe automobiles to people willing to buy them. This means that sellers
-unethically endangered the lives of others for the sake of profit. Under no
-social arrangement will such a phenomenon always be avoided, but the fact is
-that there will necessarily be much less of it under an arrangement in which
-people are legally required to bear the full liability for the costs of their
-actions. This is the type of arrangement that anarcho-capitalists advocate."_
-
-Which is an interesting argument. Under _"no social arrangement will such a
-phenomenon always be avoided"_? But it was the desire to make a profit and so
-survive on the market that prompted Ford's decision. Such "phenomenon" would
-have been avoided in a socialist society simply because competitive pressures
-would have been lacking and people would be placed before profits. And Ford
-was well aware that it would face "the costs of their actions" and did those
-actions anyway. Now as "anarcho"-capitalists support a market based law system
-it is not at all clear that a corporation would "bear full liability for the
-costs of their actions." After all, the law system will be marked by
-inequalities in the bargaining position and resources of the agents involved.
-It could be that Ford would be able to use its market power to undermine the
-legal system or skew it in its favour (see [section F.6.3](secF6.html#secf63))
-but the fact remains that Ford deliberately placed profits before human
-beings. The same occurs everyday in capitalism where workers are placed in
-unsafe working conditions.
-
-So our point remains. Capitalism **does** create an environment where people
-are used as resources by others and the needs of profit are placed before
-people. Wilson sees that this is the case but refuses to look at why it
-happens. If he did so then, perhaps, he would realise that capitalist ideology
-places property before/above liberty (as can be seen from their definitions of
-"freedom" -- see section [F.2](secF2.html)) and so the actions of Ford as an
-expression of a deeper psychosis.
-
-He ends by arguing that:
-
-> _"It's unclear why the authors need to speak incoherently about 'the needs
-of capital' to prove a point. Perhaps it's to single out capitalism as the
-primary cause of the type of disaster that they speak of. Contrary to the
-false impression that the authors give, such incidents are more likely to
-occur under a socialistic economy in which the funding of industries are
-guaranteed, and in which workers have nothing to lose from performing the job
-in a irresponsible manner. Recently, there have been numerous train crashes in
-Italy, and many deaths have occurred as a result. Many of the engineers were
-reportedly drunk while operating the trains. These trains were a part of a
-socialised railroad scheme. The authors are arbitrarily and unjustly singling
-out the free market as a producer of defective products and services."_
-
-Strange, we were not aware that Italy was a socialistic economy. Nor do we
-consider **nationalised** industries the same as "socialised" ones. But let us
-ignore these obvious points. Wilson presents the example of the drunk
-engineers as an example of how a "socialistic" economy would create more of
-the Ford Pinto type situations. Now, did the bosses of the nationalised
-railways deliberately decide to employ the drunk engineers? Did they do a
-cost-benefit analysis and decide that employing drunk engineers would be more
-profitable than sacking them? Of course not. What was a deliberate act on the
-part of Ford was not done with the nationalised Italian railways. **If** the
-managers of the railways **had** acted in the way that Ford did then Wilson
-would have had a point, but they did not. His example seems to be an arbitrary
-and unjust attempt to whitewash the actions prompted by free market pressures.
-
-It seems strange that Wilson does not consider the implications of Ford's
-acts. After all, most normal people would be horrified by these acts (like the
-actions of any capitalist firm that harms people in order to make a bit more
-profit) and seek a reason for them (i.e. in the system that created the
-pressures Ford and other employers face). However, rather than look at the
-pressures that resulted in this act, he seems to take them as unavoidable and
-isolated from the economic system he supports. How strange, but unsurprising.
-
-## Critique of Section F.1.3 (Is right-Libertarian theory scientific in
-nature?)
-
-Wilson starts by quoting the FAQ:
-
-> Usually, no. The scientific approach is inductive, the right-Libertarian
-approach is deductive. The first draws generalisations from the data, the
-second applies preconceived generalisations to the data. A completely
-deductive approach is pre-scientific, however, which is why right-Libertarians
-cannot legitimately claim to use a scientific method. Deduction does occur in
-science, but the generalisations are primarily based on other data, not a
-priori assumptions.
-
-And states that:
-
-> _"This is partially true. It's not true that libertarians reject the method
-of drawing generalisations upon the basis of data. What libertarians do reject
-is the position that one can approach aggregate and statistical data with any
-hope of possibly understanding it if they have not previously laid down a
-reliable theoretical grounding for it's interpretation. Economic data are
-highly complex, and it's fallacious to believe that one can infer a causal
-relationship between two or more macroeconomic phenomena on the basis of
-observances of correlations. Too many elements play a role in constituting the
-identity of concepts such as 'GNP', 'GDP', 'the money supply', 'consumption',
-etc., for one to be able to gain an understanding of them without the aid of
-'preconceived generalisations'. This is why libertarians hold that it's
-necessary to apply a microeconomic theory founded upon generalisations made
-from simple facts to the study of macroeconomic data."_
-
-Actually, the Austrian school of economics (which has inspired much of right-
-libertarianism) argue at great length that you cannot use past any data to
-test theories. Murray Rothbard states approvingly that:
-
-> _ "Mises indeed held not only that economic theory does not need to be
-'tested' by historical fact but also that it **cannot** be so tested."_
-["Praxeology: The Methodology of Austrian Economics" in **The Foundation of
-Modern Austrian Economics**, p. 32]
-
-And this applies to **all** data. Including simple data. They argue, in effect
-(and misleadingly), that the econometrician is a historian **not** a theorist.
-Moreover, many economists would argue that using complex data should be taken
-with care. Now, the claim that it is "necessary to apply a microeconomic
-theory founded upon generalisations made from simple facts to the study of
-macroeconomic data" is false, at least from the viewpoint of the Austrian
-school. They explicitly argue that economic theory **cannot** be tested and
-that economic theory is **not** built upon generalisations from simple facts
-but rather from logical deductions from assumptions (perhaps these are the
-"simple facts" that Wilson is referring to but in that case his "simple facts"
-is the axiom that "humans act" and not, say, simple facts/data gathered from
-the studying specific events as might be imagined).
-
-Wilson continues by saying _"[i]t certainly isn't surprising that the authors
-derived their (mis)information concerning Austrian economic theory through a
-secondary source written by an author more in their favour. In light of source
-of the authors (mis)information, it should be remembered that their
-(mis)representation of Austrian economics is no more than an interpretation of
-an interpretation."_
-
-But as we will see, nothing could be further from the truth. In the new
-section [F.1.3](secF1.html#secf13) we provide more quotes from Austrian
-sources which state exactly the same thing as we argue here. The Rothbard
-quote above clearly indicates that our comments are correct. Let us not forget
-that Austrian economics is based upon deductions from the basic axiom "humans
-act".
-
-He states that _"we arrive at a commonly made, and yet highly fallacious
-criticism of Austrian economics"_ namely that (quoting von Mises) that
-Austrian economics is based upon rejecting any data that conflicts with their
-theory. This, Wilson argues _"constitutes a serious misunderstanding of the
-importance of Mises' method"_ and states that _"[s]ince the authors do not
-even mention what Mises' theorems actually are, it's easy for the uneducated
-reader to dismiss Mises as a crackpot without first understanding him. The
-methodological individualism and methodological subjectivism of the Austrian
-school is predicated upon the simple and relatively uncontroversial premise
-that humans act."_
-
-Is the assumptions of the methodology actually relevant to discussing the
-methodology itself? The assumptions may be "uncontroversial" but if the net
-result is that you dismiss data that contradicts your theory then the theory
-itself and its assumptions cannot be evaluated! As Rothbard makes clear,
-"since praxeology begins with a true axiom, A, all that can be deduced from
-this axiom must also be true. For if A implies be, and A is true, then B must
-also be true." [Op. Cit., pp. 19-20] Now A is the premise "humans act" but
-upon this axiom is built a whole series of other axiom's, all claimed to be
-true because the first one is true. Given that this premise of one that
-Proudhon, Marx, Keynes, Kalecki and a host of non-free market economists would
-have agreed too it seems a very big leap of faith to claim that all the other
-axioms are true. Now, if the facts of reality are to be dismissed if your
-theory is logically consistent (after all, that is what von Mises is arguing,
-let us not forget that) then it is impossible to evaluate your theory and the
-axioms you have generated. Hence our comments. The methodology von Mises
-supports means that your theories can **never** be revised since A was
-correct. This is the opposite of the scientific method, as we argued.
-
-Wilson states that:
-
-> _"What the praxeologist methodology intends to do is to explain more
-holistic economic phenomenon--such as prices, firms, production, etc--through
-the analysis of the discrete components that give rise to them, namely
-individual actors purposefully pursuing their own plans and goals on the basis
-of the information they have access to. It's a microeconomic approach that
-seeks to inquire into the nature of complex entities by analysing the
-behaviour of it's simple components. Econometric methods discard human
-behaviour as irrelevant, and deal solely with aggregate data while attempting
-to draw inferences of causation through observation of statistical
-correlation. Too many variables have an influence upon aggregate data for a
-methodological holist procedure to yield conclusive results explaining human
-behaviour, and this is why Austrians reject this approach."_
-
-But that may be what it intends, but that is not what it achieves. What it
-achieves is a mindset that prefers to reject facts in favour of theory. It
-also ignores the fact that the more holistic phenomenon has an important
-impact on discrete components and that by concentrating on these components
-important facts are ignored. As we argue in [section F.2](secF2.html), right-
-libertarians concentrate their analysis on the "discrete component" of
-contracts within capitalism. This effectively blinds them to the way the
-objective facts of a given society influence these contracts. For example,
-contracts made during periods of full employment have different impacts than
-those made during high unemployment. The human behaviour expressed in these
-contracts are influenced by aggregate facts which the Austrian analysis
-discards. Similarly, the aggregate outcome of these discrete acts may have a
-distinctly different impact than we would guess at if we looked at them in
-isolation and so aggregate analysis can provide us with insights the
-microeconomic approach fails to provide.
-
-Also, when deductively generating axioms from the "simple data" of "humans
-act", it is easy to discard or ignore forms of human behaviour which do have
-an impact on the final outcome. Dealing solely with deductive generation can
-also fail to take into account human behaviour.
-
-Wilson goes on to argue that:
-
-> _"If theory is grounded in one's knowledge of simple facts (like human
-action) and deductions made from those facts, yes, it would be silly to accept
-the validity of aggregate data that conflicts with one's theory. Data is
-composed of many elements and components, and is far too complex for one
-understand with a greater degree of certainty than basic facts about human
-behaviour (e.g. preference, choice, incentives, etc.). If a piece of
-statistical data yields conclusions that appear to conflict prima faciae with
-a theoretical framework grounded upon simple observations, it is completely
-reasonable to either [a] look to see how the statistical data might be
-misinterpreted, or [b] reject the data. Knowledge of simple data is more
-reliable than Knowledge of complex data, and without knowledge of simple data
-it is impossible to interpret complex data. It is always possible that one's
-theoretical analysis may be invalid, but within the context of the social
-sciences, it's unwise to determine the validity of one's theory by comparing
-it to complex data that seems to conflict. One can demonstrate the invalidity
-of one's theory through logic and conceptual analysis, however."_
-
-But, as noted, Austrians think that **all** economic theories are untestable.
-Including those based upon "simple data" as opposed to "aggregate data" (and
-simple data is somewhat different than simple facts). However, by "simple
-data" Wilson is referring to the axioms derived from the first axiom "humans
-act". Thus he is arguing that **if** you base yourself on deductive logic from
-an initial axiom, then you will not be inclined to view experience as being
-very useful to evaluating. This approach is taken by most churches who can
-easily dismiss arguments against the existence of god as being irrelevant to
-the first axiom that "god exists". Wilson is essentially arguing that we
-perform a "leap of faith" and join the Austrian school in deductive logic and
-pre-scientific logic.
-
-Now, the Austrian approach is such that they reject the idea that data can be
-used to evaluate their claims. They argue even if the facts contradict one of
-their theories that does not mean that their theories are false, far from it.
-It just means that in this case their theory was not applicable (see the new
-section [F.1.3](secF1.html#secf13) for a quote on this)! Now Wilson seems to
-be trying to present this argument in the best possible light but it does not
-change the fact that von Mises and other Austrian's argue that their theories
-are true **no matter what**. They are essentially placing their economic ideas
-above analysis as all and any evidence can be ignored as not applicable in
-this case -- just, as we may note, religions do.
-
-In contrast to Wilson, we think it is "silly" to have a theory which is
-grounded in denying and/or rejecting empirical evidence or using empirical
-evidence to inform your theory. It seems "unwise" to accept a theory which
-major argument seems to be that it cannot be tested. After all, logic can lead
-us to many areas and it is only by seeing whether our chain of thought
-approximates reality can we evaluate the validity of our ideas. If econometric
-methods discard human behaviour as irrelevant, then so can the Austrian system
-\-- for there are too many variables that can have an influence upon
-individual acts to yield conclusive results explaining human behaviour.
-Indeed, the deductive approach may ignore as irrelevant certain human
-motivations which have a decisive impact on an outcome (there could be a
-strong tendency to project "Austrian Man" onto the rest of society and
-history, for example).
-
-Wilson quotes the FAQ again:
-
-> Such an approach makes the search for truth a game without rules. The
-Austrian economists (and other right-libertarians) by using this method are
-free to theorise anything they want, without such irritating constrictions as
-facts, statistics, data, history or experimental confirmation. Their only
-guide is logic. But this is no different from what religions do when they
-assert the logical existence of God (or Buddha or Mohammed or Gaia). Theories
-ungrounded in facts and data are easily spun into any belief a person wants.
-Starting assumptions and trains of logic may contain inaccuracies so small as
-to be undetectable, yet will yield entirely different conclusions.
-
-And argues that:
-
-> _"It is certainly the case that certain small and undetectable flaws in
-one's train of logic can result in horridly inaccurate conclusions, but
-precisely the same thing can be said concerning statistical and historical
-analysis. The problem is even more pervasive when dealing with statistical and
-historical analysis because of the phenomenon of incomplete information.
-Certain facts will always be unintentionally discarded from the equation, and
-certain factors responsible for the existence of complex facts and events will
-always go unaccounted for."_
-
-But we are not arguing that we base our theories **totally** on historical
-data. Such extreme empiricism is just as false as von Mises method. What we in
-fact argued that statistical and historical data should be used to back-up any
-theory we have and if this data disproves our theory then modify the theory,
-**not** reject the data. Von Mises' methodology is such that this approach is
-dismissed (due to the untestability argument) and that is its problem. Without
-a founding in fact, Austrians are free to theorise about whatever they like,
-without such irritating constrains as facts, statistics, data, history and so
-forth. Wilson's arguments have not refuted our analysis, rather he has
-provided apologetics for von Mises' methodology (a methodology he admits _"can
-result in horridly inaccurate conclusions"_). As Austrians can dismiss
-evidence as "inapplicable" they are in no position to re-evaluate their ideas
-in the light of reality and so their ideas are little more than dogmas.
-
-Now, how logic chains deduced from axioms can also unintentionally discard
-certain facts and factors responsible for the existence of complex facts. And
-the question remains, how do you evaluate whether your logical chains are
-indeed correct? By evaluating them against reality (i.e. "complex facts"). A
-given chain of logic does not provide any idea on the relative strengths of
-certain derived factors (which empirical study can indicate). Nor can it
-indicate whether the chain is incomplete or missing essential factors. A given
-chain may be internally consistent but still miss out important factors or
-stress insignificant ones. So deductive logic has all the problems of
-statistical analysis and a few more as statistical analysis at least
-recognises that theories must be evaluated using experience rather than reason
-alone.
-
-Wilson argues that:
-
-> _"Most libertarians would find it reasonable to rethink the basic principles
-or derivations of one's theory if one found them to consistently fail to
-explain historical events or macroeconomic data, but those of the Austrian
-persuasion, and even to some extent those of the neoclassical persuasion,
-would say that the observance of historical and macroeconomic facts is never,
-in itself, sufficient to invalidate the conclusions of deductive and
-conceptual analysis."_
-
-But let us not forgot that many right-libertarians follow the ideas of Murray
-Rothbard and Ayn Rand, both firm supporters of Austrian economics.
-Politically, the dangers of this approach are easily seen. For example, Wilson
-himself has indicated how his "basic principles" produce relations of
-domination and oppression which are identical to those created by the state
-and he sees nothing wrong with this. Similarly, macroeconomic data indicates
-that capitalism has done best under Keynesianism rather than laissez-faire and
-the current economic performance in the USA is dependent upon the state
-maintaining a "natural" rate of unemployment.
-
-Let us not forget that, as Wilson points out, von Mises' method if one used by
-more mainstream economics as well (as pointed out by Homa Katouzian who, it
-seems, is are fair more reliable guide than Wilson would like to admit). So,
-let us be clear, that the case for "free market" capitalism often involves
-theories which _"the observance of historical and macroeconomic facts is
-never, in itself, sufficient to invalidate."_ That is some claim. No matter
-the evidence, capitalist theory cannot be disproved. That says a lot about
-capitalist economic ideology and its role in society.
-
-Moving on, Wilson again quotes the FAQ:
-
-> So, von Mises, Hayek and most right-libertarians reject the scientific
-method in favour of ideological correctness and so deny the key aspect of both
-life (change and evolution) and liberty (critical analysis and thought). A
-true libertarian would approach a contradiction between reality and theory by
-changing the theory, not by ignoring reality. Right-Libertarian theory is
-neither libertarian nor scientific.
-
-He then states that:
-
-> _"Here, the authors demonstrate how ignorant they are of the position
-they're critiquing. If they had pained themselves to study the primary
-sources, they would have learned about how Mises and other Austrians were
-concerned with grounding their theory upon simple observable facts of reality
-so that they could enable themselves to understand the subjects of
-macroeconomics and history--two realms of complexity."_
-
-Let us not forget that these "simple observable facts" is "humans act" and the
-axioms deduced from this fact. That is it. This is the "two" realms of
-complexity -- that individual acts and the resultant of these acts. Now, von
-Mises argues that (in the quote we provided) that no experience can disprove
-these derived axioms. If we look at the primary sources (such as these we
-quote in the new section [F.1.3](secF1.html#secf13)) we find that Austrians
-are clear about the use of data and how it relates to their theories (which
-are **all** deduced from the axiom "humans act" and nothing else). This axiom
-("humans act") is the "grounding" of the Austrian theory which Wilson talks
-about. Everything else flows from this. And anything else above this axiom (or
-derived axioms) is another "realm of complexity" -- so the actual workings and
-results of the capitalist system is another realm (which is true, reality
-**is** another realm than that of logic deductions within the mind).
-
-So, far from showing "ignorance" all we have done is to point out the
-implications and religious nature of these perspectives. Austrians "ground"
-themselves on the axiom "humans act" and argue that simple and/or complex
-observable facts cannot be used to evaluate the axioms they derive from this
-initial axiom. Hence our comments and analysis are painfully accurate.
-Austrian economics is more like a "free market" religion than a scientific
-analysis of capitalism.
-
-So the primary sources argue that because Austrian economics is based upon the
-axiom "humans act" all its other axioms and arguments are correct **and** that
-these cannot be disproven by experience. Thus our comments on von Mises seem
-appropriate and the rationale for this rejection of experience seems
-inappropriate.
-
-Wilson goes on to state that:
-
-> _"The implication of the views being espoused by the authors above is that
-it's inappropriate to learn about the world via the application of a
-methodology. If the authors would alter their methodology (if they have one)
-every time they stumble across a series of facts that that appear, prima
-faciae, to conflict with it, then it would appear that the authors see no need
-for methodology at all, and would prefer to rush headlong into the complex
-realm of the social sciences, unequipped with any reliable means of
-interpretation. Now which approach is more closely connected to reality?"_
-
-But such an "implication" is so radically false as to be a misrepresentation
-of our argument. We argued that any analysis or theory we have should be
-grounded in facts and that if a set of facts contradict our theory then,
-assuming that the facts are correct of course, change the theory, **not deny
-reality.** Quite simple really and a methodology which most people would
-consider as sensible (assuming that you are not an Austrian economist of
-course). For example, Proudhon argued that competition tends to undermine
-competition. That is a theory which can be tested against facts. The facts
-indicate that, over time, capitalist markets evolve towards oligopoly and that
-this market power results in super-profits (see sections [C.4](secC4.html) and
-[C.5](secC5.html)). Now, if the facts indicate that a market does not become
-dominated by a few firms then we would be inclined to reject that theory. But,
-if we were Austrians, we could just argue that our theory is true but that it
-has not been applicable! Now, which approach is more closely connected to
-reality?
-
-Then, as an aside, Wilson argues that:
-
-> _"(To accuse Hayek, of all people, of denying change and evolution is simply
-astounding. When one considers all of his writings on his principle of
-'spontaneous order', and on the dispersed evolution of customs within a
-society, this charge becomes as absurd as one claiming that Noam Chomsky
-doesn't report upon international politics. The authors are ignoring the
-primary subject matter of most of Hayek's popular works.)"_
-
-Now, unlike Kropotkin who also studied evolution, von Hayek used the example
-of "evolved" or "spontaneous" order to justify "free market" capitalism rather
-than to analyse how society itself was evolving and changing. Because
-(according to von Hayek) the "market" is a "spontaneous order" you should not
-mess with it. But such an analysis is false as the "order" on the market is
-dependent on the state determining the rights framework in which this order to
-generated. Thus, rather than supporting change and evolution, von Hayek's work
-is about stopping change and evolution (i.e. the change and evolution of
-society into a different, non-capitalist, form). He supported the state and
-the capitalist rights it enforces and, moreover, desired to ensure that
-capitalist property rights were unchangeable by modifying democracy as to
-place effective power into the hands of a few people (for example, his schemes
-for using age as a determining, and restricting, factor in voting and being
-able to occupy a seat in Parliament).
-
-Similarly, his "analysis" of the evolution of customs just assumes that those
-customs he dislikes (as socialistic or tribal) have been made irrelevant by
-evolution. However, that is the thing about evolution, you just do not know
-which of these social customs are required to progress the species. It could
-be that the social customs von Hayek approves off have been generated within
-society by state action and would not survive in a truly free society.
-
-And, as the history of capitalism shows, it is very far from an "evolved"
-order -- state action played a key role in creating it. Thus Hayek's claims
-are somewhat strange, unless you realise his motivation for them -- namely to
-counter any attempt to change capitalism into something better.
-
-Thus von Hayek, unlike Kropotkin, can be said to deny change and evolution
-simply because he assumes that we have reached the "end of history" (to coin a
-phrase). Just because von Hayek talks about evolution and change does not mean
-that he supports it. In fact, quite the reverse -- he uses the concepts to try
-and stop change and evolution.
-
-Wilson concludes as follows:
-
-> > The real question is why are such theories taken seriously and arouse such
-interest. Why are they not simply dismissed out of hand,
-
->
-
-> _"Because more honest and responsible people bothered to first come to an
-understanding of them before passing judgement."_
-
-Really? But as we have indicated our comments on right-libertarianism are
-accurate. That Wilson does not like the way we have presented then, but that
-does not make them false. Indeed, his "critique" of our account has not found
-anything incorrect about them, which seems strange for "dishonest" and
-"irresponsible" people. His comments that we, for example, ignore Nozick's
-assumption that "individuals have rights" ignores the point we made that
-Nozick **assumes** the property rights that are the basis of his system.
-Instead Wilson discusses something else altogether. Similarly, Wilson's
-attempt to justify the axiomatic methodology of von Mises fails to appreciate
-that this methodology cannot be evaluated from looking at the starting axiom
-as it ensures that its logical chains cannot be tested. Moreover, he attempts
-to discredit the strawman of extreme empiricism rather than truly addressing
-the issue that von Mises methodology presents a dogmatic, pre-scientific
-attitude which has more of a religious feel than anything else. If anything,
-his comments actually show that we were correct in our analysis -- after all,
-he has indicated that "anarcho"-capitalists have no problem with capitalist
-hierarchy, the right-libertarians **do** based their ideas of assumptions and
-deductions from these without regard for consequences and that the Austrian
-school rejects the use of empirical evidence to test their theories.
-
-How strange. Could it be that we have just informed people of a few home
-truths about right-libertarianism that its supporters prefer to keep quiet
-about?
-
diff --git a/markdown/secA1.md b/markdown/secA1.md
index b7f811cb13049029fcefb54ef054eae8312a4057..ba6dd93844aedd2ce31ed474c3696bf16a01c4b9 100644
--- a/markdown/secA1.md
+++ b/markdown/secA1.md
@@ -1,10 +1,8 @@
-# A.1 What is anarchism?
-
Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy, _"the absence of
a master, of a sovereign."_ [P-J Proudhon, **What is Property **, p. 264] In
other words, anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society
within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such
-anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control \- be that control by the
+anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be that control by the
state or a capitalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality
as well as unnecessary.
@@ -58,7 +56,7 @@ Bartolomeo Vanzetti, **The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti**, p. 274]
Vanzetti knew what he was talking about. He and his comrade Nicola Sacco were
framed by the US state for a crime they did not commit and were, effectively,
-electrocuted for being foreign anarchists in 1927\. So this FAQ will have to
+electrocuted for being foreign anarchists in 1927. So this FAQ will have to
spend some time correcting the slanders and distortions that anarchists have
been subjected to by the capitalist media, politicians, ideologues and bosses
(not to mention the distortions by our erstwhile fellow radicals like liberals
@@ -287,29 +285,23 @@ egalitarian . . . Anarchism began -- and remains -- a direct challenge by the
underprivileged to their oppression and exploitation. It opposes both the
insidious growth of state power and the pernicious ethos of possessive
individualism, which, together or separately, ultimately serve only the
-interests of the few at the expense of the rest.
-
->
+interests of the few at the expense of the rest._
-> "Anarchism is both a theory and practice of life. Philosophically, it aims
+> _ "Anarchism is both a theory and practice of life. Philosophically, it aims
for the maximum accord between the individual, society and nature.
Practically, it aims for us to organise and live our lives in such a way as to
make politicians, governments, states and their officials superfluous. In an
anarchist society, mutually respectful sovereign individuals would be
organised in non-coercive relationships within naturally defined communities
-in which the means of production and distribution are held in common.
-
->
+in which the means of production and distribution are held in common._
-> "Anarchists are not dreamers obsessed with abstract principles and
+> _ "Anarchists are not dreamers obsessed with abstract principles and
theoretical constructs . . . Anarchists are well aware that a perfect society
cannot be won tomorrow. Indeed, the struggle lasts forever! However, it is the
vision that provides the spur to struggle against things as they are, and for
-things that might be . . .
+things that might be . . ._
->
-
-> "Ultimately, only struggle determines outcome, and progress towards a more
+> _ "Ultimately, only struggle determines outcome, and progress towards a more
meaningful community must begin with the will to resist every form of
injustice. In general terms, this means challenging all exploitation and
defying the legitimacy of all coercive authority. If anarchists have one
@@ -317,13 +309,11 @@ article of unshakeable faith, it is that, once the habit of deferring to
politicians or ideologues is lost, and that of resistance to domination and
exploitation acquired, then ordinary people have a capacity to organise every
aspect of their lives in their own interests, anywhere and at any time, both
-freely and fairly.
-
->
+freely and fairly._
-> "Anarchists do not stand aside from popular struggle, nor do they attempt to
-dominate it. They seek to contribute practically whatever they can, and also
-to assist within it the highest possible levels of both individual self-
+> _ "Anarchists do not stand aside from popular struggle, nor do they attempt
+to dominate it. They seek to contribute practically whatever they can, and
+also to assist within it the highest possible levels of both individual self-
development and of group solidarity. It is possible to recognise anarchist
ideas concerning voluntary relationships, egalitarian participation in
decision-making processes, mutual aid and a related critique of all forms of
@@ -370,8 +360,6 @@ Dictionary**, we find:
> **LIBERTARIAN:** _one who believes in freedom of action and thought; one who
believes in free will._
->
-
> **SOCIALISM:** _a social system in which the producers possess both
political power and the means of producing and distributing goods._
@@ -489,8 +477,8 @@ workers' co-operatives, where _"every individual employed in the association .
. . has an undivided share in the property of the company"_ because by
_"participation in losses and gains . . . the collective force [i.e. surplus]
ceases to be a source of profits for a small number of managers: it becomes
-the property of all workers."_ [**The General Idea of the Revolution**, p. 222
-and p. 223] Thus, in addition to desiring the end of exploitation of labour by
+the property of all workers."_ [**General Idea of the Revolution**, p. 222 and
+p. 223] Thus, in addition to desiring the end of exploitation of labour by
capital, true socialists also desire a society within which the producers own
and control the means of production (including, it should be stressed, those
workplaces which supply services). The means by which the producers will do
@@ -646,20 +634,16 @@ participants of the Makhnovist movement in the Russian Revolution (see
aspirations to liberty gave birth, in the oppression, to the idea of
anarchism: the idea of the total negation of a social system based on the
principles of classes and the State, and its replacement by a free non-statist
-society of workers under self-management.
-
->
+society of workers under self-management._
-> "So anarchism does not derive from the abstract reflections of an
+> _ "So anarchism does not derive from the abstract reflections of an
intellectual or a philosopher, but from the direct struggle of workers against
capitalism, from the needs and necessities of the workers, from their
aspirations to liberty and equality, aspirations which become particularly
alive in the best heroic period of the life and struggle of the working
-masses.
+masses._
->
-
-> "The outstanding anarchist thinkers, Bakunin, Kropotkin and others, did not
+> _"The outstanding anarchist thinkers, Bakunin, Kropotkin and others, did not
invent the idea of anarchism, but, having discovered it in the masses, simply
helped by the strength of their thought and knowledge to specify and spread
it."_ [pp. 15-16]
@@ -780,3 +764,7 @@ essentially a product of working class struggle against capitalism and the
state, against oppression and exploitation, and **for** a free society of free
and equal individuals.
+[‹ A.0 Section A Introduction](/afaq/secAint.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/secAcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [A.2 What does anarchism stand
+for? ›](/afaq/secA2.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secA2.md b/markdown/secA2.md
index 089b9649af16275d6d6afc198e29570b89adaa4c..20d882c03c42334f717fc2253f9aedf931ba7cca 100644
--- a/markdown/secA2.md
+++ b/markdown/secA2.md
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ Makes slaves of men, and, of the human frame,
A mechanised automaton.
_**
-As Shelley's lines suggest, anarchists place a high priority on liberty,
+ As Shelley's lines suggest, anarchists place a high priority on liberty,
desiring it both for themselves and others. They also consider individuality
-- that which makes one a unique person -- to be a most important aspect of
humanity. They recognise, however, that individuality does not exist in a
@@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ than the peace of slavery. Anarchists, as a result of our ideals, _"believe in
peace at any price -- except at the price of liberty. But this precious gift
the wealth-producers already seem to have lost. Life . . . they have; but what
is life worth when it lacks those elements which make for enjoyment?"_ [Lucy
-Parsons, **Liberty, Equality & Solidarity**, p. 103, p. 131, p. 103 and p.
+Parsons, **Liberty, Equality & Solidarity**, p. 103, p. 131, p. 103 and p.
134]
So, in a nutshell, Anarchists seek a society in which people interact in ways
@@ -218,13 +218,11 @@ will he realise the true force of the social bonds which tie men together, and
which are the true foundations of a normal social life."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp.
72-3]
-
-
- Thus, for anarchists, freedom is basically individuals pursuing their own
-good in their own way. Doing so calls forth the activity and power of
-individuals as they make decisions for and about themselves and their lives.
-Only liberty can ensure individual development and diversity. This is because
-when individuals govern themselves and make their own decisions they have to
+Thus, for anarchists, freedom is basically individuals pursuing their own good
+in their own way. Doing so calls forth the activity and power of individuals
+as they make decisions for and about themselves and their lives. Only liberty
+can ensure individual development and diversity. This is because when
+individuals govern themselves and make their own decisions they have to
exercise their minds and this can have no other effect than expanding and
stimulating the individuals involved. As Malatesta put it, _"[f]or people to
become educated to freedom and the management of their own interests, they
@@ -233,9 +231,7 @@ actions in the good or bad that comes from them. They'd make mistakes, but
they'd understand from the consequences where they'd gone wrong and try out
new ways."_ [**Fra Contadini**, p. 26]
-
-
- So, liberty is the precondition for the maximum development of one's
+So, liberty is the precondition for the maximum development of one's
individual potential, which is also a social product and can be achieved only
in and through community. A healthy, free community will produce free
individuals, who in turn will shape the community and enrich the social
@@ -250,9 +246,7 @@ the political rights and privileges which we enjoy today in greater or lesser
measures, not to the good will of their governments, but to their own
strength."_ [Rudolf Rocker, **Anarcho-syndicalism**, p. 75]
-
-
- It is for this reason anarchists support the tactic of **_"Direct Action"_**
+It is for this reason anarchists support the tactic of **_"Direct Action"_**
(see [section J.2](secJ2.html)) for, as Emma Goldman argued, we have _"as much
liberty as [we are] willing to take. Anarchism therefore stands for direct
action, the open defiance of, and resistance to, all laws and restrictions,
@@ -263,9 +257,7 @@ authority in the shop, direct action against the authority of the law, direct
action against the invasive, meddlesome authority of our moral code, is the
logical, consistent method of Anarchism."_ [**Red Emma Speaks**, pp. 76-7]
-
-
- Direct action is, in other words, the application of liberty, used to resist
+Direct action is, in other words, the application of liberty, used to resist
oppression in the here and now as well as the means of creating a free
society. It creates the necessary individual mentality and social conditions
in which liberty flourishes. Both are essential as liberty develops only
@@ -277,11 +269,9 @@ development -- which is not to deny that individuals play an important role in
that development, indeed are ultimately obliged to do so if they wish to be
free."_ [**Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism**, p. 15]
-
-
- But freedom requires the right **kind** of social environment in which to
-grow and develop. Such an environment **must** be decentralised and based on
-the direct management of work by those who do it. For centralisation means
+But freedom requires the right **kind** of social environment in which to grow
+and develop. Such an environment **must** be decentralised and based on the
+direct management of work by those who do it. For centralisation means
coercive authority (hierarchy), whereas self-management is the essence of
freedom. Self-management ensures that the individuals involved use (and so
develop) all their abilities -- particularly their mental ones. Hierarchy, in
@@ -290,9 +280,7 @@ and thoughts of all the individuals involved. Thus, rather than developing
their abilities to the full, hierarchy marginalises the many and ensures that
their development is blunted (see also [section B.1](secB1.html)).
-
-
- It is for this reason that anarchists oppose both capitalism and statism. As
+It is for this reason that anarchists oppose both capitalism and statism. As
the French anarchist Sebastien Faure noted, authority _"dresses itself in two
principal forms: the political form, that is the State; and the economic form,
that is private property."_ [cited by Peter Marshall, **Demanding the
@@ -304,17 +292,13 @@ upon one condition: that of the appropriation of capital, that is, of raw
material and all the tools of labour, including land, by the whole body of the
workers."_ [Michael Bakunin, quoted by Rudolf Rocker, **Op. Cit.**, p. 50]
-
-
- Hence, as Noam Chomsky argues, a _"consistent anarchist must oppose private
+Hence, as Noam Chomsky argues, a _"consistent anarchist must oppose private
ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component
of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labour must be freely
undertaken and under the control of the producer."_ [_"Notes on Anarchism"_,
**For Reasons of State**, p. 158]
-
-
- Thus, liberty for anarchists means a non-authoritarian society in which
+Thus, liberty for anarchists means a non-authoritarian society in which
individuals and groups practice self-management, i.e. they govern themselves.
The implications of this are important. First, it implies that an anarchist
society will be non-coercive, that is, one in which violence or the threat of
@@ -331,9 +315,7 @@ anarchist organisation). For authority is the opposite of liberty, and hence
any form of organisation based on the delegation of power is a threat to the
liberty and dignity of the people subjected to that power.
-
-
- Anarchists consider freedom to be the only social environment within which
+Anarchists consider freedom to be the only social environment within which
human dignity and diversity can flower. Under capitalism and statism, however,
there is no freedom for the majority, as private property and hierarchy ensure
that the inclination and judgement of most individuals will be subordinated to
@@ -351,27 +333,22 @@ finer and nobler instincts in the gain of one revolting attribute, the power
to count and calculate."_ [Voltairine de Cleyre, **The First Mayday: The
Haymarket Speeches 1895-1910**, pp, 17-18]
-
-
- (See [section B](secBcon.html) for further discussion of the hierarchical and
+(See [section B](secBcon.html) for further discussion of the hierarchical and
authoritarian nature of capitalism and statism).
+## A.2.3 Are anarchists in favour of organisation?
-
- ## A.2.3 Are anarchists in favour of organisation?
-
-
-
- Yes. Without association, a truly human life is impossible. Liberty
-**cannot** exist without society and organisation. As George Barrett pointed
-out:
+Yes. Without association, a truly human life is impossible. Liberty **cannot**
+exist without society and organisation. As George Barrett pointed out:
> _"To get the full meaning out of life we must co-operate, and to co-operate
we must make agreements with our fellow-men. But to suppose that such
agreements mean a limitation of freedom is surely an absurdity; on the
-contrary, they are the exercise of our freedom.
+contrary, they are the exercise of our freedom. _
+
+>
-"If we are going to invent a dogma that to make agreements is to damage
+> _"If we are going to invent a dogma that to make agreements is to damage
freedom, then at once freedom becomes tyrannical, for it forbids men to take
the most ordinary everyday pleasures. For example, I cannot go for a walk with
my friend because it is against the principle of Liberty that I should agree
@@ -380,16 +357,16 @@ extend my own power beyond myself, because to do so I must co-operate with
someone else, and co-operation implies an agreement, and that is against
Liberty. It will be seen at once that this argument is absurd. I do not limit
my liberty, but simply exercise it, when I agree with my friend to go for a
-walk.
+walk. _
-"If, on the other hand, I decide from my superior knowledge that it is good
+>
+
+> _"If, on the other hand, I decide from my superior knowledge that it is good
for my friend to take exercise, and therefore I attempt to compel him to go
for a walk, then I begin to limit freedom. This is the difference between free
agreement and government."_ [**Objections to Anarchism**, pp. 348-9]
-
-
- As far as organisation goes, anarchists think that _"far from creating
+As far as organisation goes, anarchists think that _"far from creating
authority, [it] is the only cure for it and the only means whereby each of us
will get used to taking an active and conscious part in collective work, and
cease being passive instruments in the hands of leaders."_ [Errico Malatesta,
@@ -404,9 +381,7 @@ information and resources"_ are based on _"good social anarchist principles of
organisation!"_ [_"Socialism, Anarchism and Feminism"_, **Quiet Rumours: An
Anarcha-Feminist Reader**, p. 47 and p. 46]
-
-
- The fact that anarchists are in favour of organisation may seem strange at
+The fact that anarchists are in favour of organisation may seem strange at
first, but it is understandable. _"For those with experience only of
authoritarian organisation,"_ argue two British anarchists, _"it appears that
organisation can only be totalitarian or democratic, and that those who
@@ -422,9 +397,7 @@ existed for about 5,000 years, having appeared with the first primitive states
based on conquest and slavery, in which the labour of slaves created a surplus
which supported a ruling class.
-
-
- Prior to that time, for hundreds of thousands of years, human and proto-human
+Prior to that time, for hundreds of thousands of years, human and proto-human
societies were what Murray Bookchin calls _"organic,"_ that is, based on co-
operative forms of economic activity involving mutual aid, free access to
productive resources, and a sharing of the products of communal labour
@@ -434,9 +407,7 @@ subordination relations enforced by coercive sanctions and resulting in class-
stratification involving the economic exploitation of one class by another
(see Murray Bookchin, **The Ecology of Freedom**).
-
-
- It must be emphasised, however, that anarchists do **not** advocate going
+It must be emphasised, however, that anarchists do **not** advocate going
"back to the Stone Age." We merely note that since the hierarchical-
authoritarian mode of organisation is a relatively recent development in the
course of human social evolution, there is no reason to suppose that it is
@@ -449,9 +420,7 @@ We are not fatalists or genetic determinists, but believe in free will, which
means that people can change the way they do things, including the way they
organise society.
-
-
- And there is no doubt that society needs to be better organised, because
+And there is no doubt that society needs to be better organised, because
presently most of its wealth -- which is produced by the majority -- and power
gets distributed to a small, elite minority at the top of the social pyramid,
causing deprivation and suffering for the rest, particularly for those at the
@@ -472,14 +441,10 @@ organisation or union may with impunity be discriminated against, suppressed
or ignored. To do so would be the same as to ignore an aching tooth: you would
be sick all over."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 198]
+Yet this is precisely what happens in capitalist society, with the result that
+it is, indeed, _"sick all over."_
-
- Yet this is precisely what happens in capitalist society, with the result
-that it is, indeed, _"sick all over."_
-
-
-
- For these reasons, anarchists reject authoritarian forms of organisation and
+For these reasons, anarchists reject authoritarian forms of organisation and
instead support associations based on free agreement. Free agreement is
important because, in Berkman's words, _"[o]nly when each is a free and
independent unit, co-operating with others from his own choice because of
@@ -490,9 +455,7 @@ democracy (or, as it is usually called by anarchists, self-management) within
the association itself otherwise "freedom" become little more than picking
masters.
-
-
- Anarchist organisation is based on a massive decentralisation of power back
+Anarchist organisation is based on a massive decentralisation of power back
into the hands of the people, i.e. those who are directly affected by the
decisions being made. To quote Proudhon:
@@ -500,12 +463,10 @@ decisions being made. To quote Proudhon:
must be admitted that each citizen in the sphere of his [or her] industry,
each municipal, district or provincial council within its own territory . . .
should act directly and by itself in administering the interests which it
-includes, and should exercise full sovereignty in relation to them."_ [**The
-General Idea of the Revolution**, p. 276]
-
-
+includes, and should exercise full sovereignty in relation to them."_
+[**General Idea of the Revolution**, p. 276]
- It also implies a need for federalism to co-ordinate joint interests. For
+It also implies a need for federalism to co-ordinate joint interests. For
anarchism, federalism is the natural complement to self-management. With the
abolition of the State, society _"can, and must, organise itself in a
different fashion, but not from top to bottom . . . The future social
@@ -522,9 +483,7 @@ spontaneous organisation of popular life."_ Thus libertarian socialism _"is
federalistic in character."_ [Bakunin, **The Political Philosophy of
Bakunin**, pp. 273-4 and p. 272]
-
-
- Therefore, anarchist organisation is based on direct democracy (or self-
+Therefore, anarchist organisation is based on direct democracy (or self-
management) and federalism (or confederation). These are the expression and
environment of liberty. Direct (or participatory) democracy is essential
because liberty and equality imply the need for forums within which people can
@@ -535,41 +494,29 @@ organised in a way which reflects the wishes of all those affected by them. To
ensure that decisions flow from the bottom up rather than being imposed from
the top down by a few rulers.
-
-
- Anarchist ideas on libertarian organisation and the need for direct democracy
+Anarchist ideas on libertarian organisation and the need for direct democracy
and confederation will be discussed further in sections [
A.2.9](secA2.html#seca29) and [ A.2.11](secA2.html#seca211).
+## A.2.4 Are anarchists in favour of "absolute" liberty?
-
- ## A.2.4 Are anarchists in favour of "absolute" liberty?
-
-
-
- No. Anarchists do not believe that everyone should be able to _"do_ _whatever
+No. Anarchists do not believe that everyone should be able to _"do_ _whatever
they like,"_ because some actions invariably involve the denial of the liberty
of others.
-
-
- For example, anarchists do not support the "freedom" to rape, to exploit, or
+For example, anarchists do not support the "freedom" to rape, to exploit, or
to coerce others. Neither do we tolerate authority. On the contrary, since
authority is a threat to liberty, equality, and solidarity (not to mention
human dignity), anarchists recognise the need to resist and overthrow it.
+The exercise of authority is not freedom. No one has a "right" to rule others.
+As Malatesta points out, anarchism supports _"freedom for everybody . . . with
+the only limit of the equal freedom for others; which does **not** mean . . .
+that we recognise, and wish to respect, the 'freedom' to exploit, to oppress,
+to command, which is oppression and certainly not freedom." _[**Errico
+Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, p. 53]
-
- The exercise of authority is not freedom. No one has a "right" to rule
-others. As Malatesta points out, anarchism supports _"freedom for everybody .
-. . with the only limit of the equal freedom for others; which does **not**
-mean . . . that we recognise, and wish to respect, the 'freedom' to exploit,
-to oppress, to command, which is oppression and certainly not freedom."
-_[**Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, p. 53]
-
-
-
- In a capitalist society, resistance to all forms of hierarchical authority is
+In a capitalist society, resistance to all forms of hierarchical authority is
the mark of a free person -- be it private (the boss) or public (the state).
As Henry David Thoreau pointed out in his essay on **"Civil**
**Disobedience"** (1847)
@@ -577,22 +524,16 @@ As Henry David Thoreau pointed out in his essay on **"Civil**
> _"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be
slaves."_
+## A.2.5 Why are anarchists in favour of equality?
-
- ## A.2.5 Why are anarchists in favour of equality?
-
-
-
- As mentioned in [above](secA2.html), anarchists are dedicated to social
+As mentioned in [above](secA2.html), anarchists are dedicated to social
equality because it is the only context in which individual liberty can
flourish. However, there has been much nonsense written about "equality," and
much of what is commonly believed about it is very strange indeed. Before
discussing what anarchist **do** mean by equality, we have to indicate what we
**do not** mean by it.
-
-
- Anarchists do **not** believe in _"equality of endowment,"_ which is not only
+Anarchists do **not** believe in _"equality of endowment,"_ which is not only
non-existent but would be **very** undesirable if it could be brought about.
Everyone is unique. Biologically determined human differences not only exist
but are _"a cause for joy, not fear or regret."_ Why? Because _"life among
@@ -600,9 +541,7 @@ clones would not be worth living, and a sane person will only rejoice that
others have abilities that they do not share." _ [Noam Chomsky, **Marxism,
Anarchism, and Alternative Futures**, p. 782]
-
-
- That some people **seriously** suggest that anarchists means by "equality"
+That some people **seriously** suggest that anarchists means by "equality"
that everyone should be **identical** is a sad reflection on the state of
present-day intellectual culture and the corruption of words -- a corruption
used to divert attention from an unjust and authoritarian system and side-
@@ -618,9 +557,7 @@ anarchists seek equality **because** we recognise that everyone is different
and, consequently, seek the full affirmation and development of that
uniqueness.
-
-
- Nor are anarchists in favour of so-called _"equality of outcome."_ We have
+Nor are anarchists in favour of so-called _"equality of outcome."_ We have
**no** desire to live in a society were everyone gets the same goods, lives in
the same kind of house, wears the same uniform, etc. Part of the reason for
the anarchist revolt against capitalism and statism is that they standardise
@@ -634,15 +571,11 @@ without independence or individuality. . . All of us are its victims, and only
the exceptionally strong succeed in breaking its chains, and that only
partly."_ [**What is Anarchism?**, p. 165]
-
-
- Anarchists, therefore, have little to desire to make this _"common grove"_
+Anarchists, therefore, have little to desire to make this _"common grove"_
even deeper. Rather, we desire to destroy it and every social relationship and
institution that creates it in the first place.
-
-
- _"Equality of outcome"_ can only be introduced and maintained by force, which
+_"Equality of outcome"_ can only be introduced and maintained by force, which
would **not** be equality anyway, as some would have more power than others!
_"Equality of outcome"_ is particularly hated by anarchists, as we recognise
that every individual has different needs, abilities, desires and interests.
@@ -656,19 +589,22 @@ not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced
equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not
quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same
things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very
-reverse in fact."
+reverse in fact."
+> _
+
+>
+
+> _"Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is **equal
+opportunity to satisfy** them that constitutes true equality. _
-"Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is **equal
-opportunity to satisfy** them that constitutes true equality.
+>
-"Far from levelling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible
+> _"Far from levelling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible
variety of activity and development. For human character is diverse . . . Free
opportunity of expressing and acting out your individuality means development
of natural dissimilarities and variations."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 164-5]
-
-
- For anarchists, the "concepts" of "equality" as "equality of outcome" or
+For anarchists, the "concepts" of "equality" as "equality of outcome" or
"equality of endowment" are meaningless. However, in a hierarchical society,
"equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome" **are** related. Under
capitalism, for example, the opportunities each generation face are dependent
@@ -684,9 +620,7 @@ misconception that anarchists desire "equality of outcome" -- but this applies
to a hierarchical system, in a free society this would not the case (as we
will see).
-
-
- Equality, in anarchist theory, does not mean denying individual diversity or
+Equality, in anarchist theory, does not mean denying individual diversity or
uniqueness. As Bakunin observes:
> _ "once equality has triumphed and is well established, will various
@@ -702,9 +636,7 @@ diversity of human individuals is the fundamental cause and the very basis of
their solidarity. It is all-powerful argument for equality."_ [_"All-Round
Education"_, **The Basic Bakunin**, pp. 117-8]
-
-
- Equality for anarchists means **social** equality, or, to use Murray
+Equality for anarchists means **social** equality, or, to use Murray
Bookchin's term, the **_"equality of unequals"_** (some like Malatesta used
the term **_"equality of conditions"_** to express the same idea). By this he
means that an anarchist society recognises the differences in ability and need
@@ -714,9 +646,7 @@ inequality in fact is lost in the collectivity when it cannot cling to some
legal fiction or institution."_ [Michael Bakunin, **God and the State**, p.
53]
-
-
- If hierarchical social relationships, and the forces that create them, are
+If hierarchical social relationships, and the forces that create them, are
abolished in favour of ones that encourage participation and are based on the
principle of "one person, one vote" then natural differences would not be able
to be turned into hierarchical power. For example, without capitalist property
@@ -726,12 +656,17 @@ the wages system and usury (profits, rent and interest). Similarly, if workers
manage their own work, there is no class of capitalists to grow rich off their
labour. Thus Proudhon:
-> _"Now, what can be the origin of this inequality?
+> _"Now, what can be the origin of this inequality?
+> _
+
+>
-"As we see it, . . . that origin is the realisation within society of this
-triple abstraction: capital, labour and talent.
+> _"As we see it, . . . that origin is the realisation within society of this
+triple abstraction: capital, labour and talent. _
-"It is because society has divided itself into three categories of citizen
+>
+
+> _"It is because society has divided itself into three categories of citizen
corresponding to the three terms of the formula. . . that caste distinctions
have always been arrived at, and one half of the human race enslaved to the
other. . . socialism thus consists of reducing the aristocratic formula of
@@ -739,31 +674,25 @@ capital-labour-talent into the simpler formula of labour!. . . in order to
make every citizen simultaneously, equally and to the same extent capitalist,
labourer and expert or artist."_ [**No Gods, No Masters**, vol. 1, pp. 57-8]
-
-
- Like all anarchists, Proudhon saw this integration of functions as the key to
+Like all anarchists, Proudhon saw this integration of functions as the key to
equality and freedom and proposed self-management as the means to achieve it.
Thus self-management is the key to social equality. Social equality in the
workplace, for example, means that everyone has an equal say in the policy
decisions on how the workplace develops and changes. Anarchists are strong
believers in the maxim "that which touches all, is decided by all."
-
-
- This does not mean, of course, that expertise will be ignored or that
-everyone will decide everything. As far as expertise goes, different people
-have different interests, talents, and abilities, so obviously they will want
-to study different things and do different kinds of work. It is also obvious
-that when people are ill they consult a doctor -- an expert \-- who manages
-his or her own work rather than being directed by a committee. We are sorry to
-have to bring these points up, but once the topics of social equality and
-workers' self-management come up, some people start to talk nonsense. It is
-common sense that a hospital managed in a socially equal way will **not**
-involve non-medical staff voting on how doctors should perform an operation!
-
-
-
- In fact, social equality and individual liberty are inseparable. Without the
+This does not mean, of course, that expertise will be ignored or that everyone
+will decide everything. As far as expertise goes, different people have
+different interests, talents, and abilities, so obviously they will want to
+study different things and do different kinds of work. It is also obvious that
+when people are ill they consult a doctor -- an expert -- who manages his or
+her own work rather than being directed by a committee. We are sorry to have
+to bring these points up, but once the topics of social equality and workers'
+self-management come up, some people start to talk nonsense. It is common
+sense that a hospital managed in a socially equal way will **not** involve
+non-medical staff voting on how doctors should perform an operation!
+
+In fact, social equality and individual liberty are inseparable. Without the
collective self-management of decisions that affect a group (equality) to
complement the individual self-management of decisions that affect the
individual (liberty), a free society is impossible. For without both, some
@@ -775,9 +704,7 @@ her] entire measure of the wealth of society but also his [or her] portion of
social power."_ [Malatesta and Hamon, **No Gods, No Masters**, vol. 2, p. 20]
Thus self-management is needed to ensure both liberty **and** equality.
-
-
- Social equality is required for individuals to both govern and express
+Social equality is required for individuals to both govern and express
themselves, for the self-management it implies means _"people working in face-
to-face relations with their fellows in order to bring the uniqueness of their
own perspective to the business of solving common problems and achieving
@@ -785,50 +712,38 @@ common goals."_ [George Benello, **From the Ground Up**, p. 160] Thus equality
allows the expression of individuality and so is a necessary base for
individual liberty.
-
-
- Section F.3 (["Why do 'anarcho'-capitalists place little or no value on
+Section F.3 (["Why do 'anarcho'-capitalists place little or no value on
equality?"](secF3.html)) discusses anarchist ideas on equality further. Noam
Chomsky's essay _"Equality"_ (contained in **The Chomsky Reader**) is a good
summary of libertarian ideas on the subject.
+## A.2.6 Why is solidarity important to anarchists?
-
- ## A.2.6 Why is solidarity important to anarchists?
-
-
-
- Solidarity, or mutual aid, is a key idea of anarchism. It is the link between
+Solidarity, or mutual aid, is a key idea of anarchism. It is the link between
the individual and society, the means by which individuals can work together
to meet their common interests in an environment that supports and nurtures
both liberty and equality. For anarchists, mutual aid is a fundamental feature
of human life, a source of both strength and happiness and a fundamental
requirement for a fully human existence.
-
-
- Erich Fromm, noted psychologist and socialist humanist, points out that the
+Erich Fromm, noted psychologist and socialist humanist, points out that the
_"human desire to experience union with others is rooted in the specific
conditions of existence that characterise the human species and is one of the
strongest motivations of human behaviour."_ [**To Be or To Have**, p.107]
-
-
- Therefore anarchists consider the desire to form "unions" (to use Max
+Therefore anarchists consider the desire to form "unions" (to use Max
Stirner's term) with other people to be a natural need. These unions, or
associations, must be based on equality and individuality in order to be fully
satisfying to those who join them -- i.e. they must be organised in an
anarchist manner, i.e. voluntary, decentralised, and non-hierarchical.
-
-
- Solidarity -- co-operation between individuals -- is necessary for life and
-is far from a denial of liberty. Solidarity, observed Errico Malatesta, _"is
-the only environment in which Man can express his personality and achieve his
+Solidarity -- co-operation between individuals -- is necessary for life and is
+far from a denial of liberty. Solidarity, observed Errico Malatesta, _"is the
+only environment in which Man can express his personality and achieve his
optimum development and enjoy the greatest possible wellbeing."_ This _"coming
together of individuals for the wellbeing of all, and of all for the wellbeing
of each,"_ results in _"the freedom of each not being limited by, but
-complemented -- indeed finding the necessary **raison d'etre** in \-- the
+complemented -- indeed finding the necessary **raison d'etre** in -- the
freedom of others."_ [**Anarchy**, p. 29] In other words, solidarity and co-
operation means treating each other as equals, refusing to treat others as
means to an end and creating relationships which support freedom for all
@@ -840,13 +755,11 @@ for the survival and evolution of the species. . . . only mutual aid and
voluntary co-operation . . . can create the basis for a free individual and
associational life."_ [**Red Emma Speaks**, p. 118]
-
-
- Solidarity means associating together as equals in order to satisfy our
-common interests and needs. Forms of association not based on solidarity (i.e.
-those based on inequality) will crush the individuality of those subjected to
-them. As Ret Marut points out, liberty needs solidarity, the recognition of
-common interests:
+Solidarity means associating together as equals in order to satisfy our common
+interests and needs. Forms of association not based on solidarity (i.e. those
+based on inequality) will crush the individuality of those subjected to them.
+As Ret Marut points out, liberty needs solidarity, the recognition of common
+interests:
> _"The most noble, pure and true love of mankind is the love of oneself.
**I** want to be free! **I** hope to be happy! **I** want to appreciate all
@@ -861,9 +774,7 @@ which threatens my freedom and my happiness. . ."_ [Ret Marut (a.k.a. B.
Traven), **The BrickBurner** magazine quoted by Karl S. Guthke, **B. Traven:
The life behind the legends**, pp. 133-4]
-
-
- To practice solidarity means that we recognise, as in the slogan of
+To practice solidarity means that we recognise, as in the slogan of
**Industrial Workers of the World**, that _"an injury to one is an injury to
all."_ Solidarity, therefore, is the means to protect individuality and
liberty and so is an expression of self-interest. As Alfie Kohn points out:
@@ -879,9 +790,7 @@ school even more effectively than competition does. . . There is also good
evidence that co-operation is more conductive to psychological health and to
liking one another."_ [**No Contest: The Case Against Competition**, p. 7]
-
-
- And, within a hierarchical society, solidarity is important not only because
+And, within a hierarchical society, solidarity is important not only because
of the satisfaction it gives us, but also because it is necessary to resist
those in power. Malatesta's words are relevant here:
@@ -891,9 +800,7 @@ freedom and wellbeing, are beginning to understand that they will not be able
to achieve their emancipation except by union and solidarity with all the
oppressed, with the exploited everywhere in the world."_ [**Anarchy**, p. 33]
-
-
- By standing together, we can increase our strength and get what we want.
+By standing together, we can increase our strength and get what we want.
Eventually, by organising into groups, we can start to manage our own
collective affairs together and so replace the boss once and for all.
_"**Unions** will. . . multiply the individual's means and secure his assailed
@@ -902,9 +809,7 @@ solidarity, we can also replace the current system with one more to our
liking: _"in union there is strength."_ [Alexander Berkman, **What is
Anarchism?**, p. 74]
-
-
- Solidarity is thus the means by which we can obtain and ensure our own
+Solidarity is thus the means by which we can obtain and ensure our own
freedom. We agree to work together so that we will not have to work for
**another**. By agreeing to share with each other we increase our options so
that we may enjoy **more**, not less. Mutual aid is in my self-interest --
@@ -913,9 +818,7 @@ based on mutual respect and social equality; for if I dominate someone, this
means that the conditions exist which allow domination, and so in all
probability I too will be dominated in turn.
-
-
- As Max Stirner saw, solidarity is the means by which we ensure that our
+As Max Stirner saw, solidarity is the means by which we ensure that our
liberty is strengthened and defended from those in power who want to rule us:
_"Do you yourself count for nothing then?"_, he asks. _"Are you bound to let
anyone do anything he wants to you? Defend yourself and no one will touch you.
@@ -924,9 +827,7 @@ formidable force and you will win without difficulty."_ [quoted in Luigi
Galleani's **The End of Anarchism?**, p. 79 - different translation in **The
Ego and Its Own**, p. 197]
-
-
- Solidarity, therefore, is important to anarchists because it is the means by
+Solidarity, therefore, is important to anarchists because it is the means by
which liberty can be created and defended against power. Solidarity is
strength and a product of our nature as social beings. However, solidarity
should not be confused with "herdism," which implies passively following a
@@ -936,14 +837,10 @@ although the desire for "herdism" is a product of our need for solidarity and
union. It is a "solidarity" corrupted by hierarchical society, in which people
are conditioned to blindly obey leaders.
+## A.2.7 Why do anarchists argue for self-liberation?
-
- ## A.2.7 Why do anarchists argue for self-liberation?
-
-
-
- Liberty, by its very nature, cannot be given. An individual cannot be freed
-by another, but must break his or her own chains through their own effort. Of
+Liberty, by its very nature, cannot be given. An individual cannot be freed by
+another, but must break his or her own chains through their own effort. Of
course, self-effort can also be part of collective action, and in many cases
it has to be in order to attain its ends. As Emma Goldman points out:
@@ -951,9 +848,7 @@ it has to be in order to attain its ends. As Emma Goldman points out:
gained true liberation from its masters by its own efforts." _ [**Red Emma
Speaks**, p. 167]
-
-
- This is because anarchists recognise that hierarchical systems, like any
+This is because anarchists recognise that hierarchical systems, like any
social relationship, shapes those subject to them. As Bookchin argued, "_class
societies organise our psychic structures for command or obedience."_ This
means that people **_internalise_** the values of hierarchical and class
@@ -968,9 +863,7 @@ possible."_ [**The Ecology of Freedom**, p. 159 and pp. 164-5] Self-liberation
is the means by which we break down both internal **_and_** external chains,
freeing ourselves mentally as well as physically.
-
-
- Anarchists have long argued that people can only free themselves by their own
+Anarchists have long argued that people can only free themselves by their own
actions. The various methods anarchists suggest to aid this process will be
discussed in section J (["What Do Anarchists Do?"](secJcon.html)) and will not
be discussed here. However, these methods all involve people organising
@@ -979,13 +872,10 @@ and eliminate their dependence on leaders to do things for them. Anarchism is
based on people _"acting for themselves"_ (performing what anarchists call
**_"direct action"_** \-- see [section J.2](secJ2.html) for details).
-
-
- Direct action has an empowering and liberating effect on those involved in
-it. Self-activity is the means by which the creativity, initiative,
-imagination and critical thought of those subjected to authority can be
-developed. It is the means by which society can be changed. As Errico
-Malatesta pointed out:
+Direct action has an empowering and liberating effect on those involved in it.
+Self-activity is the means by which the creativity, initiative, imagination
+and critical thought of those subjected to authority can be developed. It is
+the means by which society can be changed. As Errico Malatesta pointed out:
> _"Between man and his social environment there is a reciprocal action. Men
make society what it is and society makes men what they are, and the result is
@@ -994,10 +884,13 @@ be changed, and to transform men, society must be changed . . . Fortunately
existing society has not been created by the inspired will of a dominating
class, which has succeeded in reducing all its subjects to passive and
unconscious instruments of its interests. It is the result of a thousand
-internecine struggles, of a thousand human and natural factors . . .
+internecine struggles, of a thousand human and natural factors . . .
+> _
+
+>
-"From this the possibility of progress . . . We must take advantage of all the
-means, all the possibilities and the opportunities that the present
+> _"From this the possibility of progress . . . We must take advantage of all
+the means, all the possibilities and the opportunities that the present
environment allows us to act on our fellow men [and women] and to develop
their consciences and their demands . . . to claim and to impose those major
social transformations which are possible and which effectively serve to open
@@ -1008,10 +901,8 @@ the power to demand them . . . we must push the people to want always more and
to increase its pressures [on the ruling elite], until it has achieved
complete emancipation."_ [**Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, pp. 188-9]
-
-
- Society, while shaping all individuals, is also created by them, through
-their actions, thoughts, and ideals. Challenging institutions that limit one's
+Society, while shaping all individuals, is also created by them, through their
+actions, thoughts, and ideals. Challenging institutions that limit one's
freedom is mentally liberating, as it sets in motion the process of
questioning authoritarian relationships in general. This process gives us
insight into how society works, changing our ideas and creating new ideals. To
@@ -1023,16 +914,12 @@ for as Max Stirner notes, _"the man who is set free is nothing but a freed
man. . . a dog dragging a piece of chain with him."_ [**The Ego and Its Own**,
p. 168] By changing the world, even in a small way, we change ourselves.
-
-
- In an interview during the Spanish Revolution, the Spanish anarchist militant
+In an interview during the Spanish Revolution, the Spanish anarchist militant
Durutti said, _"we have a new world in our hearts."_ Only self-activity and
self-liberation allows us to create such a vision and gives us the confidence
to try to actualise it in the real world.
-
-
- Anarchists, however, do not think that self-liberation must wait for the
+Anarchists, however, do not think that self-liberation must wait for the
future, after the "glorious revolution." The personal is political, and given
the nature of society, how we act in the here and now will influence the
future of our society and our lives. Therefore, even in pre-anarchist society
@@ -1049,9 +936,7 @@ engage in political activity, no amount of critical reflection will end their
subjection and bring them freedom."_ [Carole Pateman, **The Sexual Contract**,
p. 205]
-
-
- Anarchists aim to encourage these tendencies in everyday life to reject,
+Anarchists aim to encourage these tendencies in everyday life to reject,
resist and thwart authority and bring them to their logical conclusion -- a
society of free individuals, co-operating as equals in free, self-managed
associations. Without this process of critical self-reflection, resistance and
@@ -1067,9 +952,7 @@ over and over that the class struggle provides the only means for the workers
[and other oppressed groups] to achieve control over their destiny."_ [Marie-
Louise Berneri, **Neither East Nor West**, p. 32]
-
-
- Revolution is a process, not an event, and every _"spontaneous revolutionary
+Revolution is a process, not an event, and every _"spontaneous revolutionary
action"_ usually results from and is based upon the patient work of many years
of organisation and education by people with "utopian" ideas. The process of
"creating the new world in the shell of the old" (to use another **I.W.W.**
@@ -1077,18 +960,14 @@ expression), by building alternative institutions and relationships, is but
one component of what must be a long tradition of revolutionary commitment and
militancy.
-
-
- As Malatesta made clear, _"to encourage popular organisations of all kinds is
+As Malatesta made clear, _"to encourage popular organisations of all kinds is
the logical consequence of our basic ideas, and should therefore be an
integral part of our programme. . . anarchists do not want to emancipate the
people; we want the people to emancipate themselves. . . , we want the new way
of life to emerge from the body of the people and correspond to the state of
their development and advance as they advance."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 90]
-
-
- Unless a process of self-emancipation occurs, a free society is impossible.
+Unless a process of self-emancipation occurs, a free society is impossible.
Only when individuals free themselves, both materially (by abolishing the
state and capitalism) and intellectually (by freeing themselves of submissive
attitudes towards authority), can a free society be possible. We should not
@@ -1110,13 +989,11 @@ liberation through struggle against oppression is the only way this can be
done. Thus anarchists encourage (to use Kropotkin's term) **_"the spirit of
revolt."_**
-
-
- Self-liberation is a product of struggle, of self-organisation, solidarity
-and direct action. Direct action is the means of creating anarchists, free
-people, and so _"Anarchists have always advised taking an active part in those
+Self-liberation is a product of struggle, of self-organisation, solidarity and
+direct action. Direct action is the means of creating anarchists, free people,
+and so _"Anarchists have always advised taking an active part in those
workers' organisations which carry on the **direct** struggle of Labour
-against Capital and its protector, \-- the State."_ This is because _"[s]uch a
+against Capital and its protector, -- the State."_ This is because _"[s]uch a
struggle . . . better than any indirect means, permits the worker to obtain
some temporary improvements in the present conditions of work, while it opens
his [or her] eyes to the evil that is done by Capitalism and the State that
@@ -1133,9 +1010,7 @@ anarchism, i.e. the overcoming the spiritual domination of existing society
within the minds of the oppressed. [**Evolution and Environment**, p. 83 and
p. 85]
-
-
- For anarchists, in the words of a Scottish Anarchist militant, the _"history
+For anarchists, in the words of a Scottish Anarchist militant, the _"history
of human progress [is] seen as the history of rebellion and disobedience, with
the individual debased by subservience to authority in its many forms and able
to retain his/her dignity only through rebellion and disobedience."_ [Robert
@@ -1149,13 +1024,9 @@ by others, only by themselves. Such rebellion (self-liberation) is the
**only** means by which existing society becomes more libertarian and an
anarchist society a possibility.
+## A.2.8 Is it possible to be an anarchist without opposing hierarchy?
-
- ## A.2.8 Is it possible to be an anarchist without opposing hierarchy?
-
-
-
- No. We have seen that anarchists abhor authoritarianism. But if one is an
+No. We have seen that anarchists abhor authoritarianism. But if one is an
anti-authoritarian, one must oppose all hierarchical institutions, since they
embody the principle of authority. For, as Emma Goldman argued, _"it is not
only government in the sense of the state which is destructive of every
@@ -1168,9 +1039,7 @@ authority and domination and constraints on freedom: slavery, wage-slavery
[i.e. capitalism], racism, sexism, authoritarian schools, etc."_ [Noam
Chomsky, **Language and Politics**, p. 364]
-
-
- Thus the consistent anarchist must oppose hierarchical relationships as well
+Thus the consistent anarchist must oppose hierarchical relationships as well
as the state. Whether economic, social or political, to be an anarchist means
to oppose hierarchy. The argument for this (if anybody needs one) is as
follows:
@@ -1183,9 +1052,7 @@ of decision-makers at the top and a broad base of people whose decisions are
labels on the layers, it doesn't want different people on top, it wants **us**
to clamber out from underneath."_ [Colin Ward, **Anarchy in Action**, p. 22]
-
-
- Hierarchies _"share a common feature: they are organised systems of command
+Hierarchies _"share a common feature: they are organised systems of command
and obedience"_ and so anarchists seek _"to eliminate hierarchy per se, not
simply replace one form of hierarchy with another."_ [Bookchin, **The Ecology
of Freedom**, p. 27] A hierarchy is a pyramidally-structured organisation
@@ -1199,9 +1066,7 @@ corporate hierarchy is not greater productive efficiency (as capitalists
claim), but greater control over workers, the purpose of such control being
more effective exploitation.
-
-
- Control in a hierarchy is maintained by coercion, that is, by the threat of
+Control in a hierarchy is maintained by coercion, that is, by the threat of
negative sanctions of one kind or another: physical, economic, psychological,
social, etc. Such control, including the repression of dissent and rebellion,
therefore necessitates centralisation: a set of power relations in which the
@@ -1209,9 +1074,7 @@ greatest control is exercised by the few at the top (particularly the head of
the organisation), while those in the middle ranks have much less control and
the many at the bottom have virtually none.
-
-
- Since domination, coercion, and centralisation are essential features of
+Since domination, coercion, and centralisation are essential features of
authoritarianism, and as those features are embodied in hierarchies, all
hierarchical institutions are authoritarian. Moreover, for anarchists, any
organisation marked by hierarchy, centralism and authoritarianism is state-
@@ -1222,19 +1085,20 @@ Chomsky points out, the structure of the capitalist firm is extremely
hierarchical, indeed fascist, in nature:
> _"a fascist system. . . [is] absolutist - power goes from top down . . . the
-ideal state is top down control with the public essentially following orders.
+ideal state is top down control with the public essentially following orders.
+> _
+
+>
-"Let's take a look at a corporation. . . [I]f you look at what they are, power
-goes strictly top down, from the board of directors to managers to lower
+> _"Let's take a look at a corporation. . . [I]f you look at what they are,
+power goes strictly top down, from the board of directors to managers to lower
managers to ultimately the people on the shop floor, typing messages, and so
on. There's no flow of power or planning from the bottom up. People can
disrupt and make suggestions, but the same is true of a slave society. The
structure of power is linear, from the top down."_ [**Keeping the Rabble in
Line**, p. 237]
-
-
- David Deleon indicates these similarities between the company and the state
+David Deleon indicates these similarities between the company and the state
well when he writes:
> _ "Most factories are like military dictatorships. Those at the bottom are
@@ -1253,9 +1117,7 @@ an ivory tower or a mine shaft."_ [_"For Democracy Where We Work: A rationale
for social self-management"_, **Reinventing Anarchy, Again**, Howard J.
Ehrlich (ed.), pp. 193-4]
-
-
- Thus the consistent anarchist must oppose hierarchy in all its forms,
+Thus the consistent anarchist must oppose hierarchy in all its forms,
including the capitalist firm. Not to do so is to support **_archy_** \--
which an anarchist, by definition, cannot do. In other words, for anarchists,
_"[p]romises to obey, contracts of (wage) slavery, agreements requiring the
@@ -1269,9 +1131,7 @@ integral traits; it denies the very notion that the individual is
but with its most important context: the **social** context."_ [Murray
Bookchin, **Op. Cit.**, p. 202]
-
-
- Some argue that as long as an association is voluntary, whether it has a
+Some argue that as long as an association is voluntary, whether it has a
hierarchical structure is irrelevant. Anarchists disagree. This is for two
reasons. Firstly, under capitalism workers are driven by economic necessity to
sell their labour (and so liberty) to those who own the means of life. This
@@ -1286,15 +1146,11 @@ relationship of subordination and exploitation which naturally results as the
epitome of freedom is to make a mockery of both individual liberty and social
justice."_ [Robert Graham, **Op. Cit.**, p. 70]
-
-
- It is for this reason that anarchists support collective action and
+It is for this reason that anarchists support collective action and
organisation: it increases the bargaining power of working people and allows
them to assert their autonomy (see [section J](secJcon.html)).
-
-
- Secondly, if we take the key element as being whether an association is
+Secondly, if we take the key element as being whether an association is
voluntary or not we would have to argue that the current state system must be
considered as "anarchy." In a modern democracy no one forces an individual to
live in a specific state. We are free to leave and go somewhere else. By
@@ -1307,24 +1163,18 @@ scale corporations which control the world economy is fetishism at its
worst."_ [_The Libertarian as Conservative,_ **The Abolition of Work and other
essays**, p. 142] Anarchy is more than being free to pick a master.
-
-
- Therefore opposition to hierarchy is a key anarchist position, otherwise you
+Therefore opposition to hierarchy is a key anarchist position, otherwise you
just become a "voluntary archist" - which is hardly anarchistic. For more on
this see section A.2.14 ([ Why is voluntarism not
enough?](secA2.html#seca214)).
-
-
- Anarchists argue that organisations do not need to be hierarchical, they can
+Anarchists argue that organisations do not need to be hierarchical, they can
be based upon co-operation between equals who manage their own affairs
directly. In this way we can do without hierarchical structures (i.e. the
delegation of power in the hands of a few). Only when an association is self-
managed by its members can it be considered truly anarchistic.
-
-
- We are sorry to belabour this point, but some capitalist apologists,
+We are sorry to belabour this point, but some capitalist apologists,
apparently wanting to appropriate the "anarchist" name because of its
association with freedom, have recently claimed that one can be both a
capitalist and an anarchist at the same time (as in so-called "anarcho"
@@ -1332,13 +1182,9 @@ capitalism). It should now be clear that since capitalism is based on
hierarchy (not to mention statism and exploitation), "anarcho"-capitalism is a
contradiction in terms. (For more on this, see [ Section F](secFcon.html))
+## A.2.9 What sort of society do anarchists want?
-
- ## A.2.9 What sort of society do anarchists want?
-
-
-
- Anarchists desire a decentralised society, based on free association. We
+Anarchists desire a decentralised society, based on free association. We
consider this form of society the best one for maximising the values we have
outlined above -- liberty, equality and solidarity. Only by a rational
decentralisation of power, both structurally and territorially, can individual
@@ -1349,9 +1195,7 @@ the hands of others, anarchists favour organisations which minimise authority,
keeping power at the base, in the hands of those who are affected by any
decisions reached.
-
-
- Free association is the cornerstone of an anarchist society. Individuals must
+Free association is the cornerstone of an anarchist society. Individuals must
be free to join together as they see fit, for this is the basis of freedom and
human dignity. However, any such free agreement must be based on
decentralisation of power; otherwise it will be a sham (as in capitalism), as
@@ -1361,13 +1205,11 @@ based on "one person one vote" (for the rationale of direct democracy as the
political counterpart of free agreement, see section A.2.11 -- [ Why do most
anarchists support direct democracy?](secA2.html#seca211)).
-
-
- We should point out here that an anarchist society does not imply some sort
-of idyllic state of harmony within which everyone agrees. Far from it! As
-Luigi Galleani points out, _"[d]isagreements and friction will always exist.
-In fact they are an essential condition of unlimited progress. But once the
-bloody area of sheer animal competition - the struggle for food - has been
+We should point out here that an anarchist society does not imply some sort of
+idyllic state of harmony within which everyone agrees. Far from it! As Luigi
+Galleani points out, _"[d]isagreements and friction will always exist. In fact
+they are an essential condition of unlimited progress. But once the bloody
+area of sheer animal competition - the struggle for food - has been
eliminated, problems of disagreement could be solved without the slightest
threat to the social order and individual liberty." _ [**The End of
Anarchism?**, p. 28] Anarchism aims to _"rouse the spirit of initiative in
@@ -1376,9 +1218,7 @@ movement and a life based on the principles of free understanding"_ and
recognise that _"**variety, conflict even, is life and that uniformity is
death.**"_ [Peter Kropotkin, **Anarchism**, p. 143]
-
-
- Therefore, an anarchist society will be based upon co-operative conflict as
+Therefore, an anarchist society will be based upon co-operative conflict as
_"[c]onflict, per se, is not harmful. . . disagreements exist [and should not
be hidden] . . . What makes disagreement destructive is not the fact of
conflict itself but the addition of competition."_ Indeed, _"a rigid demand
@@ -1388,9 +1228,7 @@ Case Against Competition**, p. 156] It is for this reason that most anarchists
reject consensus decision making in large groups (see section
[A.2.12](secA2.html#seca212)).
-
-
- So, in an anarchist society associations would be run by mass assemblies of
+So, in an anarchist society associations would be run by mass assemblies of
all involved, based upon extensive discussion, debate and co-operative
conflict between equals, with purely administrative tasks being handled by
elected committees. These committees would be made up of mandated, recallable
@@ -1408,9 +1246,7 @@ already decided by the assembly (i.e. if they start to make policy decisions),
they can be instantly recalled and their decisions abolished. In this way, the
organisation remains in the hands of the union of individuals who created it.
-
-
- This self-management by the members of a group at the base and the power of
+This self-management by the members of a group at the base and the power of
recall are essential tenets of any anarchist organisation. The **key**
difference between a statist or hierarchical system and an anarchist community
is who wields power. In a parliamentary system, for example, people give power
@@ -1421,9 +1257,7 @@ base are expected to obey. Similarly, in the capitalist workplace, power is
held by an unelected minority of bosses and managers at the top and the
workers are expected to obey.
-
-
- In an anarchist society this relationship is reversed. No one individual or
+In an anarchist society this relationship is reversed. No one individual or
group (elected or unelected) holds power in an anarchist community. Instead
decisions are made using direct democratic principles and, when required, the
community can elect or appoint delegates to carry out these decisions. There
@@ -1431,9 +1265,7 @@ is a clear distinction between policy making (which lies with everyone who is
affected) and the co-ordination and administration of any adopted policy
(which is the job for delegates).
-
-
- These egalitarian communities, founded by free agreement, also freely
+These egalitarian communities, founded by free agreement, also freely
associate together in confederations. Such a free confederation would be run
from the bottom up, with decisions following from the elemental assemblies
upwards. The confederations would be run in the same manner as the
@@ -1448,9 +1280,7 @@ subject to the control and approval of those who delegated them"_ and so
_"there would be no danger than the interest of the people [would] be
forgotten."_ [Malatesta, **Op. Cit.**, p. 36]
-
-
- Action committees would be formed, if required, to co-ordinate and administer
+Action committees would be formed, if required, to co-ordinate and administer
the decisions of the assemblies and their congresses, under strict control
from below as discussed above. Delegates to such bodies would have a limited
tenure and, like the delegates to the congresses, have a fixed mandate -- they
@@ -1463,9 +1293,7 @@ direct control of the population"_ and so express the _"decisions taken at
popular assemblies."_ [**Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, p. 175 and p.
129]
-
-
- Most importantly, the basic community assemblies can overturn any decisions
+Most importantly, the basic community assemblies can overturn any decisions
reached by the conferences and withdraw from any confederation. Any
compromises that are made by a delegate during negotiations have to go back to
a general assembly for ratification. Without that ratification any compromises
@@ -1475,9 +1303,7 @@ addition, they can call confederal conferences to discuss new developments and
to inform action committees about changing wishes and to instruct them on what
to do about any developments and ideas.
-
-
- In other words, any delegates required within an anarchist organisation or
+In other words, any delegates required within an anarchist organisation or
society are **not** representatives (as they are in a democratic government).
Kropotkin makes the difference clear:
@@ -1493,9 +1319,7 @@ she] will seek an understanding and will return with a simple proposition
which his mandatories can accept or refuse. This is what happens when true
delegation comes into being."_ [**Words of a Rebel**, p. 132]
-
-
- Unlike in a representative system, **power** is not delegated into the hands
+Unlike in a representative system, **power** is not delegated into the hands
of the few. Rather, any delegate is simply a mouthpiece for the association
that elected (or otherwise selected) them in the first place. All delegates
and action committees would be mandated and subject to instant recall to
@@ -1505,9 +1329,7 @@ associations and communities co-operating as equals based on a system of
mandated delegates, instant recall, free agreement and free federation from
the bottom up.
-
-
- Only this system would ensure the _"free organisation of the people, an
+Only this system would ensure the _"free organisation of the people, an
organisation from below upwards."_ This _"free federation from below upward"_
would start with the basic _"association"_ and their federation _"first into a
commune, then a federation of communes into regions, of regions into nations,
@@ -1523,9 +1345,7 @@ of ideas, for arts, for amusement, and so on."_ [Peter Kropotkin, **Evolution
and Environment**, p. 79] All would be based on self-management, free
association, free federation and self-organisation from the bottom up.
-
-
- By organising in this manner, hierarchy is abolished in all aspects of life,
+By organising in this manner, hierarchy is abolished in all aspects of life,
because the people at the base of the organisation are in control, **not**
their delegates. Only this form of organisation can replace government (the
initiative and empowerment of the few) with anarchy (the initiative and
@@ -1536,18 +1356,13 @@ they could understand and control."_ [quoted by Cornelius Castoriadis,
**Political and Social Writings**, vol. 2, p. 97] For individual initiatives,
the individual involved would manage them.
+As can be seen, anarchists wish to create a society based upon structures that
+ensure that no individual or group is able to wield power over others. Free
+agreement, confederation and the power of recall, fixed mandates and limited
+tenure are mechanisms by which power is removed from the hands of governments
+and placed in the hands of those directly affected by the decisions.
-
- As can be seen, anarchists wish to create a society based upon structures
-that ensure that no individual or group is able to wield power over others.
-Free agreement, confederation and the power of recall, fixed mandates and
-limited tenure are mechanisms by which power is removed from the hands of
-governments and placed in the hands of those directly affected by the
-decisions.
-
-
-
- For a fuller discussion on what an anarchist society would look like see
+For a fuller discussion on what an anarchist society would look like see
[section I](secIcon.html). Anarchy, however, is not some distant goal but
rather an aspect of current struggles against oppression and exploitation.
Means and ends are linked, with direct action generating mass participatory
@@ -1566,19 +1381,13 @@ current struggles and do not think our ideas are only applicable "after the
revolution." Indeed, by applying our principles today we bring anarchy that
much nearer.
+## A.2.10 What will abolishing hierarchy mean and achieve?
-
- ## A.2.10 What will abolishing hierarchy mean and achieve?
-
-
-
- The creation of a new society based upon libertarian organisations will have
+The creation of a new society based upon libertarian organisations will have
an incalculable effect on everyday life. The empowerment of millions of people
will transform society in ways we can only guess at now.
-
-
- However, many consider these forms of organisation as impractical and doomed
+However, many consider these forms of organisation as impractical and doomed
to failure. To those who say that such confederal, non-authoritarian
organisations would produce confusion and disunity, anarchists maintain that
the statist, centralised and hierarchical form of organisation produces
@@ -1588,9 +1397,7 @@ importantly, such organisations destroy individual initiative and crush
independent action and critical thinking. (For more on hierarchy, see section
B.1 -- ["Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?"](secB1.html)).
-
-
- That libertarian organisation can work and is based upon (and promotes)
+That libertarian organisation can work and is based upon (and promotes)
liberty was demonstrated in the Spanish Anarchist movement. Fenner Brockway,
Secretary of the British Independent Labour Party, when visiting Barcelona
during the 1936 revolution, noted that _"the great solidarity that existed
@@ -1599,18 +1406,14 @@ strength and not depending upon leadership. . . . The organisations must, to
be successful, be combined with free-thinking people; not a mass, but free
individuals"_ [quoted by Rudolf Rocker, **Anarcho-syndicalism**, p. 67f]
-
-
- As sufficiently indicated already, hierarchical, centralised structures
+As sufficiently indicated already, hierarchical, centralised structures
restrict freedom. As Proudhon noted: _"the centralist system is all very well
as regards size, simplicity and construction: it lacks but one thing -- the
individual no longer belongs to himself in such a system, he cannot feel his
worth, his life, and no account is taken of him at all."_ [quoted by Martin
Buber, **Paths in Utopia**, p. 33]
-
-
- The effects of hierarchy can be seen all around us. It does not work.
+The effects of hierarchy can be seen all around us. It does not work.
Hierarchy and authority exist everywhere, in the workplace, at home, in the
street. As Bob Black puts it, _"[i]f you spend most of your waking life taking
orders or kissing ass, if you get habituated to hierarchy, you will become
@@ -1619,18 +1422,14 @@ carry that load into every aspect of the balance of your life."_ [_"The
Libertarian as Conservative,"_ **The Abolition of Work and other essays**, pp.
147-8]
-
-
- This means that the end of hierarchy will mean a **massive** transformation
-in everyday life. It will involve the creation of individual-centred
+This means that the end of hierarchy will mean a **massive** transformation in
+everyday life. It will involve the creation of individual-centred
organisations within which all can exercise, and so develop, their abilities
to the fullest. By involving themselves and participating in the decisions
that affect them, their workplace, their community and society, they can
ensure the full development of their individual capacities.
-
-
- With the free participation of all in social life, we would quickly see the
+With the free participation of all in social life, we would quickly see the
end of inequality and injustice. Rather than people existing to make ends meet
and being used to increase the wealth and power of the few as under
capitalism, the end of hierarchy would see (to quote Kropotkin) _"the well-
@@ -1651,9 +1450,7 @@ _"both requisites of happiness -- liberty and wealth."_ In anarchy, _"mankind
will live in freedom and in comfort."_ [Benjamin Tucker, **Why I am an
Anarchist**, p. 135 and p. 136]
-
-
- Only self-determination and free agreement on every level of society can
+Only self-determination and free agreement on every level of society can
develop the responsibility, initiative, intellect and solidarity of
individuals and society as a whole. Only anarchist organisation allows the
vast talent which exists within humanity to be accessed and used, enriching
@@ -1663,9 +1460,7 @@ implementing the decisions that affect them can freedom blossom and
individuality be fully developed and protected. Anarchy will release the
creativity and talent of the mass of people enslaved by hierarchy.
-
-
- Anarchy will even be of benefit for those who are said to benefit from
+Anarchy will even be of benefit for those who are said to benefit from
capitalism and its authority relations. Anarchists _"maintain that **both**
rulers and ruled are spoiled by authority; **both** exploiters and exploited
are spoiled by exploitation."_ [Peter Kropotkin, **Act for Yourselves**, p.
@@ -1676,13 +1471,9 @@ dead weight of the dormant creative potential of the submissive all along the
road of his hierarchical excursion."_ [For Ourselves, **The Right to Be
Greedy**, Thesis 95]
+## A.2.11 Why are most anarchists in favour of direct democracy?
-
- ## A.2.11 Why are most anarchists in favour of direct democracy?
-
-
-
- For most anarchists, direct democratic voting on policy decisions within free
+For most anarchists, direct democratic voting on policy decisions within free
associations is the political counterpart of free agreement (this is also
known as **_"self-management"_**). The reason is that _"many forms of
domination can be carried out in a 'free.' non-coercive, contractual manner. .
@@ -1692,9 +1483,7 @@ Egoism**, p. 93] Thus the relationships we create **within** an organisation
is as important in determining its libertarian nature as its voluntary nature
(see [section A.2.14](secA2.html#seca214) for more discussion).
-
-
- It is obvious that individuals must work together in order to lead a fully
+It is obvious that individuals must work together in order to lead a fully
human life. And so, _"[h]aving to join with others humans"_ the individual has
three options: _"he [or she] must submit to the will of others (be enslaved)
or subject others to his will (be in authority) or live with others in
@@ -1702,9 +1491,7 @@ fraternal agreement in the interests of the greatest good of all (be an
associate). Nobody can escape from this necessity."_ [Errico Malatesta, **Life
and Ideas**, p. 85]
-
-
- Anarchists obviously pick the last option, association, as the only means by
+Anarchists obviously pick the last option, association, as the only means by
which individuals can work together as free and equal human beings, respecting
the uniqueness and liberty of one another. Only within direct democracy can
individuals express themselves, practice critical thought and self-government,
@@ -1714,36 +1501,32 @@ social faculties, it is far better to be sometimes in a minority than be
subject to the will of a boss all the time. So what is the theory behind
anarchist direct democracy?
-
-
- As Bertrand Russell noted, the anarchist _"does not wish to abolish
-government in the sense of collective decisions: what he does wish to abolish
-is the system by which a decision is enforced upon those who oppose it."_
-[**Roads to Freedom**, p. 85] Anarchists see self-management as the means to
-achieve this. Once an individual joins a community or workplace, he or she
-becomes a "citizen" (for want of a better word) of that association. The
-association is organised around an assembly of all its members (in the case of
-large workplaces and towns, this may be a functional sub-group such as a
-specific office or neighbourhood). In this assembly, in concert with others,
-the contents of his or her political obligations are defined. In acting within
-the association, people must exercise critical judgement and choice, i.e.
-manage their own activity. Rather than promising to obey (as in hierarchical
+As Bertrand Russell noted, the anarchist _"does not wish to abolish government
+in the sense of collective decisions: what he does wish to abolish is the
+system by which a decision is enforced upon those who oppose it."_ [**Roads to
+Freedom**, p. 85] Anarchists see self-management as the means to achieve this.
+Once an individual joins a community or workplace, he or she becomes a
+"citizen" (for want of a better word) of that association. The association is
+organised around an assembly of all its members (in the case of large
+workplaces and towns, this may be a functional sub-group such as a specific
+office or neighbourhood). In this assembly, in concert with others, the
+contents of his or her political obligations are defined. In acting within the
+association, people must exercise critical judgement and choice, i.e. manage
+their own activity. Rather than promising to obey (as in hierarchical
organisations like the state or capitalist firm), individuals participate in
making their own collective decisions, their own commitments to their fellows.
This means that political obligation is not owed to a separate entity above
the group or society, such as the state or company, but to one's fellow
"citizens."
-
-
- Although the assembled people collectively legislate the rules governing
-their association, and are bound by them as individuals, they are also
-superior to them in the sense that these rules can always be modified or
-repealed. Collectively, the associated "citizens" constitute a political
-"authority", but as this "authority" is based on horizontal relationships
-between themselves rather than vertical ones between themselves and an elite,
-the "authority" is non-hierarchical ("rational" or "natural," see section B.1
-- ["Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?"](secB1.html) \- for
+Although the assembled people collectively legislate the rules governing their
+association, and are bound by them as individuals, they are also superior to
+them in the sense that these rules can always be modified or repealed.
+Collectively, the associated "citizens" constitute a political "authority",
+but as this "authority" is based on horizontal relationships between
+themselves rather than vertical ones between themselves and an elite, the
+"authority" is non-hierarchical ("rational" or "natural," see section B.1 -
+["Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?"](secB1.html) \- for
more on this). Thus Proudhon:
> _"In place of laws, we will put contracts [i.e. free agreement]. - No more
@@ -1751,9 +1534,7 @@ laws voted by a majority, nor even unanimously; each citizen, each town, each
industrial union, makes its own laws."_ [**The General Idea of the
Revolution**, pp. 245-6]
-
-
- Such a system does not mean, of course, that everyone participates in every
+Such a system does not mean, of course, that everyone participates in every
decision needed, no matter how trivial. While any decision can be put to the
assembly (if the assembly so decides, perhaps prompted by some of its
members), in practice certain activities (and so purely functional decisions)
@@ -1776,9 +1557,7 @@ Proudhon's ideas that within the workers' associations _"all positions are
elective, and the by-laws subject to the approval of the members."_ [Proudhon,
**Op. Cit.**, p. 222]
-
-
- Instead of capitalist or statist hierarchy, self-management (i.e. direct
+Instead of capitalist or statist hierarchy, self-management (i.e. direct
democracy) would be the guiding principle of the freely joined associations
that make up a free society. This would apply to the federations of
associations an anarchist society would need to function. _"All the
@@ -1792,17 +1571,13 @@ Cit.**, pp. 188-9] Again, Pujols follows Proudhon who demanded twenty years
previously the _"implementation of the binding mandate"_ to ensure the people
do not _"adjure their sovereignty."_ [**No Gods, No Masters**, vol. 1, p. 63]
-
-
- By means of a federalism based on mandates and elections, anarchists ensure
+By means of a federalism based on mandates and elections, anarchists ensure
that decisions flow from the bottom-up. By making our own decisions, by
looking after our joint interests ourselves, we exclude others ruling over us.
Self-management, for anarchists, is essential to ensure freedom within the
organisations so needed for any decent human existence.
-
-
- Of course it could be argued that if you are in a minority, you are governed
+Of course it could be argued that if you are in a minority, you are governed
by others (_"Democratic rule is still rule"_ [L. Susan Brown, **The Politics
of Individualism**, p. 53]). Now, the concept of direct democracy as we have
described it is not necessarily tied to the concept of majority rule. If
@@ -1820,9 +1595,7 @@ quoted by quoted by Max Nettlau, **Errico Malatesta: The Biography of an
Anarchist**]). Needless to say, a minority, if it remains in the association,
can argue its case and try to convince the majority of the error of its ways.
-
-
- And we must point out here that anarchist support for direct democracy does
+And we must point out here that anarchist support for direct democracy does
not suggest we think that the majority is always right. Far from it! The case
for democratic participation is not that the majority is always right, but
that no minority can be trusted not to prefer its own advantage to the good of
@@ -1831,9 +1604,7 @@ dictatorial powers (by they a head of state, a boss, a husband, whatever) will
use their power to enrich and empower themselves at the expense of those
subject to their decisions.
-
-
- Anarchists recognise that majorities can and do make mistakes and that is why
+Anarchists recognise that majorities can and do make mistakes and that is why
our theories on association place great importance on minority rights. This
can be seen from our theory of self-assumed obligation, which bases itself on
the right of minorities to protest against majority decisions and makes
@@ -1850,9 +1621,7 @@ obligation is meaningless without the practical recognition of the right of
minorities to refuse or withdraw consent, or where necessary, to disobey."_
[**The Problem of Political Obligation**, p. 162]
-
-
- Moving beyond relationships within associations, we must highlight how
+Moving beyond relationships within associations, we must highlight how
different associations work together. As would be imagined, the links between
associations follow the same outlines as for the associations themselves.
Instead of individuals joining an association, we have associations joining
@@ -1863,16 +1632,12 @@ this way society becomes an association of associations, a community of
communities, a commune of communes, based upon maximising individual freedom
by maximising participation and self-management.
-
-
- The workings of such a confederation are outlined in section A.2.9 ([ What
+The workings of such a confederation are outlined in section A.2.9 ([ What
sort of society do anarchists want?](secA2.html#seca29)) and discussed in
greater detail in section I ([What would an anarchist society look
like?](secIcon.html)).
-
-
- This system of direct democracy fits nicely into anarchist theory. Malatesta
+This system of direct democracy fits nicely into anarchist theory. Malatesta
speaks for all anarchists when he argued that _"anarchists deny the right of
the majority to govern human society in general."_ As can be seen, the
majority has no right to enforce itself on a minority -- the minority can
@@ -1894,15 +1659,12 @@ awareness of need and of goodwill to prevent the running of social affairs
from being paralysed by obstinacy. It cannot be imposed as a principle and
statutory norm. . ."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 100]
-
-
- As the minority has the right to secede from the association as well as
-having extensive rights of action, protest and appeal, majority rule is not
-imposed as a principle. Rather, it is purely a decision making tool which
-allows minority dissent and opinion to be expressed (and acted upon) while
-ensuring that no minority forces its will on the majority. In other words,
-majority decisions are not binding on the minority. After all, as Malatesta
-argued:
+As the minority has the right to secede from the association as well as having
+extensive rights of action, protest and appeal, majority rule is not imposed
+as a principle. Rather, it is purely a decision making tool which allows
+minority dissent and opinion to be expressed (and acted upon) while ensuring
+that no minority forces its will on the majority. In other words, majority
+decisions are not binding on the minority. After all, as Malatesta argued:
> _"one cannot expect, or even wish, that someone who is firmly convinced that
the course taken by the majority leads to disaster, should sacrifice his [or
@@ -1910,9 +1672,7 @@ her] own convictions and passively look on, or even worse, should support a
policy he [or she] considers wrong."_ [**Errico Malatesta: His Life and
Ideas**, p. 132]
-
-
- Even the Individual Anarchist Lysander Spooner acknowledged that direct
+Even the Individual Anarchist Lysander Spooner acknowledged that direct
democracy has its uses when he noted that _"[a]ll, or nearly all, voluntary
associations give a majority, or some other portion of the members less than
the whole, the right to use some **limited** discretion as to the **means** to
@@ -1926,9 +1686,7 @@ enforce"_ (his support of juries results from Spooner acknowledging that it
_"would be impossible in practice"_ for **all** members of an association to
agree) [**Trial by Jury**, p. 130-1f, p. 134, p. 214, p. 152 and p. 132]
-
-
- Thus direct democracy and individual/minority rights need not clash. In
+Thus direct democracy and individual/minority rights need not clash. In
practice, we can imagine direct democracy would be used to make most decisions
within most associations (perhaps with super-majorities required for
fundamental decisions) plus some combination of a jury system and minority
@@ -1936,9 +1694,7 @@ protest/direct action and evaluate/protect minority claims/rights in an
anarchist society. The actual forms of freedom can only be created through
practical experience by the people directly involved.
-
-
- Lastly, we must stress that anarchist support for direct democracy does not
+Lastly, we must stress that anarchist support for direct democracy does not
mean that this solution is to be favoured in all circumstances. For example,
many small associations may favour consensus decision making (see the [next
section](secA2.html#seca212) on consensus and why most anarchists do not think
@@ -1947,21 +1703,15 @@ think that direct democracy within free association is the best (and most
realistic) form of organisation which is consistent with anarchist principles
of individual freedom, dignity and equality.
+## A.2.12 Is consensus an alternative to direct democracy?
-
- ## A.2.12 Is consensus an alternative to direct democracy?
-
-
-
- The few anarchists who reject direct democracy within free associations
+The few anarchists who reject direct democracy within free associations
generally support consensus in decision making. Consensus is based upon
everyone on a group agreeing to a decision before it can be put into action.
Thus, it is argued, consensus stops the majority ruling the minority and is
more consistent with anarchist principles.
-
-
- Consensus, although the "best" option in decision making, as all agree, has
+Consensus, although the "best" option in decision making, as all agree, has
its problems. As Murray Bookchin points out in describing his experience of
consensus, it can have authoritarian implications:
@@ -1975,9 +1725,12 @@ make an honourable and continuing expression of their dissent by voting, even
as a minority, in accordance with their views. Having withdrawn, they ceased
to be political beings--so that a 'decision' could be made. . . . 'consensus'
was ultimately achieved only after dissenting members nullified themselves as
-participants in the process._
+participants in the process.
+> _
+
+>
-_"On a more theoretical level, consensus silenced that most vital aspect of
+> _"On a more theoretical level, consensus silenced that most vital aspect of
all dialogue, **dissensus**. The ongoing dissent, the passionate dialogue that
still persists even after a minority accedes temporarily to a majority
decision,. . . [can be] replaced. . . .by dull monologues -- and the
@@ -1989,9 +1742,7 @@ minorities, but mutes them in favour of the metaphysical 'one' of the
'consensus' group."_ [_"Communalism: The Democratic Dimension of Anarchism"_,
**Democracy and Nature**, no. 8, p. 8]
-
-
- Bookchin does not _"deny that consensus may be an appropriate form of
+Bookchin does not _"deny that consensus may be an appropriate form of
decision-making in small groups of people who are thoroughly familiar with one
another." _But he notes that, in practical terms, his own experience has shown
him that _"when larger groups try to make decisions by consensus, it usually
@@ -2001,9 +1752,7 @@ that a sizeable assembly of people can attain is adopted-- precisely because
everyone must agree with it or else withdraw from voting on that issue"_
[**Op. Cit.**, p.7]
-
-
- Therefore, due to its potentially authoritarian nature, most anarchists
+Therefore, due to its potentially authoritarian nature, most anarchists
disagree that consensus is the political aspect of free association. While it
is advantageous to try to reach consensus, it is usually impractical to do so
-- especially in large groups -- regardless of its other, negative effects.
@@ -2015,15 +1764,11 @@ pressure. Since individuals are all unique, they will have unique viewpoints
which they should be encouraged to express, as society evolves and is enriched
by the actions and ideas of individuals.
-
-
- In other words, anarchist supporters of direct democracy stress the
+In other words, anarchist supporters of direct democracy stress the
_"**creative** role of dissent"_ which, they fear, _"tends to fade away in the
grey uniformity required by consensus."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 8]
-
-
- We must stress that anarchists are **not** in favour of a mechanical decision
+We must stress that anarchists are **not** in favour of a mechanical decision
making process in which the majority just vote the minority away and ignore
them. Far from it! Anarchists who support direct democracy see it as a dynamic
debating process in which majority and minority listen to and respect each
@@ -2034,19 +1779,13 @@ will encourage diversity, individual and minority expression and reduce any
tendency for majorities to marginalise or oppress minorities by ensuring
discussion and debate occurs on important issues.
+## A.2.13 Are anarchists individualists or collectivists?
-
- ## A.2.13 Are anarchists individualists or collectivists?
-
-
-
- The short answer is: neither. This can be seen from the fact that liberal
+The short answer is: neither. This can be seen from the fact that liberal
scholars denounce anarchists like Bakunin for being "collectivists" while
Marxists attack Bakunin and anarchists in general for being "individualists."
-
-
- This is hardly surprising, as anarchists reject both ideologies as nonsense.
+This is hardly surprising, as anarchists reject both ideologies as nonsense.
Whether they like it or not, non-anarchist individualists and collectivists
are two sides of the same capitalist coin. This can best shown be by
considering modern capitalism, in which "individualist" and "collectivist"
@@ -2055,9 +1794,7 @@ structure swinging from one pole to the other. Capitalist collectivism and
individualism are both one-sided aspects of human existence, and like all
manifestations of imbalance, deeply flawed.
-
-
- For anarchists, the idea that individuals should sacrifice themselves for the
+For anarchists, the idea that individuals should sacrifice themselves for the
"group" or "greater good" is nonsensical. Groups are made up of individuals,
and if people think only of what's best for the group, the group will be a
lifeless shell. It is only the dynamics of human interaction within groups
@@ -2070,18 +1807,16 @@ someone with enough individuality to make decisions -- a problem that is
"solved" by the leader principle. Stalinism and Nazism are excellent examples
of this phenomenon.
-
-
- Therefore, anarchists recognise that individuals are the basic unit of
-society and that only individuals have interests and feelings. This means they
-oppose "collectivism" and the glorification of the group. In anarchist theory
-the group exists only to aid and develop the individuals involved in them.
-This is why we place so much stress on groups structured in a libertarian
-manner -- only a libertarian organisation allows the individuals within a
-group to fully express themselves, manage their own interests directly and to
-create social relationships which encourage individuality and individual
-freedom. So while society and the groups they join shapes the individual, the
-individual is the true basis of society. Hence Malatesta:
+Therefore, anarchists recognise that individuals are the basic unit of society
+and that only individuals have interests and feelings. This means they oppose
+"collectivism" and the glorification of the group. In anarchist theory the
+group exists only to aid and develop the individuals involved in them. This is
+why we place so much stress on groups structured in a libertarian manner --
+only a libertarian organisation allows the individuals within a group to fully
+express themselves, manage their own interests directly and to create social
+relationships which encourage individuality and individual freedom. So while
+society and the groups they join shapes the individual, the individual is the
+true basis of society. Hence Malatesta:
> _"Much has been said about the respective roles of individual initiative and
social action in the life and progress of human societies . . . [E]verything
@@ -2102,9 +1837,7 @@ initiative to the few [which Malatesta defines as a key aspect of
government/hierarchy], which inevitably results in the oppression of everyone
else . . . "_ [**Anarchy**, pp. 38-38]
-
-
- These considerations do not mean that "individualism" finds favour with
+These considerations do not mean that "individualism" finds favour with
anarchists. As Emma Goldman pointed out, _"'rugged individualism'. . . is only
a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his individuality.
So-called Individualism is the social and economic **laissez-faire**: the
@@ -2117,9 +1850,7 @@ has meant all the 'individualism' for the masters, while the people are
regimented into a slave caste to serve a handful of self-seeking 'supermen.'"_
[**Red Emma Speaks**, p. 112]
-
-
- While groups cannot think, individuals cannot live or discuss by themselves.
+While groups cannot think, individuals cannot live or discuss by themselves.
Groups and associations are an essential aspect of individual life. Indeed, as
groups generate social relationships by their very nature, they help **shape**
individuals. In other words, groups structured in an authoritarian way will
@@ -2134,9 +1865,7 @@ find a need for the state despite their frequent denunciations of it. These
contradictions stem from capitalist individualism's dependence on individual
contracts in an unequal society, i.e. **abstract** individualism.
-
-
- In contrast, anarchists stress **social** "individualism" (another, perhaps
+In contrast, anarchists stress **social** "individualism" (another, perhaps
better, term for this concept could be **_"communal individuality"_**).
Anarchism _"insists that the centre of gravity in society is the individual --
that he [sic] must think for himself, act freely, and live fully. . . . If he
@@ -2148,20 +1877,16 @@ protection. . . .Their 'rugged individualism' is simply one of the many
pretences the ruling class makes to mask unbridled business and political
extortion."_ [Emma Goldman, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 442-3]
-
-
- Anarchism rejects the **abstract** individualism of capitalism, with its
-ideas of "absolute" freedom of the individual which is constrained by others.
-This theory ignores the social context in which freedom exists and grows.
-_"The freedom we want,"_ Malatesta argued, _"for ourselves and for others, is
-not an absolute metaphysical, abstract freedom which in practice is inevitably
+Anarchism rejects the **abstract** individualism of capitalism, with its ideas
+of "absolute" freedom of the individual which is constrained by others. This
+theory ignores the social context in which freedom exists and grows. _"The
+freedom we want,"_ Malatesta argued, _"for ourselves and for others, is not an
+absolute metaphysical, abstract freedom which in practice is inevitably
translated into the oppression of the weak; but it is a real freedom, possible
freedom, which is the conscious community of interests, voluntary
solidarity."_ [**Anarchy**, p. 43]
-
-
- A society based on abstract individualism results in an inequality of power
+A society based on abstract individualism results in an inequality of power
between the contracting individuals and so entails the need for an authority
based on laws above them and organised coercion to enforce the contracts
between them. This consequence is evident from capitalism and, most notably,
@@ -2179,9 +1904,7 @@ practice the owner rules the worker for as long as the contract is in place.
(See sections [A.2.14](secA2.html#seca214) and [B.4](secB4.html) for further
details).
-
-
- Thus anarchists reject capitalist "individualism" as being, to quote
+Thus anarchists reject capitalist "individualism" as being, to quote
Kropotkin, _"a narrow and selfish individualism"_ which, moreover, is _"a
foolish egoism which belittles the individual"_ and is _"not individualism at
all. It will not lead to what was established as a goal; that is the complete
@@ -2195,16 +1918,12 @@ Revolution**, p. 295, p. 296 and p. 297] For anarchists, our freedom is
enriched by those around us when we work with them as equals and not as master
and servant.
-
-
- In practice, both individualism and collectivism lead to a denial of both
+In practice, both individualism and collectivism lead to a denial of both
individual liberty and group autonomy and dynamics. In addition, each implies
the other, with collectivism leading to a particular form of individualism and
-individualism leading to a particular form of collectivism.
-
-
+individualism leading to a particular form of collectivism.
- Collectivism, with its implicit suppression of the individual, ultimately
+Collectivism, with its implicit suppression of the individual, ultimately
impoverishes the community, as groups are only given life by the individuals
who comprise them. Individualism, with its explicit suppression of community
(i.e. the people with whom you live), ultimately impoverishes the individual,
@@ -2217,25 +1936,17 @@ development in the conditions of oppression of the mass by the 'beautiful
aristocracies'. His [or her] development would remain uni-lateral."_ [Peter
Kropotkin, **Anarchism**, p. 293]
+True liberty and community exist elsewhere.
+## A.2.14 Why is voluntarism not enough?
- True liberty and community exist elsewhere.
-
-
-
- ## A.2.14 Why is voluntarism not enough?
-
-
-
- Voluntarism means that association should be voluntary in order maximise
+Voluntarism means that association should be voluntary in order maximise
liberty. Anarchists are, obviously, voluntarists, thinking that only in free
association, created by free agreement, can individuals develop, grow, and
express their liberty. However, it is evident that under capitalism
voluntarism is not enough in itself to maximise liberty.
-
-
- Voluntarism implies promising (i.e. the freedom to make agreements), and
+Voluntarism implies promising (i.e. the freedom to make agreements), and
promising implies that individuals are capable of independent judgement and
rational deliberation. In addition, it presupposes that they can evaluate and
change their actions and relationships. Contracts under capitalism, however,
@@ -2258,9 +1969,7 @@ obey (see also [section A.2.8](secA2.html#seca28)). Thus any voluntarism which
generates relationships of subordination is, by its very nature, incomplete
and violates its own justification.
-
-
- This can be seen from capitalist society, in which workers sell their freedom
+This can be seen from capitalist society, in which workers sell their freedom
to a boss in order to live. In effect, under capitalism you are only free to
the extent that you can choose whom you will obey! Freedom, however, must mean
more than the right to change masters. Voluntary servitude is still servitude.
@@ -2277,9 +1986,7 @@ Rousseau:
mistaken; she is free only when she signs her contract with her boss. As soon
as it is signed, slavery overtakes her and she is nothing but an order taker.
-
-
- To see why, to see the injustice, we need only quote Rousseau:
+To see why, to see the injustice, we need only quote Rousseau:
> _ "That a rich and powerful man, having acquired immense possessions in
land, should impose laws on those who want to establish themselves there, and
@@ -2289,9 +1996,7 @@ Would not this tyrannical act contain a double usurpation: that on the
ownership of the land and that on the liberty of the inhabitants?"_ [**Op.
Cit.**, p. 316]
-
-
- Hence Proudhon's comment that _"Man may be made by property a slave or a
+Hence Proudhon's comment that _"Man may be made by property a slave or a
despot by turns."_ [**What is Property?**, p. 371] Little wonder we discover
Bakunin rejecting _"any contract with another individual on any footing but
the utmost equality and reciprocity"_ as this would _"alienate his [or her]
@@ -2302,17 +2007,13 @@ anarchist society) would be _"devoid of any sense of personal dignity."_
associations can create relationships of equality rather than of subordination
between its members.
-
-
- Therefore anarchists stress the need for direct democracy in voluntary
+Therefore anarchists stress the need for direct democracy in voluntary
associations in order to ensure that the concept of "freedom" is not a sham
and a justification for domination, as it is under capitalism. Only self-
managed associations can create relationships of equality rather than of
subordination between its members.
-
-
- It is for this reason that anarchists have opposed capitalism and urged
+It is for this reason that anarchists have opposed capitalism and urged
_"workers to form themselves into democratic societies, with equal conditions
for all members, on pain of a relapse into feudalism."_ [Proudhon, **The
General Idea of the Revolution**, p. 277] For similar reasons, anarchists
@@ -2327,9 +2028,7 @@ patriarchal principles anarchists like Goldman and de Cleyre identified and
condemned (see [section A.3.5](secA3.html#seca35) for more on feminism and
anarchism).
-
-
- Clearly, voluntary entry is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to
+Clearly, voluntary entry is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to
defend an individual's liberty. This is to be expected as it ignores (or takes
for granted) the social conditions in which agreements are made and, moreover,
ignores the social relationships created by them (_"For the worker who **must
@@ -2346,9 +2045,7 @@ voluntarism imply self-management. Or, to use Proudhon's words, _"as
individualism is the primordial fact of humanity, so association is its
complementary term."_ [**System of Economical Contradictions**, p. 430]
-
-
- To answer the second objection first, in a society based on private property
+To answer the second objection first, in a society based on private property
(and so statism), those with property have more power, which they can use to
perpetuate their authority. _"Wealth is power, poverty is weakness,"_ in the
words of Albert Parsons. This means that under capitalism the much praised
@@ -2364,27 +2061,19 @@ servitude or tolerate those who desire to restrict the liberty of others? The
"liberty" to command is the liberty to enslave, and so is actually a denial of
liberty.
-
-
- Regarding the first objection, anarchists plead guilty. We **are** prejudiced
+Regarding the first objection, anarchists plead guilty. We **are** prejudiced
against the reduction of human beings to the status of robots. We are
prejudiced in favour of human dignity and freedom. We are prejudiced, in fact,
in favour of humanity and individuality.
-
-
- ([ Section A.2.11 ](secA2.html#seca211) discusses why direct democracy is the
+([ Section A.2.11 ](secA2.html#seca211) discusses why direct democracy is the
necessary social counterpart to voluntarism (i.e. free agreement). [ Section
B.4](secB4.html) discusses why capitalism cannot be based on equal bargaining
power between property owners and the propertyless).
+## A.2.15 What about "human nature"?
-
- ## A.2.15 What about "human nature"?
-
-
-
- Anarchists, far from ignoring "human nature," have the only political theory
+Anarchists, far from ignoring "human nature," have the only political theory
that gives this concept deep thought and reflection. Too often, "human nature"
is flung up as the last line of defence in an argument against anarchism,
because it is thought to be beyond reply. This is not the case, however. First
@@ -2405,9 +2094,12 @@ itself, humans have lots of capacities and options. Which ones reveal
themselves depends to a large extent on the institutional structures. If we
had institutions which permitted pathological killers free rein, they'd be
running the place. The only way to survive would be to let those elements of
-your nature manifest themselves.
+your nature manifest themselves.
+> _
+
+>
-"If we have institutions which make greed the sole property of human beings
+> _"If we have institutions which make greed the sole property of human beings
and encourage pure greed at the expense of other human emotions and
commitments, we're going to have a society based on greed, with all that
follows. A different society might be organised in such a way that human
@@ -2415,26 +2107,22 @@ feelings and emotions of other sorts, say, solidarity, support, sympathy
become dominant. Then you'll have different aspects of human nature and
personality revealing themselves."_ [**Chronicles of Dissent**, pp. 158]
-
-
- Therefore, environment plays an important part in defining what "human
-nature" is, how it develops and what aspects of it are expressed. Indeed, one
-of the greatest myths about anarchism is the idea that we think human nature
-is inherently good (rather, we think it is inherently sociable). How it
-develops and expresses itself is dependent on the kind of society we live in
-and create. A hierarchical society will shape people in certain (negative)
-ways and produce a "human nature" radically different from a libertarian one.
-So _"when we hear men [and women] saying that Anarchists imagine men [and
-women] much better than they really are, we merely wonder how intelligent
-people can repeat that nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only means
-of rendering men [and women] less rapacious and egotistic, less ambitious and
+Therefore, environment plays an important part in defining what "human nature"
+is, how it develops and what aspects of it are expressed. Indeed, one of the
+greatest myths about anarchism is the idea that we think human nature is
+inherently good (rather, we think it is inherently sociable). How it develops
+and expresses itself is dependent on the kind of society we live in and
+create. A hierarchical society will shape people in certain (negative) ways
+and produce a "human nature" radically different from a libertarian one. So
+_"when we hear men [and women] saying that Anarchists imagine men [and women]
+much better than they really are, we merely wonder how intelligent people can
+repeat that nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only means of
+rendering men [and women] less rapacious and egotistic, less ambitious and
less slavish at the same time, is to eliminate those conditions which favour
the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and ambition?"_ [Peter
Kropotkin, **Act for Yourselves**, p. 83]
-
-
- As such, the use of "human nature" as an argument against anarchism is simply
+As such, the use of "human nature" as an argument against anarchism is simply
superficial and, ultimately, an evasion. It is an excuse not to think. _"Every
fool,"_ as Emma Goldman put it, _"from king to policemen, from the flatheaded
parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively
@@ -2450,9 +2138,7 @@ restraint of government."_ For _"[f]reedom, expansion, opportunity, and above
all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human
nature and all its wonderful possibilities."_ [**Red Emma Speaks**, p. 73]
-
-
- This does not mean that human beings are infinitely plastic, with each
+This does not mean that human beings are infinitely plastic, with each
individual born a **tabula rasa** (blank slate) waiting to be formed by
"society" (which in practice means those who run it). As Noam Chomsky argues,
_"I don't think its possible to give a rational account of the concept of
@@ -2470,23 +2156,19 @@ prosper. Moreover, they have the ability to recognise and oppose injustice and
oppression (Bakunin rightly considered _"**the power to think** and **the
desire to rebel**"_ as _"precious faculties."_ [**God and the State**, p. 9]).
-
-
- These three features, we think, suggest the viability of an anarchist
-society. The innate ability to think for oneself automatically makes all forms
-of hierarchy illegitimate, and our need for social relationships implies that
-we can organise without the state. The deep unhappiness and alienation
-afflicting modern society reveals that the centralisation and authoritarianism
-of capitalism and the state are denying some innate needs within us. In fact,
-as mentioned earlier, for the great majority of its existence the human race
+These three features, we think, suggest the viability of an anarchist society.
+The innate ability to think for oneself automatically makes all forms of
+hierarchy illegitimate, and our need for social relationships implies that we
+can organise without the state. The deep unhappiness and alienation afflicting
+modern society reveals that the centralisation and authoritarianism of
+capitalism and the state are denying some innate needs within us. In fact, as
+mentioned earlier, for the great majority of its existence the human race
**has** lived in anarchic communities, with little or no hierarchy. That
modern society calls such people "savages" or "primitive" is pure arrogance.
So who can tell whether anarchism is against "human nature"? Anarchists have
accumulated much evidence to suggest that it may not be.
-
-
- As for the charge the anarchists demand too much of "human nature," it is
+As for the charge the anarchists demand too much of "human nature," it is
often **non** anarchists who make the greatest claims on it. For _"while our
opponents seem to admit there is a kind of salt of the earth -- the rulers,
the employers, the leaders -- who, happily enough, prevent those bad men --
@@ -2501,11 +2183,9 @@ make no such exception, they say that we are dreamers."_ [Peter Kropotkin,
over others and hoping this will lead to justice and freedom is hopelessly
utopian.
-
-
- Moreover, as noted, Anarchists argue that hierarchical organisations bring
-out the worse in human nature. Both the oppressor and the oppressed are
-negatively affected by the authoritarian relationships so produced. _"It is a
+Moreover, as noted, Anarchists argue that hierarchical organisations bring out
+the worse in human nature. Both the oppressor and the oppressed are negatively
+affected by the authoritarian relationships so produced. _"It is a
characteristic of privilege and of every kind of privilege,"_ argued Bakunin,
_"to kill the mind and heart of man . . . That is a social law which admits no
exceptions . . . It is the law of equality and humanity."_ [**God and the
@@ -2516,9 +2196,7 @@ where there is oppression, there is resistance and, consequently, hope). As
such, it seems strange for anarchists to hear non-anarchists justify hierarchy
in terms of the (distorted) "human nature" it produces.
-
-
- Sadly, too many have done precisely this. It continues to this day. For
+Sadly, too many have done precisely this. It continues to this day. For
example, with the rise of "sociobiology," some claim (with very little
**real** evidence) that capitalism is a product of our "nature," which is
determined by our genes. These claims are simply a new variation of the "human
@@ -2530,9 +2208,7 @@ inequalities in wealth and power (for a discussion of this process see **Not
in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology and Human Nature** by Steven Rose, R.C.
Lewontin and Leon J. Kamin).
-
-
- This is not to say that it does not hold a grain of truth. As scientist
+This is not to say that it does not hold a grain of truth. As scientist
Stephen Jay Gould notes, _"the range of our potential behaviour is
circumscribed by our biology"_ and if this is what sociobiology means _"by
genetic control, then we can scarcely disagree."_ However, this is not what is
@@ -2550,9 +2226,7 @@ _"repeated, often genocidal warfare has shaped our genetic destiny, the
existence of nonaggressive peoples is embarrassing."_ [**Ever Since Darwin**,
p. 252, p. 257 and p. 254]
-
-
- Like the social Darwinism that preceded it, sociobiology proceeds by first
+Like the social Darwinism that preceded it, sociobiology proceeds by first
projecting the dominant ideas of current society onto nature (often
unconsciously, so that scientists mistakenly consider the ideas in question as
both "normal" and "natural"). Bookchin refers to this as _"the subtle
@@ -2568,9 +2242,7 @@ transcribed into the genetic code as biologically immutable."_ [**The Ecology
of Freedom**, p. 95 and p. 92] Amazingly, there are many supposedly
intelligent people who take this sleight-of-hand seriously.
-
-
- This can be seen when "hierarchies" in nature are used to explain, and so
+This can be seen when "hierarchies" in nature are used to explain, and so
justify, hierarchies in human societies. Such analogies are misleading for
they forget the institutional nature of human life. As Murray Bookchin notes
in his critique of sociobiology, a _"weak, enfeebled, unnerved, and sick ape
@@ -2585,9 +2257,7 @@ about 'alpha males' or 'queen bees.'"_ [_"Sociobiology or Social Ecology"_,
unique is conveniently ignored and the real sources of power in society are
hidden under a genetic screen.
-
-
- The sort of apologetics associated with appeals to "human nature" (or
+The sort of apologetics associated with appeals to "human nature" (or
sociobiology at its worse) are natural, of course, because every ruling class
needs to justify their right to rule. Hence they support doctrines that
defined the latter in ways appearing to justify elite power -- be it
@@ -2596,9 +2266,7 @@ always been wrong . . . until now, of course, as it is obvious our current
society truly conforms to "human nature" and it has been scientifically proven
by our current scientific priesthood!
-
-
- The arrogance of this claim is truly amazing. History hasn't stopped. One
+The arrogance of this claim is truly amazing. History hasn't stopped. One
thousand years from now, society will be completely different from what it is
presently or from what anyone has imagined. No government in place at the
moment will still be around, and the current economic system will not exist.
@@ -2606,24 +2274,19 @@ The only thing that may remain the same is that people will still be claiming
that their new society is the "One True System" that completely conforms to
human nature, even though all past systems did not.
-
-
- Of course, it does not cross the minds of supporters of capitalism that
-people from different cultures may draw different conclusions from the same
-facts -- conclusions that may be **more** valid. Nor does it occur to
-capitalist apologists that the theories of the "objective" scientists may be
-framed in the context of the dominant ideas of the society they live in. It
-comes as no surprise to anarchists, however, that scientists working in
-Tsarist Russia developed a theory of evolution based on **cooperation** within
-species, quite unlike their counterparts in capitalist Britain, who developed
-a theory based on **competitive struggle** within and between species. That
-the latter theory reflected the dominant political and economic theories of
-British society (notably competitive individualism) is pure coincidence, of
-course.
-
-
-
- Kropotkin's classic work **Mutual Aid**, for example, was written in response
+Of course, it does not cross the minds of supporters of capitalism that people
+from different cultures may draw different conclusions from the same facts --
+conclusions that may be **more** valid. Nor does it occur to capitalist
+apologists that the theories of the "objective" scientists may be framed in
+the context of the dominant ideas of the society they live in. It comes as no
+surprise to anarchists, however, that scientists working in Tsarist Russia
+developed a theory of evolution based on **cooperation** within species, quite
+unlike their counterparts in capitalist Britain, who developed a theory based
+on **competitive struggle** within and between species. That the latter theory
+reflected the dominant political and economic theories of British society
+(notably competitive individualism) is pure coincidence, of course.
+
+Kropotkin's classic work **Mutual Aid**, for example, was written in response
to the obvious inaccuracies that British representatives of Darwinism had
projected onto nature and human life. Building upon the mainstream Russian
criticism of the British Darwinism of the time, Kropotkin showed (with
@@ -2637,9 +2300,7 @@ survival. Thus co-operation is just as "natural" as competition so proving
that "human nature" was not a barrier to anarchism as co-operation between
members of a species can be the best pathway to advantage individuals.
-
-
- To conclude. Anarchists argue that anarchy is not against "human nature" for
+To conclude. Anarchists argue that anarchy is not against "human nature" for
two main reasons. Firstly, what is considered as being "human nature" is
shaped by the society we live in and the relationships we create. This means a
hierarchical society will encourage certain personality traits to dominate
@@ -2650,22 +2311,16 @@ Secondly, change _"seems to be one of the fundamental laws of existence"_ so
_"who can say that man [sic!] has reached the limits of his possibilities."_
[George Barrett, **Objections to Anarchism**, pp. 360-1 and p. 360]
-
-
- For useful discussions on anarchist ideas on human nature, both of which
+For useful discussions on anarchist ideas on human nature, both of which
refute the idea that anarchists think human beings are naturally good, see
Peter Marshall's _"Human nature and anarchism"_ [David Goodway (ed.), **For
Anarchism: History, Theory and Practice**, pp. 127-149] and David Hartley's
_"Communitarian Anarchism and Human Nature"_. [**Anarchist Studies**, vol. 3,
no. 2, Autumn 1995, pp. 145-164]
+## A.2.16 Does anarchism require "perfect" people to work?
-
- ## A.2.16 Does anarchism require "perfect" people to work?
-
-
-
- No. Anarchy is not a utopia, a "perfect" society. It will be a **_human_**
+No. Anarchy is not a utopia, a "perfect" society. It will be a **_human_**
society, with all the problems, hopes, and fears associated with human beings.
Anarchists do not think that human beings need to be "perfect" for anarchy to
work. They only need to be free. Thus Christie and Meltzer:
@@ -2688,9 +2343,7 @@ labour from its service, the prejudices of authoritarianism will disappear.
There is no cure for them other than the free process of education."_ [**The
Floodgates of Anarchy**, pp. 36-7]
-
-
- Obviously, though, we think that a free society will produce people who are
+Obviously, though, we think that a free society will produce people who are
more in tune with both their own and others individuality and needs, thus
reducing individual conflict. Remaining disputes would be solved by reasonable
methods, for example, the use of juries, mutual third parties, or community
@@ -2698,9 +2351,7 @@ and workplace assemblies (see [section I.5.8](secI5.html#seci58) for a
discussion of how could be done for anti-social activities as well as
disputes).
-
-
- Like the "anarchism-is-against-human-nature" argument (see [section
+Like the "anarchism-is-against-human-nature" argument (see [section
A.2.15](secA2.html#seca215)), opponents of anarchism usually assume "perfect"
people -- people who are not corrupted by power when placed in positions of
authority, people who are strangely unaffected by the distorting effects of
@@ -2708,21 +2359,16 @@ hierarchy, privilege, and so forth. However, anarchists make no such claims
about human perfection. We simply recognise that vesting power in the hands of
one person or an elite is never a good idea, as people are not perfect.
+It should be noted that the idea that anarchism requires a "new" (perfect) man
+or woman is often raised by the opponents of anarchism to discredit it (and,
+usually, to justify the retention of hierarchical authority, particularly
+capitalist relations of production). After all, people are not perfect and are
+unlikely ever to be. As such, they pounce on every example of a government
+falling and the resulting chaos to dismiss anarchism as unrealistic. The media
+loves to proclaim a country to be falling into "anarchy" whenever there is a
+disruption in "law and order" and looting takes place.
-
- It should be noted that the idea that anarchism requires a "new" (perfect)
-man or woman is often raised by the opponents of anarchism to discredit it
-(and, usually, to justify the retention of hierarchical authority,
-particularly capitalist relations of production). After all, people are not
-perfect and are unlikely ever to be. As such, they pounce on every example of
-a government falling and the resulting chaos to dismiss anarchism as
-unrealistic. The media loves to proclaim a country to be falling into
-"anarchy" whenever there is a disruption in "law and order" and looting takes
-place.
-
-
-
- Anarchists are not impressed by this argument. A moment's reflection shows
+Anarchists are not impressed by this argument. A moment's reflection shows
why, for the detractors make the basic mistake of assuming an anarchist
society without anarchists! (A variation of such claims is raised by the
right-wing "anarcho"-capitalists to discredit real anarchism. However, their
@@ -2739,9 +2385,7 @@ useless for some liberator to cut off the head of tyranny; the people will
create another, for they have grown accustomed to rely on something outside
themselves."_ [George Barrett, **Objections to Anarchism**, p. 355]
-
-
- Hence Alexander Berkman:
+Hence Alexander Berkman:
> _ "Our social institutions are founded on certain ideas; as long as the
latter are generally believed, the institutions built on them are safe.
@@ -2751,9 +2395,7 @@ system is considered adequate and just. The weakening of the ideas which
support the evil and oppressive present day conditions means the ultimate
breakdown of government and capitalism."_ [**What is Anarchism?**, p. xii]
-
-
- In other words, anarchy needs **_anarchists_** in order to be created and
+In other words, anarchy needs **_anarchists_** in order to be created and
survive. But these anarchists need not be perfect, just people who have freed
themselves, by their own efforts, of the superstition that command-and-
obedience relations and capitalist property rights are necessary. The implicit
@@ -2770,9 +2412,7 @@ creates people capable of taking the responsibility for their own lives,
communities and planet. People capable of living as equals in a free society,
so making anarchy possible.
-
-
- As such, the chaos which often results when a government disappears is not
+As such, the chaos which often results when a government disappears is not
anarchy nor, in fact, a case against anarchism. It simple means that the
necessary preconditions for creating an anarchist society do not exist.
Anarchy would be the product of collective struggle at the heart of society,
@@ -2783,9 +2423,7 @@ function will evolve over time in the light of experience and objective
circumstances, not appear in a perfect form immediately (see [section
H.2.5](secH2.html#sech25) for a discussion of Marxist claims otherwise).
-
-
- Therefore, anarchists do not conclude that "perfect" people are necessary
+Therefore, anarchists do not conclude that "perfect" people are necessary
anarchism to work because the anarchist is _"no liberator with a divine
mission to free humanity, but he is a part of that humanity struggling onwards
towards liberty."_ As such, _"[i]f, then, by some external means an Anarchist
@@ -2796,9 +2434,7 @@ themselves get rid of the last stronghold of tyranny --- the government --
then indeed the revolution will be permanently accomplished."_ [George
Barrett, **Op. Cit.**, p. 355]
-
-
- This is not to suggest that an anarchist society must wait until
+This is not to suggest that an anarchist society must wait until
**_everyone_** is an anarchist. Far from it. It is highly unlikely, for
example, that the rich and powerful will suddenly see the errors of their ways
and voluntarily renounce their privileges. Faced with a large and growing
@@ -2811,29 +2447,25 @@ to defend itself against attempts to recreate authority (see [ section
H.2.1](secH2.html#sech21) for a refutation of Marxist claims anarchists reject
the need to defend an anarchist society against counter-revolution).
-
-
- Instead anarchists argue that we should focus our activity on convincing
-those subject to oppression and exploitation that they have the power to
-resist both and, ultimately, can end both by destroying the social
-institutions that cause them. As Malatesta argued, _"we need the support of
-the masses to build a force of sufficient strength to achieve our specific
-task of radical change in the social organism by the direct action of the
-masses, we must get closer to them, accept them as they are, and from within
-their ranks seek to 'push' them forward as much as possible."_ [**Errico
-Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, pp. 155-6] This would create the conditions
-that make possible a rapid evolution towards anarchism as what was initially
-accepted by a minority _"but increasingly finding popular expression, will
-make its way among the mass of the people"_ and _"the minority will become the
-People, the great mass, and that mass rising up against property and the
-State, will march forward towards anarchist communism."_ [Kropotkin, **Words
-of a Rebel**, p. 75] Hence the importance anarchists attach to spreading our
-ideas and arguing the case for anarchism. This creates conscious anarchists
-from those questioning the injustices of capitalism and the state.
-
-
-
- This process is helped by the nature of hierarchical society and the
+Instead anarchists argue that we should focus our activity on convincing those
+subject to oppression and exploitation that they have the power to resist both
+and, ultimately, can end both by destroying the social institutions that cause
+them. As Malatesta argued, _"we need the support of the masses to build a
+force of sufficient strength to achieve our specific task of radical change in
+the social organism by the direct action of the masses, we must get closer to
+them, accept them as they are, and from within their ranks seek to 'push' them
+forward as much as possible."_ [**Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, pp.
+155-6] This would create the conditions that make possible a rapid evolution
+towards anarchism as what was initially accepted by a minority _"but
+increasingly finding popular expression, will make its way among the mass of
+the people"_ and _"the minority will become the People, the great mass, and
+that mass rising up against property and the State, will march forward towards
+anarchist communism."_ [Kropotkin, **Words of a Rebel**, p. 75] Hence the
+importance anarchists attach to spreading our ideas and arguing the case for
+anarchism. This creates conscious anarchists from those questioning the
+injustices of capitalism and the state.
+
+This process is helped by the nature of hierarchical society and the
resistance it naturally developed in those subject to it. Anarchist ideas
develop spontaneously through struggle. As we discuss in [section
I.2.3](secI2.html#seci23), anarchistic organisations are often created as part
@@ -2857,9 +2489,7 @@ anarchy, or taken a step towards anarchy."_ For anarchy _"cannot be imposed
against the wishes of the people."_ [Malatesta, **Op. Cit.**, p. 159 and p.
163]
-
-
- So, to conclude, the creation of an anarchist society is not dependent on
+So, to conclude, the creation of an anarchist society is not dependent on
people being perfect but it is dependent on a large majority being anarchists
and wanting to reorganise society in a libertarian manner. This will not
eliminate conflict between individuals nor create a fully formed anarchist
@@ -2867,26 +2497,20 @@ humanity overnight but it will lay the ground for the gradual elimination of
whatever prejudices and anti-social behaviour that remain after the struggle
to change society has revolutionised those doing it.
+## A.2.17 Aren't most people too stupid for a free society to work?
-
- ## A.2.17 Aren't most people too stupid for a free society to work?
-
-
-
- We are sorry to have to include this question in an anarchist FAQ, but we
-know that many political ideologies explicitly assume that ordinary people are
-too stupid to be able to manage their own lives and run society. All aspects
-of the capitalist political agenda, from Left to Right, contain people who
-make this claim. Be it Leninists, fascists, Fabians or Objectivists, it is
-assumed that only a select few are creative and intelligent and that these
-people should govern others. Usually, this elitism is masked by fine, flowing
+We are sorry to have to include this question in an anarchist FAQ, but we know
+that many political ideologies explicitly assume that ordinary people are too
+stupid to be able to manage their own lives and run society. All aspects of
+the capitalist political agenda, from Left to Right, contain people who make
+this claim. Be it Leninists, fascists, Fabians or Objectivists, it is assumed
+that only a select few are creative and intelligent and that these people
+should govern others. Usually, this elitism is masked by fine, flowing
rhetoric about "freedom," "democracy" and other platitudes with which the
ideologues attempt to dull people's critical thought by telling them want they
want to hear.
-
-
- It is, of course, also no surprise that those who believe in "natural" elites
+It is, of course, also no surprise that those who believe in "natural" elites
always class themselves at the top. We have yet to discover an "objectivist",
for example, who considers themselves part of the great mass of "second-
handers" (it is always amusing to hear people who simply parrot the ideas of
@@ -2896,9 +2520,7 @@ consider him or herself to be part of the "select few." It's "natural" in an
elitist society to consider elites to be natural and yourself a potential
member of one!
-
-
- Examination of history shows that there is a basic elitist ideology which has
+Examination of history shows that there is a basic elitist ideology which has
been the essential rationalisation of all states and ruling classes since
their emergence at the beginning of the Bronze Age (_"if the legacy of
domination had had any broader purpose than the support of hierarchical and
@@ -2907,9 +2529,7 @@ competence from social discourse itself."_ [Bookchin, **The Ecology of
Freedom**, p. 206]). This ideology merely changes its outer garments, not its
basic inner content over time.
-
-
- During the Dark Ages, for example, it was coloured by Christianity, being
+During the Dark Ages, for example, it was coloured by Christianity, being
adapted to the needs of the Church hierarchy. The most useful "divinely
revealed" dogma to the priestly elite was "original sin": the notion that
human beings are basically depraved and incompetent creatures who need
@@ -2918,9 +2538,7 @@ between ordinary humans and "God." The idea that average people are basically
stupid and thus incapable of governing themselves is a carry over from this
doctrine, a relic of the Dark Ages.
-
-
- In reply to all those who claim that most people are "second-handers" or
+In reply to all those who claim that most people are "second-handers" or
cannot develop anything more than "trade union consciousness," all we can say
is that it is an absurdity that cannot withstand even a superficial look at
history, particularly the labour movement. The creative powers of those
@@ -2944,9 +2562,7 @@ politics, culture and everything else. Once you drain the vitality from people
at work, they'll likely submit to hierarchy and expertise in everything.
They're used to it." _[**The Abolition of Work and other essays**, pp. 21-2]
-
-
- When elitists try to conceive of liberation, they can only think of it being
+When elitists try to conceive of liberation, they can only think of it being
**given** to the oppressed by kind (for Leninists) or stupid (for
Objectivists) elites. It is hardly surprising, then, that it fails. Only self-
liberation can produce a free society. The crushing and distorting effects of
@@ -2954,16 +2570,12 @@ authority can only be overcome by self-activity. The few examples of such
self-liberation prove that most people, once considered incapable of freedom
by others, are more than up for the task.
-
-
- Those who proclaim their "superiority" often do so out of fear that their
+Those who proclaim their "superiority" often do so out of fear that their
authority and power will be destroyed once people free themselves from the
debilitating hands of authority and come to realise that, in the words of Max
Stirner, _"the great are great only because we are on our knees. Let us rise"_
-
-
- As Emma Goldman remarks about women's equality, _"[t]he extraordinary
+As Emma Goldman remarks about women's equality, _"[t]he extraordinary
achievements of women in every walk of life have silenced forever the loose
talk of women's inferiority. Those who still cling to this fetish do so
because they hate nothing so much as to see their authority challenged. This
@@ -2973,9 +2585,7 @@ everywhere she is going ahead with free, large strides."_ [**Vision on Fire**,
p. 256] The same comments are applicable, for example, to the very successful
experiments in workers' self-management during the Spanish Revolution.
-
-
- Then, of course, the notion that people are too stupid for anarchism to work
+Then, of course, the notion that people are too stupid for anarchism to work
also backfires on those who argue it. Take, for example, those who use this
argument to advocate democratic government rather than anarchy. Democracy, as
Luigi Galleani noted, means _"acknowledging the right and the competence of
@@ -2990,12 +2600,10 @@ them? And how will they be able to solve this problem of social alchemy, of
producing the election of a genius from the votes of a mass of fools?"_
[Malatesta, **Anarchy**, pp. 53-4]
-
-
- As for those who consider dictatorship as the solution to human stupidity,
-the question arises why are these dictators immune to this apparently
-universal human trait? And, as Malatesta noted, _"who are the best? And who
-will recognise these qualities in them?"_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 53] If they impose
+As for those who consider dictatorship as the solution to human stupidity, the
+question arises why are these dictators immune to this apparently universal
+human trait? And, as Malatesta noted, _"who are the best? And who will
+recognise these qualities in them?"_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 53] If they impose
themselves on the "stupid" masses, why assume they will not exploit and
oppress the many for their own benefit? Or, for that matter, that they are any
more intelligent than the masses? The history of dictatorial and monarchical
@@ -3014,9 +2622,7 @@ consider them fundamentally as the _"uncivilised hordes"_? You cannot have it
both ways and the _"unknown ideal"_ of pure capitalism would be as grubby,
oppressive and alienating as "actually existing" capitalism.
-
-
- As such, anarchists are firmly convinced that arguments against anarchy based
+As such, anarchists are firmly convinced that arguments against anarchy based
on the lack of ability of the mass of people are inherently self-contradictory
(when not blatantly self-servicing). If people are too stupid for anarchism
then they are too stupid for any system you care to mention. Ultimately,
@@ -3030,17 +2636,11 @@ their independence, I feel that it does not behove slaves to reason about
freedom."_ [quoted by Noam Chomsky, **Marxism, Anarchism, and Alternative
Futures**, p. 780]
+## A.2.18 Do anarchists support terrorism?
+No. This is for three reasons.
- ## A.2.18 Do anarchists support terrorism?
-
-
-
- No. This is for three reasons.
-
-
-
- Terrorism means either targeting or not worrying about killing innocent
+Terrorism means either targeting or not worrying about killing innocent
people. For anarchy to exist, it must be created by the mass of people. One
does not convince people of one's ideas by blowing them up. Secondly,
anarchism is about self-liberation. One cannot blow up a social relationship.
@@ -3060,9 +2660,7 @@ anarchist society. The history of, say, the Russian Revolution, confirmed
Kropotkin's insight that _"[v]ery sad would be the future revolution if it
could only triumph by terror."_ [quoted by Millar, **Op. Cit.**, p. 175]
-
-
- Moreover anarchists are **not** against individuals but the institutions and
+Moreover anarchists are **not** against individuals but the institutions and
social relationships that cause certain individuals to have power over others
and abuse (i.e. use) that power. Therefore the anarchist revolution is about
destroying structures, not people. As Bakunin pointed out, _"we wish not to
@@ -3074,9 +2672,7 @@ other words, **_"You can't blow up a social relationship"_** (to quote the
title of an anarchist pamphlet which presents the anarchist case against
terrorism).
-
-
- How is it, then, that anarchism is associated with violence? Partly this is
+How is it, then, that anarchism is associated with violence? Partly this is
because the state and media insist on referring to terrorists who are **not**
anarchists as anarchists. For example, the German Baader-Meinhoff gang were
often called "anarchists" despite their self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninism.
@@ -3086,9 +2682,7 @@ a great number of [violent] acts, for which Anarchists had to suffer, either
originated with the capitalist press or were instigated, if not directly
perpetrated, by the police."_ [**Red Emma Speaks**, p. 262]
-
-
- An example of this process at work can be seen from the current anti-
+An example of this process at work can be seen from the current anti-
globalisation movement. In Seattle, for example, the media reported "violence"
by protestors (particularly anarchist ones) yet this amounted to a few broken
windows. The much greater **actual** violence of the police against protestors
@@ -3102,9 +2696,7 @@ is 'violence,' then give me a new word, a word a thousand times stronger, to
use when the cops are beating non-resisting people into comas."_ [**Staying on
the Streets**, p. 130]
-
-
- Similarly, at the Genoa protests in 2001 the mainstream media presented the
+Similarly, at the Genoa protests in 2001 the mainstream media presented the
protestors as violent even though it was the state who killed one of them and
hospitalised many thousands more. The presence of police agent provocateurs in
creating the violence was unmentioned by the media. As Starhawk noted
@@ -3118,9 +2710,7 @@ had no fear of repercussions and expected political protection from the
highest sources."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 128-9] This was, unsurprisingly, not
reported by the media.
-
-
- Subsequent protests have seen the media indulge in yet more anti-anarchist
+Subsequent protests have seen the media indulge in yet more anti-anarchist
hype, inventing stories to present anarchists are hate-filled individuals
planning mass violence. For example, in Ireland in 2004 the media reported
that anarchists were planning to use poison gas during EU related celebrations
@@ -3138,16 +2728,12 @@ repression by, the police against demonstrators which occurred at these
events. Neither did they run apologies after their (evidence-less) stories of
doom were exposed as the nonsense they were by subsequent events.
-
-
- This does not mean that Anarchists have not committed acts of violence. They
+This does not mean that Anarchists have not committed acts of violence. They
have (as have members of other political and religious movements). The main
reason for the association of terrorism with anarchism is because of the
**_"propaganda by the deed"_** period in the anarchist movement.
-
-
- This period -- roughly from 1880 to 1900 -- was marked by a small number of
+This period -- roughly from 1880 to 1900 -- was marked by a small number of
anarchists assassinating members of the ruling class (royalty, politicians and
so forth). At its worse, this period saw theatres and shops frequented by
members of the bourgeoisie targeted. These acts were termed _"propaganda by
@@ -3160,9 +2746,7 @@ revenge for acts of repression directed towards working class people; and
secondly, as a means to encourage people to revolt by showing that their
oppressors could be defeated.
-
-
- Considering these reasons it is no coincidence that propaganda by the deed
+Considering these reasons it is no coincidence that propaganda by the deed
began in France after the 20 000-plus deaths due to the French state's brutal
suppression of the Paris Commune, in which many anarchists were killed. It is
interesting to note that while the anarchist violence in revenge for the
@@ -3170,13 +2754,11 @@ Commune is relatively well known, the state's mass murder of the Communards is
relatively unknown. Similarly, it may be known that the Italian Anarchist
Gaetano Bresci assassinated King Umberto of Italy in 1900 or that Alexander
Berkman tried to kill Carnegie Steel Corporation manager Henry Clay Frick in
-1892\. What is often unknown is that Umberto's troops had fired upon and
-killed protesting peasants or that Frick's Pinkertons had also murdered
-locked-out workers at Homestead.
+1892. What is often unknown is that Umberto's troops had fired upon and killed
+protesting peasants or that Frick's Pinkertons had also murdered locked-out
+workers at Homestead.
-
-
- Such downplaying of statist and capitalist violence is hardly surprising.
+Such downplaying of statist and capitalist violence is hardly surprising.
_"The State's behaviour is violence,"_ points out Max Stirner, _"and it calls
its violence 'law'; that of the individual, 'crime.'"_ [**The Ego and Its
Own**, p. 197] Little wonder, then, that anarchist violence is condemned but
@@ -3188,9 +2770,7 @@ through violence, which maintain themselves in power through violence, and
which use violence constantly to keep down rebellion and to bully other
nations."_ [Howard Zinn, **The Zinn Reader**, p. 652]
-
-
- We can get a feel of the hypocrisy surrounding condemnation of anarchist
+We can get a feel of the hypocrisy surrounding condemnation of anarchist
violence by non-anarchists by considering their response to state violence.
For example, many capitalist papers and individuals in the 1920s and 1930s
celebrated Fascism as well as Mussolini and Hitler. Anarchists, in contrast,
@@ -3210,9 +2790,7 @@ state and its actions yet people do not see the obvious and _"deplore the type
of violence that the state deplores, and applaud the violence that the state
practises."_ [Christie and Meltzer, **The Floodgates of Anarchy**, p. 132]
-
-
- It must be noted that the majority of anarchists did not support this tactic.
+It must be noted that the majority of anarchists did not support this tactic.
Of those who committed "propaganda by the deed" (sometimes called
_"attentats"_), as Murray Bookchin points out, only a _"few . . . were members
of Anarchist groups. The majority . . . were soloists."_ [**The Spanish
@@ -3222,9 +2800,7 @@ blaming Bakunin for such acts even though he had been dead years before the
tactic was even discussed in anarchist circles or by labelling non-anarchist
groups anarchists!).
-
-
- All in all, the "propaganda by the deed" phase of anarchism was a failure, as
+All in all, the "propaganda by the deed" phase of anarchism was a failure, as
the vast majority of anarchists soon came to see. Kropotkin can be considered
typical. He _"never liked the slogan **propaganda by deed**, and did not use
it to describe his own ideas of revolutionary action."_ However, in 1879 while
@@ -3244,9 +2820,7 @@ response to the state murder of anarchists involved in the Jerez uprising of
1892 and Emile Henry's bombing of a cafe in response to state repression) and
partly due to the awareness that it was hindering the anarchist cause.
-
-
- Kropotkin recognised that the _"spate of terrorist acts"_ of the 1880s had
+Kropotkin recognised that the _"spate of terrorist acts"_ of the 1880s had
caused _"the authorities into taking repressive action against the movement"_
and were _"not in his view consistent with the anarchist ideal and did little
or nothing to promote popular revolt."_ In addition, he was _"anxious about
@@ -3262,9 +2836,7 @@ struggle and, therefore, _"Kropotkin always insisted on the importance of the
labour movement in the struggles leading up to the revolution."_ [**Op.
Cit.**, pp. 205-6, p. 208 and p. 280]
-
-
- Kropotkin was not alone. More and more anarchists came to see "propaganda by
+Kropotkin was not alone. More and more anarchists came to see "propaganda by
the deed" as giving the state an excuse to clamp down on both the anarchist
and labour movements. Moreover, it gave the media (and opponents of anarchism)
a chance to associate anarchism with mindless violence, thus alienating much
@@ -3273,10 +2845,8 @@ every opportunity, regardless of the facts (for example, even though
Individualist Anarchists rejected "propaganda by the deed" totally, they were
also smeared by the press as "violent" and "terrorists").
-
-
- In addition, as Kropotkin pointed out, the assumption behind propaganda by
-the deed, i.e. that everyone was waiting for a chance to rebel, was false. In
+In addition, as Kropotkin pointed out, the assumption behind propaganda by the
+deed, i.e. that everyone was waiting for a chance to rebel, was false. In
fact, people are products of the system in which they live; hence they
accepted most of the myths used to keep that system going. With the failure of
propaganda by deed, anarchists turned back to what most of the movement had
@@ -3305,9 +2875,7 @@ among the people and to win them over to our ideas by actively taking part in
their struggles and sufferings."_ [Errico Malatesta, _"The Duties of the
Present Hour"_, pp. 181-3, **Anarchism**, Robert Graham (ed.), pp. 180-1]
-
-
- Despite most anarchists' tactical disagreement with propaganda by deed, few
+Despite most anarchists' tactical disagreement with propaganda by deed, few
would consider it to be terrorism or rule out assassination under all
circumstances. Bombing a village during a war because there **might** be an
enemy in it is terrorism, whereas assassinating a murdering dictator or head
@@ -3322,9 +2890,7 @@ vast majority of "propaganda by the deed" acts were directed towards
individuals of the ruling class, such as Presidents and Royalty, and were the
result of previous acts of state and capitalist violence.
-
-
- So "terrorist" acts have been committed by anarchists. This is a fact.
+So "terrorist" acts have been committed by anarchists. This is a fact.
However, it has nothing to do with anarchism as a socio-political theory. As
Emma Goldman argued, it was _"not Anarchism, as such, but the brutal slaughter
of the eleven steel workers [that] was the urge for Alexander Berkman's act."_
@@ -3343,9 +2909,7 @@ but in the depths of . . . human nature itself. The whole course of history,
political and social, is strewn with evidence of this."_ [quoted by Emma
Goldman, **Op. Cit.**, p. 259]
-
-
- Terrorism has been used by many other political, social and religious groups
+Terrorism has been used by many other political, social and religious groups
and parties. For example, Christians, Marxists, Hindus, Nationalists,
Republicans, Moslems, Sikhs, Fascists, Jews and Patriots have all committed
acts of terrorism. Few of these movements or ideas have been labelled as
@@ -3355,16 +2919,12 @@ discredit and marginalise an idea than for malicious and/or ill-informed
persons to portray those who believe and practice it as "mad bombers" with no
opinions or ideals at all, just an insane urge to destroy.
-
-
- Of course, the vast majority of Christians and so on have opposed terrorism
-as morally repugnant and counter-productive. As have the vast majority of
+Of course, the vast majority of Christians and so on have opposed terrorism as
+morally repugnant and counter-productive. As have the vast majority of
anarchists, at all times and places. However, it seems that in our case it is
necessary to state our opposition to terrorism time and time again.
-
-
- So, to summarise - only a small minority of terrorists have ever been
+So, to summarise - only a small minority of terrorists have ever been
anarchists, and only a small minority of anarchists have ever been terrorists.
The anarchist movement as a whole has always recognised that social
relationships cannot be assassinated or bombed out of existence. Compared to
@@ -3373,32 +2933,24 @@ ocean. Unfortunately most people remember the acts of the few anarchists who
have committed violence rather than the acts of violence and repression by the
state and capital that prompted those acts.
+## A.2.19 What ethical views do anarchists hold?
-
- ## A.2.19 What ethical views do anarchists hold?
-
-
-
- Anarchist viewpoints on ethics vary considerably, although all share a common
+Anarchist viewpoints on ethics vary considerably, although all share a common
belief in the need for an individual to develop within themselves their own
sense of ethics. All anarchists agree with Max Stirner that an individual must
free themselves from the confines of existing morality and question that
morality -- _"I decide whether it is the **right thing** for me; there is no
right **outside** me."_ [**The Ego and Its Own**, p. 189]
+Few anarchists, however, would go so far as Stirner and reject **any** concept
+of social ethics at all (saying that, Stirner does value some universal
+concepts although they are egoistic ones). Such extreme moral relativism is
+almost as bad as moral absolutism for most anarchists (moral relativism is the
+view that there is no right or wrong beyond what suits an individual while
+moral absolutism is that view that what is right and wrong is independent of
+what individuals think).
-
- Few anarchists, however, would go so far as Stirner and reject **any**
-concept of social ethics at all (saying that, Stirner does value some
-universal concepts although they are egoistic ones). Such extreme moral
-relativism is almost as bad as moral absolutism for most anarchists (moral
-relativism is the view that there is no right or wrong beyond what suits an
-individual while moral absolutism is that view that what is right and wrong is
-independent of what individuals think).
-
-
-
- It is often claimed that modern society is breaking up because of excessive
+It is often claimed that modern society is breaking up because of excessive
"egoism" or moral relativism. This is false. As far as moral relativism goes,
this is a step forward from the moral absolutism urged upon society by various
Moralists and true-believers because it bases itself, however slimly, upon the
@@ -3406,9 +2958,7 @@ idea of individual reason. However, as it denies the existence (or
desirability) of ethics it is but the mirror image of what it is rebelling
against. Neither option empowers the individual or is liberating.
-
-
- Consequently, both of these attitudes hold enormous attraction to
+Consequently, both of these attitudes hold enormous attraction to
authoritarians, as a populace that is either unable to form an opinion about
things (and will tolerate anything) or who blindly follow the commands of the
ruling elite are of great value to those in power. Both are rejected by most
@@ -3423,9 +2973,7 @@ common feelings of right and wrong. As Proudhon argued:
denunciation of some abuse; each new idea is based upon the proved
insufficiency of the old idea."_
-
-
- Most anarchists take the viewpoint that ethical standards, like life itself,
+Most anarchists take the viewpoint that ethical standards, like life itself,
are in a constant process of evolution. This leads them to reject the various
notions of _"God's Law,"_ _"Natural Law,"_ and so on in favour of a theory of
ethical development based upon the idea that individuals are entirely
@@ -3437,9 +2985,7 @@ expressed this radical scepticism as so:
> _"No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will
save the world. I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker."_
-
-
- Any system of ethics which is not based on individual questioning can only be
+Any system of ethics which is not based on individual questioning can only be
authoritarian. Erich Fromm explains why:
> _ "Formally, authoritarian ethics denies man's capacity to know what is good
@@ -3453,26 +2999,20 @@ primarily in terms of the interests of the authority, not the interests of the
subject; it is exploitative, although the subject may derive considerable
benefits, psychic or material, from it."_ [**Man For Himself**, p. 10]
-
-
- Therefore Anarchists take, essentially, a scientific approach to problems.
+Therefore Anarchists take, essentially, a scientific approach to problems.
Anarchists arrive at ethical judgements without relying on the mythology of
spiritual aid, but on the merits of their own minds. This is done through
logic and reason, and is a far better route to resolving moral questions than
obsolete, authoritarian systems like orthodox religion and certainly better
than the "there is no wrong or right" of moral relativism.
-
-
- So, what are the source of ethical concepts? For Kropotkin, _"nature has thus
+So, what are the source of ethical concepts? For Kropotkin, _"nature has thus
to be recognised as the **first ethical teacher of man.** The social instinct,
innate in men as well as in all the social animals, - this is the origin of
all ethical conceptions and all subsequent development of morality."_
[**Ethics**, p. 45]
-
-
- Life, in other words, is the basis of anarchist ethics. This means that,
+Life, in other words, is the basis of anarchist ethics. This means that,
essentially (according to anarchists), an individual's ethical viewpoints are
derived from three basic sources:
@@ -3483,7 +3023,9 @@ their social life assumed at a given time in a given locality . . . this
teachings of the given epoch."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 315] In other words,
experience of life and of living.
-2) A critical evaluation by individuals of their society's ethical norms, as
+>
+
+> 2) A critical evaluation by individuals of their society's ethical norms, as
indicated above. This is the core of Erich Fromm's argument that _"Man must
accept the responsibility for himself and the fact that only using his own
powers can he give meaning to his life . . .**there is no meaning to life
@@ -3491,14 +3033,14 @@ except the meaning man gives his life by the unfolding of his powers, by
living productively.**"_ [**Man for Himself**, p. 45] In other words,
individual thought and development.
-3) The feeling of empathy - _"the true origin of the moral sentiment . . .
+>
+
+> 3) The feeling of empathy - _"the true origin of the moral sentiment . . .
[is] simply in the feeling of sympathy."_ [_"Anarchist Morality"_,
**Anarchism**, p. 94] In other words, an individual's ability to feel and
share experiences and concepts with others.
-
-
- This last factor is very important for the development of a sense of ethics.
+This last factor is very important for the development of a sense of ethics.
As Kropotkin argued, _"[t]he more powerful your imagination, the better you
can picture to yourself what any being feels when it is made to suffer, and
the more intense and delicate will your moral sense be. . . And the more you
@@ -3507,33 +3049,25 @@ of your own thought and your imagination, to **act** as your own thought and
imagination urge, the more will the moral sentiment grow in you, the more will
it became habitual."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 95]
-
-
- So, anarchism is based (essentially) upon the ethical maxim _"treat others as
+So, anarchism is based (essentially) upon the ethical maxim _"treat others as
you would like them to treat you under similar circumstances."_ Anarchists are
neither egoists nor altruists when it come to moral stands, they are simply
**human.**
-
-
- As Kropotkin noted, _"egoism"_ and _"altruism"_ both have their roots in the
+As Kropotkin noted, _"egoism"_ and _"altruism"_ both have their roots in the
same motive -- _"however great the difference between the two actions in their
result of humanity, the motive is the same. It is the quest for pleasure."_
[**Op. Cit.**, p. 85]
+For anarchists, a person's sense of ethics must be developed by themselves and
+requires the full use of an individual's mental abilities as part of a social
+grouping, as part of a community. As capitalism and other forms of authority
+weaken the individual's imagination and reduce the number of outlets for them
+to exercise their reason under the dead weight of hierarchy as well as
+disrupting community, little wonder that life under capitalism is marked by a
+stark disregard for others and lack of ethical behaviour.
-
- For anarchists, a person's sense of ethics must be developed by themselves
-and requires the full use of an individual's mental abilities as part of a
-social grouping, as part of a community. As capitalism and other forms of
-authority weaken the individual's imagination and reduce the number of outlets
-for them to exercise their reason under the dead weight of hierarchy as well
-as disrupting community, little wonder that life under capitalism is marked by
-a stark disregard for others and lack of ethical behaviour.
-
-
-
- Combined with these factors is the role played by inequality within society.
+Combined with these factors is the role played by inequality within society.
Without equality, there can be no real ethics for _"Justice implies Equality.
. . only those who consider **others** as their **equals** can obey the rule:
'Do not do to others what you do not wish them to do to you.' A serf-owner and
@@ -3546,13 +3080,9 @@ the sense of justice can never be universally developed, because **Justice
implies the recognition of Equality.**"_ [Peter Kropotkin, **Evolution and
Environment**, p. 88 and p. 79]
+Capitalism, like any society, gets the ethical behaviour it deserves..
-
- Capitalism, like any society, gets the ethical behaviour it deserves..
-
-
-
- In a society which moves between moral relativism and absolutism it is little
+In a society which moves between moral relativism and absolutism it is little
wonder that egoism becomes confused with egotism. By disempowering individuals
from developing their own ethical ideas and instead encouraging blind
obedience to external authority (and so moral relativism once individuals
@@ -3567,9 +3097,7 @@ people are **too much concerned with their self-interest,** but that they are
that they are too selfish, but that they do not love themselves.**"_ [**Man
for Himself**, p. 139]
-
-
- Therefore, strictly speaking, anarchism is based upon an egoistic frame of
+Therefore, strictly speaking, anarchism is based upon an egoistic frame of
reference - ethical ideas must be an expression of what gives us pleasure as a
whole individual (both rational and emotional, reason and empathy). This leads
all anarchists to reject the false division between egoism and altruism and
@@ -3591,17 +3119,13 @@ habits of work in common, and of mutual aid in general, leads to a series of
beneficial consequences in the family as well as society."_ [**Ethics**, pp.
307-8]
-
-
- Therefore anarchism is based upon the rejection of moral absolutism (i.e.
+Therefore anarchism is based upon the rejection of moral absolutism (i.e.
_"God's Law,"_ _"Natural Law,"_ _"Man's Nature,"_ _"A is A"_) and the narrow
egotism which moral relativism so easily lends itself to. Instead, anarchists
recognise that there exists concepts of right and wrong which exist outside of
an individual's evaluation of their own acts.
-
-
- This is because of the social nature of humanity. The interactions between
+This is because of the social nature of humanity. The interactions between
individuals do develop into a social maxim which, according to Kropotkin, can
be summarised as _"[i]s it useful to society? Then it is good. Is it hurtful?
Then it is bad."_ Which acts human beings think of as right or wrong is not,
@@ -3609,31 +3133,23 @@ however, unchanging and the _"estimate of what is useful or harmful . . .
changes, but the foundation remains the same."_ [_"Anarchist Morality"_, **Op.
Cit.**, p. 91 and p. 92]
-
-
- This sense of empathy, based upon a critical mind, is the fundamental basis
-of social ethics - the 'what-should-be' can be seen as an ethical criterion
-for the truth or validity of an objective 'what-is.' So, while recognising the
+This sense of empathy, based upon a critical mind, is the fundamental basis of
+social ethics - the 'what-should-be' can be seen as an ethical criterion for
+the truth or validity of an objective 'what-is.' So, while recognising the
root of ethics in nature, anarchists consider ethics as fundamentally a
**human** idea - the product of life, thought and evolution created by
individuals and generalised by social living and community.
-
-
- So what, for anarchists, is unethical behaviour? Essentially anything that
+So what, for anarchists, is unethical behaviour? Essentially anything that
denies the most precious achievement of history: the liberty, uniqueness and
dignity of the individual.
-
-
- Individuals can see what actions are unethical because, due to empathy, they
+Individuals can see what actions are unethical because, due to empathy, they
can place themselves into the position of those suffering the behaviour. Acts
which restrict individuality can be considered unethical for two
(interrelated) reasons.
-
-
- Firstly, the protection and development of individuality in all enriches the
+Firstly, the protection and development of individuality in all enriches the
life of every individual and it gives pleasure to individuals because of the
diversity it produces. This egoist basis of ethics reinforces the second
(social) reason, namely that individuality is good for society for it enriches
@@ -3647,17 +3163,13 @@ potentiality for separate action . . .he can develop - develop in the only
real meaning of the word - develop in consciousness of strength, vitality, and
joy."_ [_"The Philosophy of Anarchism,"_ **Anarchy and Order**, p. 37]
-
-
- This defence of individuality is learned from nature. In an ecosystem,
+This defence of individuality is learned from nature. In an ecosystem,
diversity is strength and so biodiversity becomes a source of basic ethical
insight. In its most basic form, it provides a guide to _"help us distinguish
which of our actions serve the thrust of natural evolution and which of them
impede them."_ [Murray Bookchin, **The Ecology of Freedom**, p. 442]
-
-
- So, the ethical concept _"lies in the feeling of sociality, inherent in the
+So, the ethical concept _"lies in the feeling of sociality, inherent in the
entire animal world and in the conceptions of equity, which constitutes one of
the fundamental primary judgements of human reason."_ Therefore anarchists
embrace _"the permanent presence of a **double tendency** \- towards greater
@@ -3666,16 +3178,12 @@ consequent increase of the intensity of life which results in an increase of
happiness for the **individuals**, and in progress - physical, intellectual,
and moral."_ [Kropotkin, **Ethics**, pp. 311-2 and pp. 19-20]
-
-
- Anarchist attitudes to authority, the state, capitalism, private property and
+Anarchist attitudes to authority, the state, capitalism, private property and
so on all come from our ethical belief that the liberty of individuals is of
prime concern and that our ability to empathise with others, to see ourselves
in others (our basic equality and common individuality, in other words).
-
-
- Thus anarchism combines the subjective evaluation by individuals of a given
+Thus anarchism combines the subjective evaluation by individuals of a given
set of circumstances and actions with the drawing of objective interpersonal
conclusions of these evaluations based upon empathic bounds and discussion
between equals. Anarchism is based on a humanistic approach to ethical ideas,
@@ -3686,13 +3194,9 @@ and phenomenon . . . [the different] will be conceived of as individual parts
of a whole all the richer because of its complexity."_ [Murray Bookchin,
**Post Scarcity Anarchism**, p. 82]
+## A.2.20 Why are most anarchists atheists?
-
- ## A.2.20 Why are most anarchists atheists?
-
-
-
- It is a fact that most anarchists are atheists. They reject the idea of god
+It is a fact that most anarchists are atheists. They reject the idea of god
and oppose all forms of religion, particularly organised religion. Today, in
secularised western European countries, religion has lost its once dominant
place in society. This often makes the militant atheism of anarchism seem
@@ -3701,44 +3205,38 @@ importance of libertarian atheism becomes obvious. It is because of the role
of religion and its institutions that anarchists have spent some time refuting
the idea of religion as well as propagandising against it.
-
-
- So why do so many anarchists embrace atheism? The simplest answer is that
-most anarchists are atheists because it is a logical extension of anarchist
-ideas. If anarchism is the rejection of illegitimate authorities, then it
-follows that it is the rejection of the so-called Ultimate Authority, God.
-Anarchism is grounded in reason, logic, and scientific thinking, not religious
-thinking. Anarchists tend to be sceptics, and not believers. Most anarchists
-consider the Church to be steeped in hypocrisy and the Bible a work of
-fiction, riddled with contradictions, absurdities and horrors. It is notorious
-in its debasement of women and its sexism is infamous. Yet men are treated
-little better. Nowhere in the bible is there an acknowledgement that human
-beings have inherent rights to life, liberty, happiness, dignity, fairness, or
-self-government. In the bible, humans are sinners, worms, and slaves
-(figuratively and literally, as it condones slavery). God has all the rights,
-humanity is nothing.
-
-
-
- This is unsurprisingly, given the nature of religion. Bakunin put it best:
+So why do so many anarchists embrace atheism? The simplest answer is that most
+anarchists are atheists because it is a logical extension of anarchist ideas.
+If anarchism is the rejection of illegitimate authorities, then it follows
+that it is the rejection of the so-called Ultimate Authority, God. Anarchism
+is grounded in reason, logic, and scientific thinking, not religious thinking.
+Anarchists tend to be sceptics, and not believers. Most anarchists consider
+the Church to be steeped in hypocrisy and the Bible a work of fiction, riddled
+with contradictions, absurdities and horrors. It is notorious in its
+debasement of women and its sexism is infamous. Yet men are treated little
+better. Nowhere in the bible is there an acknowledgement that human beings
+have inherent rights to life, liberty, happiness, dignity, fairness, or self-
+government. In the bible, humans are sinners, worms, and slaves (figuratively
+and literally, as it condones slavery). God has all the rights, humanity is
+nothing.
+
+This is unsurprisingly, given the nature of religion. Bakunin put it best:
> _ "**The idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it
is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the
-enslavement of mankind, both in theory and in practice.**
-
-"Unless, then, we desire the enslavement and degradation of mankind . . . we
-may not, must not make the slightest concession either to the God of theology
-or to the God of metaphysics. He who, in this mystical alphabet, begins with A
-will inevitably end with Z; he who desires to worship God must harbour no
-childish illusions about the matter, but bravely renounce his liberty and
-humanity.
+enslavement of mankind, both in theory and in practice.**_
-"If God is, man is a slave; now, man can and must be free; then, God does not
-exist."_ [**God and the State**, p. 25]
+> _ "Unless, then, we desire the enslavement and degradation of mankind . . .
+we may not, must not make the slightest concession either to the God of
+theology or to the God of metaphysics. He who, in this mystical alphabet,
+begins with A will inevitably end with Z; he who desires to worship God must
+harbour no childish illusions about the matter, but bravely renounce his
+liberty and humanity._
+> _ "If God is, man is a slave; now, man can and must be free; then, God does
+not exist."_ [**God and the State**, p. 25]
-
- For most anarchists, then, atheism is required due to the nature of religion.
+For most anarchists, then, atheism is required due to the nature of religion.
_"To proclaim as divine all that is grand, just, noble, and beautiful in
humanity,"_ Bakunin argued, _"is to tacitly admit that humanity of itself
would have been unable to produce it -- that is, that, abandoned to itself,
@@ -3751,10 +3249,8 @@ liberty, dignity, and prosperity, we believe it our duty to recover from
heaven the goods which it has stolen and return them to earth."_ [**Op.
Cit.**, p. 37 and p. 36]
-
-
- As well as the theoretical degrading of humanity and its liberty, religion
-has other, more practical, problems with it from an anarchist point of view.
+As well as the theoretical degrading of humanity and its liberty, religion has
+other, more practical, problems with it from an anarchist point of view.
Firstly, religions have been a source of inequality and oppression.
Christianity (like Islam), for example, has always been a force for repression
whenever it holds any political or social sway (believing you have a direct
@@ -3775,9 +3271,7 @@ All men owe them passive and unlimited obedience; for against the divine
reason there is no human reason, and against the justice of God no terrestrial
justice holds."_ [Bakunin, **Op. Cit.**, p. 24]
-
-
- Christianity has only turned tolerant and peace-loving when it is powerless
+Christianity has only turned tolerant and peace-loving when it is powerless
and even then it has continued its role as apologist for the powerful. This is
the second reason why anarchists oppose the church for when not being the
source of oppression, the church has justified it and ensured its
@@ -3790,9 +3284,7 @@ rewarded by god). The bible praises obedience, raising it to a great virtue.
More recent innovations like the Protestant work ethic also contribute to the
subjugation of working people.
-
-
- That religion is used to further the interests of the powerful can quickly be
+That religion is used to further the interests of the powerful can quickly be
seen from most of history. It conditions the oppressed to humbly accept their
place in life by urging the oppressed to be meek and await their reward in
heaven. As Emma Goldman argued, Christianity (like religion in general)
@@ -3801,9 +3293,7 @@ for self-denial and self-abnegation, for penance and regret, and is absolutely
inert in the face of every [in]dignity, every outrage imposed upon mankind."_
[**Red Emma Speaks**, p. 234]
-
-
- Thirdly, religion has always been a conservative force in society. This is
+Thirdly, religion has always been a conservative force in society. This is
unsurprising, as it bases itself not on investigation and analysis of the real
world but rather in repeating the truths handed down from above and contained
in a few holy books. Theism is then _"the theory of speculation"_ while
@@ -3816,25 +3306,19 @@ its pernicious influence upon humanity, its paralysing effect upon thought and
action, which Atheism is fighting with all its power."_ [Emma Goldman, **Op.
Cit.**, p. 243, p. 245 and pp. 246-7]
-
-
- As the Bible says, _"By their fruits shall ye know them."_ We anarchists
-agree but unlike the church we apply this truth to religion as well. That is
-why we are, in the main, atheists. We recognise the destructive role played by
-the Church, and the harmful effects of organised monotheism, particularly
+As the Bible says, _"By their fruits shall ye know them."_ We anarchists agree
+but unlike the church we apply this truth to religion as well. That is why we
+are, in the main, atheists. We recognise the destructive role played by the
+Church, and the harmful effects of organised monotheism, particularly
Christianity, on people. As Goldman summaries, religion _"is the conspiracy of
ignorance against reason, of darkness against light, of submission and slavery
against independence and freedom; of the denial of strength and beauty,
against the affirmation of the joy and glory of life."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 240]
+So, given the fruits of the Church, anarchists argue that it is time to uproot
+it and plant new trees, the trees of reason and liberty.
-
- So, given the fruits of the Church, anarchists argue that it is time to
-uproot it and plant new trees, the trees of reason and liberty.
-
-
-
- That said, anarchists do not deny that religions contain important ethical
+That said, anarchists do not deny that religions contain important ethical
ideas or truths. Moreover, religions can be the base for strong and loving
communities and groups. They can offer a sanctuary from the alienation and
oppression of everyday life and offer a guide to action in a world where
@@ -3846,9 +3330,7 @@ to live a good life as well as apologetics for power. If they did not, the
oppressed would not believe and the powerful would suppress them as dangerous
heresies.
-
-
- And, indeed, repression has been the fate of any group that has preached a
+And, indeed, repression has been the fate of any group that has preached a
radical message. In the middle ages numerous revolutionary Christian movements
and sects were crushed by the earthly powers that be with the firm support of
the mainstream church. During the Spanish Civil War the Catholic church
@@ -3864,9 +3346,7 @@ their outspoken champion. He was assassinated by right-wing paramilitaries in
liberation theology, a radical interpretation of the Gospels which tries to
reconcile socialist ideas and Christian social thinking.
-
-
- Nor does the anarchist case against religion imply that religious people do
+Nor does the anarchist case against religion imply that religious people do
not take part in social struggles to improve society. Far from it. Religious
people, including members of the church hierarchy, played a key role in the US
civil rights movement of the 1960s. The religious belief within Zapata's army
@@ -3882,9 +3362,7 @@ just think that the social role of religion is to dampen down revolt, not
encourage it. The tiny number of radical priests compared to those in the
mainstream or on the right suggests the validity of our analysis.
-
-
- It should be stressed that anarchists, while overwhelmingly hostile to the
+It should be stressed that anarchists, while overwhelmingly hostile to the
idea of the Church and an established religion, do not object to people
practising religious belief on their own or in groups, so long as that
practice doesn't impinge on the liberties of others. For example, a cult that
@@ -3896,9 +3374,7 @@ business, and nobody else's as long as they do not impose those ideas on
others. All we can do is discuss their ideas and try and convince them of
their errors.
-
-
- To end, it should noted that we are not suggesting that atheism is somehow
+To end, it should noted that we are not suggesting that atheism is somehow
mandatory for an anarchist. Far from it. As we discuss in [section
A.3.7](secA3.html#seca37), there are anarchists who do believe in god or some
form of religion. For example, Tolstoy combined libertarian ideas with a
@@ -3911,3 +3387,7 @@ to atheism for, as Emma Goldman put it, _"in its negation of gods is at the
same time the strongest affirmation of man, and through man, the eternal yea
to life, purpose, and beauty."_ [**Red Emma Speaks**, p. 248]
+[‹ A.1 What is anarchism?](/afaq/secA1.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/secAcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [A.3 What types of anarchism are
+there? ›](/afaq/secA3.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secA3.md b/markdown/secA3.md
index b2221428ee71b9b066ce7c681a90d9137f3d3359..767b9d27cb916c368fc691f2ec605fca361cbffc 100644
--- a/markdown/secA3.md
+++ b/markdown/secA3.md
@@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ sanctifies it now. The absolute ownership of it -- 'the right to use or abuse'
-- will be abolished, and possession, use, will be the only title. It will be
seen how impossible it would be for one person to 'own' a million acres of
land, without a title deed, backed by a government ready to protect the title
-at all hazards."_ [Lucy Parsons, **Freedom, Equality & Solidarity**, p. 33
+at all hazards."_ [Lucy Parsons, **Freedom, Equality & Solidarity**, p. 33
However, within this use-rights framework, the two schools of anarchism
propose different systems. The social anarchist generally argues for communal
@@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ labour."_ [Kropotkin, **The Conquest of Bread**, p. 45 and p. 46] By this
social anarchists simply mean that the social product which is produced by all
would be available to all and each individual who has contributed productively
to society can take what they need (how quickly we can reach such an ideal is
-a moot point, as we discuss in [section I.2.2](secI2.html#seci22")). Some
+a moot point, as we discuss in [section I.2.2](secI2.html#seci22%22)). Some
social anarchists, like mutualists for example, are against such a system of
libertarian (or free) communism, but, in general, the vast majority of social
anarchists look forward to the end of money and, therefore, of buying and
@@ -304,12 +304,12 @@ Rather than have "society" control the individual, as the Individualist
Anarchist fears, social anarchism is based on importance of individuality and
individual expression:
-> _"Anarchist Communism maintains that most valuable of all conquests \--
+> _"Anarchist Communism maintains that most valuable of all conquests --
individual liberty -- and moreover extends it and gives it a solid basis --
economic liberty -- without which political liberty is delusive; it does not
ask the individual who has rejected god, the universal tyrant, god the king,
and god the parliament, to give unto himself a god more terrible than any of
-the proceeding \-- god the Community, or to abdicate upon its altar his [or
+the proceeding -- god the Community, or to abdicate upon its altar his [or
her] independence, his [or her] will, his [or her] tastes, and to renew the
vow of asceticism which he formally made before the crucified god. It says to
him, on the contrary, 'No society is free so long as the individual is not so!
@@ -815,7 +815,7 @@ Ecological Society**, p. 77]
Social ecology offers the vision of a society in harmony with nature, one
which _"involves a fundamental reversal of all the trends that mark the
-historic development of capitalist technology and bourgeois society \-- the
+historic development of capitalist technology and bourgeois society -- the
minute specialisation of machines and labour, the concentration of resources
and people in gigantic industrial enterprises and urban entities, the
stratification and bureaucratisation of nature and human beings."_ Such an
@@ -1061,38 +1061,39 @@ consequently) on war and how to stop it. It is worth quoting from:
> _ "The truth is that the cause of wars . . . rests solely in the existence
of the State, which is the form of privilege . . . Whatever the form it may
assume, the State is nothing but organised oppression for the advantage of a
-privileged minority . . .
+privileged minority . . .
+> _
>
-> "The misfortune of the peoples, who were deeply attached to peace, is that,
+> _"The misfortune of the peoples, who were deeply attached to peace, is that,
in order to avoid war, they placed their confidence in the State with its
intriguing diplomatists, in democracy, and in political parties . . . This
confidence has been deliberately betrayed, and continues to be so, when
governments, with the aid of the whole of the press, persuade their respective
-people that this war is a war of liberation.
+people that this war is a war of liberation. _
>
-> "We are resolutely against all wars between peoples, and . . . have been,
-are, and ever will be most energetically opposed to war.
+> _"We are resolutely against all wars between peoples, and . . . have been,
+are, and ever will be most energetically opposed to war. _
>
-> "The role of the Anarchists . . . is to continue to proclaim that there is
+> _"The role of the Anarchists . . . is to continue to proclaim that there is
only one war of liberation: that which in all countries is waged by the
oppressed against the oppressors, by the exploited against the exploiters. Our
-part is to summon the slaves to revolt against their masters.
+part is to summon the slaves to revolt against their masters. _
>
-> "Anarchist action and propaganda should assiduously and perseveringly aim at
-weakening and dissolving the various States, at cultivating the spirit of
-revolt, and arousing discontent in peoples and armies. . .
+> _"Anarchist action and propaganda should assiduously and perseveringly aim
+at weakening and dissolving the various States, at cultivating the spirit of
+revolt, and arousing discontent in peoples and armies. . . _
>
-> "We must take advantage of all the movements of revolt, of all the
+> _"We must take advantage of all the movements of revolt, of all the
discontent, in order to foment insurrection, and to organise the revolution
which we look to put end to all social wrongs. . . Social justice realised
through the free organisation of producers: war and militarism done away with
@@ -1307,7 +1308,7 @@ equals in free associations. _"Feminism,"_ stressed Peggy Kornegger, _"doesn't
mean female corporate power or a woman President; it means no corporate power
and no Presidents. The Equal Rights Amendment will not transform society; it
only gives women the 'right' to plug into a hierarchical economy. Challenging
-sexism means challenging all hierarchy \-- economic, political, and personal.
+sexism means challenging all hierarchy -- economic, political, and personal.
And that means an anarcha-feminist revolution."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 27]
Anarchism, as can be seen, included a class and economic analysis which is
@@ -1711,7 +1712,7 @@ by custom, public opinion, by feelings of justice and reciprocity, and they do
not need to be protected by violence."_ [**The Slavery of Our Times**, p. 47]
Indeed, he argues that:
-> _"Tens of thousands of acres of forest lands belonging to one proprietor \--
+> _"Tens of thousands of acres of forest lands belonging to one proprietor --
while thousands of people close by have no fuel -- need protection by
violence. So, too, do factories and works where several generations of workmen
have been defrauded and are still being defrauded. Yet more do the hundreds of
@@ -1778,14 +1779,14 @@ Tolstoy's ideas had a strong influence on Gandhi, who inspired his fellow
country people to use non-violent resistance to kick Britain out of India.
Moreover, Gandhi's vision of a free India as a federation of peasant communes
is similar to Tolstoy's anarchist vision of a free society (although we must
-stress that Gandhi was not an anarchist). The **Catholic Worker Group_** in
-the United States was also heavily influenced by Tolstoy (and Proudhon), as
-was Dorothy Day a staunch Christian pacifist and anarchist who founded it in
-1933. The influence of Tolstoy and religious anarchism in general can also be
-found in **Liberation Theology_** movements in Latin and South America who
-combine Christian ideas with social activism amongst the working class and
-peasantry (although we should note that Liberation Theology is more generally
-inspired by state socialist ideas rather than anarchist ones).
+stress that Gandhi was not an anarchist). The **Catholic Worker Group** in the
+United States was also heavily influenced by Tolstoy (and Proudhon), as was
+Dorothy Day a staunch Christian pacifist and anarchist who founded it in 1933.
+The influence of Tolstoy and religious anarchism in general can also be found
+in **Liberation Theology** movements in Latin and South America who combine
+Christian ideas with social activism amongst the working class and peasantry
+(although we should note that Liberation Theology is more generally inspired
+by state socialist ideas rather than anarchist ones).
So there is a minority tradition within anarchism which draws anarchist
conclusions from religion. However, as we noted in [section
@@ -2309,7 +2310,7 @@ revolutionary society might work. Some even attempt to justify this lack by
declaring that a mere revolution could never be radical enough to satisfy
their eternal ontological rebelliousness. Such all-or-nothing bombast may
temporarily impress a few spectators, but its ultimate effect is simply to
-make people blas."_ [Knabb, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 31-32]
+make people blasé."_ [Knabb, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 31-32]
Then there is the question of the means suggested for achieving primitivism.
Moore argues that the _"kind of world envisaged by anarcho-primitivism is one
@@ -2499,3 +2500,7 @@ well as David Watson's **Beyond Bookchin** and **Against the Mega-Machine**.
Ken Knabb's essay **The Poverty of Primitivism** is an excellent critique of
primitivism as is Brian Oliver Sheppard's **Anarchism vs. Primitivism**.
+[‹ A.2 What does anarchism stand for?](/afaq/secA2.html "Go to previous page"
+) [up](/afaq/secAcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [A.4 Who are the major
+anarchist thinkers? ›](/afaq/secA4.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secA4.md b/markdown/secA4.md
index f1158148db578df983dd842f6d9ef16ace9ba23e..87880f1794ba21eb2bdc268474749c1f2508a93c 100644
--- a/markdown/secA4.md
+++ b/markdown/secA4.md
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ his own ideas were simply Proudhon's _"widely developed and pushed right to .
198] However, he is doing a disservice to his own role in developing
anarchism. For Bakunin is the central figure in the development of modern
anarchist activism and ideas. He emphasised the importance of
-**collectivism,** **mass insurrection,** **revolution** and involvement in the
+**collectivism,** mass insurrection, **revolution** and involvement in the
militant **labour movement** as the means of creating a free, classless
society. Moreover, he repudiated Proudhon's sexism and added patriarchy to the
list of social evils anarchism opposes. Bakunin also emphasised the social
@@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ the ideas of that previous generation of anarchists which the Chicago Martyrs
represented, Albert Parsons' **Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific
Basis** is essential reading. His wife, Lucy Parsons, was also an outstanding
anarchist activist from the 1870s until her death in 1942 and selections of
-her writings and speeches can be found in the book **Freedom, Equality &
+her writings and speeches can be found in the book **Freedom, Equality &
Solidarity** (edited by Gale Ahrens).
Elsewhere in the Americas, Ricardo Flores Magon helped lay the ground for the
@@ -400,16 +400,16 @@ capitalism. His extensive writing on housing has emphasised the importance of
collective self-help and social management of housing against the twin evils
of privatisation and nationalisation (see, for example, his books **Talking
Houses** and **Housing: An Anarchist Approach**). He has cast an anarchist eye
-on numerous other issues, including water use (**Reflected in Water: A Crisis
-of Social Responsibility**), transport (**Freedom to go: after the motor
-age**) and the welfare state (**Social Policy: an anarchist response**). His
-**Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction** is a good starting point for
-discovering anarchism and his particular perspective on it while **Talking
-Anarchy** provides an excellent overview of both his ideas and life. Lastly we
-must mention both Albert Meltzer and Nicolas Walter, both of whom contributed
-extensively to the anarchist press as well as writing two well known short
-introductions to anarchism (**Anarchism: Arguments for and against** and
-**About Anarchism**, respectively).
+on numerous other issues, including water use (Reflected in Water: A Crisis of
+Social Responsibility), transport (**Freedom to go: after the motor age**) and
+the welfare state (**Social Policy: an anarchist response**). His **Anarchism:
+A Very Short Introduction** is a good starting point for discovering anarchism
+and his particular perspective on it while **Talking Anarchy** provides an
+excellent overview of both his ideas and life. Lastly we must mention both
+Albert Meltzer and Nicolas Walter, both of whom contributed extensively to the
+anarchist press as well as writing two well known short introductions to
+anarchism (**Anarchism: Arguments for and against** and **About Anarchism**,
+respectively).
We could go on; there are many more writers we could mention. But besides
these, there are the thousands of "ordinary" anarchist militants who have
@@ -745,9 +745,9 @@ In other words, with pre-capitalist economic forms. We also find Jefferson
contrasting the _"aristocrats"_ and the _"democrats."_ The former are _"those
who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into
the hands of the higher classes."_ The democrats _"identify with the people,
-have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the honest & safe . . .
-depository of the public interest,"_ if not always _"the most wise."_ [quoted
-by Chomsky, **Powers and Prospects**, p. 88] As Chomsky notes, the
+have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the honest & safe .
+. . depository of the public interest,"_ if not always _"the most wise."_
+[quoted by Chomsky, **Powers and Prospects**, p. 88] As Chomsky notes, the
_"aristocrats"_ were _"the advocates of the rising capitalist state, which
Jefferson regarded with dismay, recognising the obvious contradiction between
democracy and the capitalism."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 88] Claudio J. Katz's essay
@@ -1182,3 +1182,7 @@ Maurice Brinton's **The Irrational in Politics** is an excellent short
introduction to Reich's ideas which links their insights to libertarian
socialism.
+[‹ A.3 What types of anarchism are there?](/afaq/secA3.html "Go to previous
+page" ) [up](/afaq/secAcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [A.5 What are some
+examples of "Anarchy in Action"? ›](/afaq/secA5.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secA5.md b/markdown/secA5.md
index 91046b5448061142d83e5ba5a8215a4e498f77c3..cda4d2c192f5d854abcb07b5f6485c93b9c0acfe 100644
--- a/markdown/secA5.md
+++ b/markdown/secA5.md
@@ -212,11 +212,9 @@ They instructed their delegates to the Commune's Commission on Labour
Organisation to support the following objectives:
> _ "The abolition of the exploitation of man by man, the last vestige of
-slavery;
+slavery;_
->
-
-> "The organisation of labour in mutual associations and inalienable
+> _"The organisation of labour in mutual associations and inalienable
capital."_
In this way, they hoped to ensure that _"equality must not be an empty word"_
@@ -337,10 +335,10 @@ and "liberty." On May 21st, government troops entered the city, followed by
seven days of bitter street fighting. Squads of soldiers and armed members of
the bourgeoisie roamed the streets, killing and maiming at will. Over 25,000
people were killed in the street fighting, many murdered after they had
-surrendered, and their bodies dumped in mass graves. As a final insult, **Sacr
-Coeur** was built by the bourgeoisie on the birth place of the Commune, the
-Butte of Montmartre, to atone for the radical and atheist revolt which had so
-terrified them.
+surrendered, and their bodies dumped in mass graves. As a final insult,
+**Sacré Coeur** was built by the bourgeoisie on the birth place of the
+Commune, the Butte of Montmartre, to atone for the radical and atheist revolt
+which had so terrified them.
For anarchists, the lessons of the Paris Commune were threefold. Firstly, a
decentralised confederation of communities is the necessary political form of
@@ -415,7 +413,7 @@ homes of everyone who has ever known to have raised a voice or sympathised
with those who have aught to say against the present system of robbery and
oppression . . . they have invaded their homes and subjected them and their
families to indignities that must be seen to be believed."_ [Lucy Parsons,
-**Liberty, Equality & Solidarity**, p. 53] Meeting halls, union offices,
+**Liberty, Equality & Solidarity**, p. 53] Meeting halls, union offices,
printing shops and private homes were raided (usually without warrants). Such
raids into working-class areas allowed the police to round up all known
anarchists and other socialists. Many suspects were beaten up and some bribed.
@@ -464,7 +462,7 @@ Eight"_. Since then Mayday has became a day for international solidarity. In
1893, the new Governor of Illinois made official what the working class in
Chicago and across the world knew all along and pardoned the Martyrs because
of their obvious innocence and because _"the trial was not fair."_ To this
-day, no one knows who threw the bomb \-- the only definite fact is that it was
+day, no one knows who threw the bomb -- the only definite fact is that it was
not any of those who were tried for the act: _"Our comrades were not murdered
by the state because they had any connection with the bomb-throwing, but
because they had been active in organising the wage-slaves of America."_ [Lucy
@@ -504,18 +502,14 @@ it:
> _"That day those American workers attempted, by organising themselves, to
give expression to their protest against the iniquitous order of the State and
-Capital of the propertied . . .
-
->
+Capital of the propertied . . . _
> "The workers of Chicago . . . had gathered to resolve, in common, the
problems of their lives and their struggles. . .
->
-
> "Today too . . . the toilers . . . regard the first of May as the occasion
of a get-together when they will concern themselves with their own affairs and
-consider the matter of their emancipation."_ [**The Struggle Against the State
+consider the matter of their emancipation." [**The Struggle Against the State
and Other Essays**, pp. 59-60]
Anarchists stay true to the origins of May Day and celebrate its birth in the
@@ -562,30 +556,20 @@ This idea was expressed in the manifesto issued at the I.W.P.A.'s Pittsburgh
Congress of 1883:
> _ "First -- Destruction of the existing class rule, by all means, i.e. by
-energetic, relentless, revolutionary and international action.
-
->
-
-> "Second -- Establishment of a free society based upon co-operative
-organisation of production.
+energetic, relentless, revolutionary and international action._
->
+> _ "Second -- Establishment of a free society based upon co-operative
+organisation of production._
-> "Third -- Free exchange of equivalent products by and between the productive
-organisations without commerce and profit-mongery.
+> _ "Third -- Free exchange of equivalent products by and between the
+productive organisations without commerce and profit-mongery._
->
+> _ "Fourth -- Organisation of education on a secular, scientific and equal
+basis for both sexes._
-> "Fourth -- Organisation of education on a secular, scientific and equal
-basis for both sexes.
+> _ "Fifth -- Equal rights for all without distinction to sex or race._
->
-
-> "Fifth -- Equal rights for all without distinction to sex or race.
-
->
-
-> "Sixth -- Regulation of all public affairs by free contracts between
+> _ "Sixth -- Regulation of all public affairs by free contracts between
autonomous (independent) communes and associations, resting on a federalistic
basis."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 42]
@@ -966,7 +950,7 @@ bosses], then they also were capable of guaranteeing all production. In such
an event, private industry could be eliminated quickly but progressively, and
replaced by collective industry. Consequently, the Anarchists rejected the
vague nebulous slogan of 'control of production.' They advocated
-**expropriation \-- progressive, but immediate -- of private industry by the
+**expropriation -- progressive, but immediate -- of private industry by the
organisations of collective production.**"_ [Voline, **Op. Cit.**, p. 221]
Once in power, the Bolsheviks systematically undermined the popular meaning of
@@ -1137,7 +1121,7 @@ Bolsheviks built would reduce accountability to a minimum while at the same
time accelerating the isolation of the rulers from the ruled. The masses were
no longer a source of inspiration and power, but rather an alien group whose
lack of "discipline" (i.e. ability to follow orders) placed the revolution in
-danger. As one Russian Anarchist argued,
+danger. As one Russian Anarchist argued:
> _ "The proletariat is being gradually enserfed by the state. The people are
being transformed into servants over whom there has arisen a new class of
@@ -1972,7 +1956,7 @@ just four examples, Italy, Germany, Spain and Chile).
## A.5.6 Anarchism and the Spanish Revolution
As Noam Chomsky notes, _"a good example of a really large-scale anarchist
-revolution -- in fact the best example to my knowledge \-- is the Spanish
+revolution -- in fact the best example to my knowledge -- is the Spanish
revolution in 1936, in which over most of Republican Spain there was a quite
inspiring anarchist revolution that involved both industry and agriculture
over substantial areas . . . And that again was, by both human measures and
@@ -2058,7 +2042,6 @@ committee to manage the general activity in each station and its annexes. At
[these] meetings, the decisions (direccion) of this committee, whose members
continued to work [at their previous jobs], would be subjected to the approval
or disapproval of the workers, after giving reports and answering questions."
-
_
The delegates on the committee could be removed by an assembly at any time and
@@ -2368,3 +2351,8 @@ Power**). **Beneath the Paving Stones** by edited Dark Star is a good
anthology of situationist works relating to Paris 68 (it also contains
Brinton's essay).
+[‹ A.4 Who are the major anarchist thinkers?](/afaq/secA4.html "Go to previous
+page" ) [up](/afaq/secAcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [Section B - Why do
+anarchists oppose the current system? ›](/afaq/secBcon.html "Go to next page"
+)
+
diff --git a/markdown/secAcon.md b/markdown/secAcon.md
index 7e29492d268480728715f29a2731ee991a3557ae..b6819130df5f3b7f1ba494591989af19399ac513 100644
--- a/markdown/secAcon.md
+++ b/markdown/secAcon.md
@@ -1,68 +1,91 @@
# Section A - What is Anarchism?
-## [Introduction](secAint.html)
+#
-## [A.1 What is anarchism?](secA1.html)
+# [Introduction](secAint.html)
-### [A.1.1 What does "anarchy" mean?](secA1.html#seca11)
-[A.1.2 What does "anarchism" mean?](secA1.html#seca12)
-[A.1.3 Why is anarchism also called libertarian socialism?](secA1.html#seca13)
-[A.1.4 Are anarchists socialists?](secA1.html#seca14)
-[A.1.5 Where does anarchism come from?](secA1.html#seca15)
+#
+
+# [A.1 What is anarchism?](secA1.html)
+
+> ### [ A.1.1 What does "anarchy" mean?](secA1.html#seca11)
+> [A.1.2 What does "anarchism" mean?](secA1.html#seca12)
+> [A.1.3 Why is anarchism also called libertarian
+socialism?](secA1.html#seca13)
+> [A.1.4 Are anarchists socialists?](secA1.html#seca14)
+> [A.1.5 Where does anarchism come from? ](secA1.html#seca15)
## [A.2 What does anarchism stand for?](secA2.html)
-### [A.2.1 What is the essence of anarchism?](secA2.html#seca21)
-[A.2.2 Why do anarchists emphasise liberty?](secA2.html#seca22)
-[A.2.3 Are anarchists in favour of organisation?](secA2.html#seca23)
-[A.2.4 Are anarchists in favour of "absolute" liberty?](secA2.html#seca24)
-[A.2.5 Why are anarchists in favour of equality?](secA2.html#seca25)
-[A.2.6 Why is solidarity important to anarchists?](secA2.html#seca26)
-[A.2.7 Why do anarchists argue for self-liberation?](secA2.html#seca27)
-[A.2.8 Is it possible to be an anarchist without opposing
+> ### [A.2.1 What is the essence of anarchism?](secA2.html#seca21)
+> [A.2.2 Why do anarchists emphasise liberty?](secA2.html#seca22)
+> [A.2.3 Are anarchists in favour of organisation?](secA2.html#seca23)
+> [A.2.4 Are anarchists in favour of "absolute" liberty?](secA2.html#seca24)
+> [A.2.5 Why are anarchists in favour of equality?](secA2.html#seca25)
+> [A.2.6 Why is solidarity important to anarchists?](secA2.html#seca26)
+> [A.2.7 Why do anarchists argue for self-liberation?](secA2.html#seca27)
+> [A.2.8 Is it possible to be an anarchist without opposing
hierarchy?](secA2.html#seca28)
-[A.2.9 What sort of society do anarchists want?](secA2.html#seca29)
-[A.2.10 What will abolishing hierarchy mean and achieve?](secA2.html#seca210)
-[A.2.11 Why do most anarchists support direct democracy?](secA2.html#seca211)
-[A.2.12 Is consensus an alternative to direct democracy?](secA2.html#seca212)
-[A.2.13 Are anarchists individualists or collectivists?](secA2.html#seca213)
-[A.2.14 Why is voluntarism not enough?](secA2.html#seca214)
-[A.2.15 What about Human Nature?](secA2.html#seca215)
-[A.2.16 Does anarchism require "perfect" people to work?](secA2.html#seca216)
-[A.2.17 Aren't most people too stupid for a free society to
+> [A.2.9 What sort of society do anarchists want?](secA2.html#seca29)
+> [A.2.10 What will abolishing hierarchy mean and
+achieve?](secA2.html#seca210)
+> [A.2.11 Why do most anarchists support direct
+democracy?](secA2.html#seca211)
+> [A.2.12 Is consensus an alternative to direct
+democracy?](secA2.html#seca212)
+> [A.2.13 Are anarchists individualists or
+collectivists?](secA2.html#seca213)
+> [A.2.14 Why is voluntarism not enough?](secA2.html#seca214)
+> [A.2.15 What about Human Nature?](secA2.html#seca215)
+> [A.2.16 Does anarchism require "perfect" people to
+work?](secA2.html#seca216)
+> [A.2.17 Aren't most people too stupid for a free society to
work?](secA2.html#seca217)
-[A.2.18 Do anarchists support terrorism?](secA2.html#seca218)
-[A.2.19 What ethical views do anarchists hold?](secA2.html#seca219)
-[A.2.20 Why are most anarchists atheists?](secA2.html#seca220)
+> [A.2.18 Do anarchists support terrorism?](secA2.html#seca218)
+> [A.2.19 What ethical views do anarchists hold?](secA2.html#seca219)
+> [A.2.20 Why are most anarchists atheists?](secA2.html#seca220)
## [A.3 What types of anarchism are there?](secA3.html)
-### [A.3.1 What are the differences between individualist and social
+> ### [A.3.1 What are the differences between individualist and social
anarchists?](secA3.html#seca31)
-[A.3.2 Are there different types of social anarchism?](secA3.html#seca32)
-[A.3.3 What kinds of green anarchism are there?](secA3.html#seca33)
-[A.3.4 Is anarchism pacifistic?](secA3.html#seca34)
-[A.3.5 What is anarcha-feminism?](secA3.html#seca35)
-[A.3.6 What is Cultural Anarchism?](secA3.html#seca36)
-[A.3.7 Are there religious anarchists?](secA3.html#seca37)
-[A.3.8 What is _"anarchism without adjectives"_?](secA3.html#seca38)
-[A.3.9 What is anarcho-primitivism?](secA3.html#seca39)
+> [A.3.2 Are there different types of social anarchism?](secA3.html#seca32)
+> [A.3.3 What kinds of green anarchism are there?](secA3.html#seca33)
+> [A.3.4 Is anarchism pacifistic?](secA3.html#seca34)
+> [A.3.5 What is anarcha-feminism?](secA3.html#seca35)
+> [A.3.6 What is Cultural Anarchism?](secA3.html#seca36)
+> [A.3.7 Are there religious anarchists?](secA3.html#seca37)
+> [A.3.8 What is _"anarchism without adjectives"_?](secA3.html#seca38)
+> [A.3.9 What is anarcho-primitivism?](secA3.html#seca39)
## [A.4 Who are the major anarchist thinkers?](secA4.html)
-### [A.4.1 Are there any thinkers close to anarchism?](secA4.html#seca41)
-[A.4.2 Are there any liberal thinkers close to anarchism?](secA4.html#seca42)
-[A.4.3 Are there any socialist thinkers close to
+> ### [A.4.1 Are there any thinkers close to anarchism?](secA4.html#seca41)
+> [A.4.2 Are there any liberal thinkers close to
+anarchism?](secA4.html#seca42)
+> [A.4.3 Are there any socialist thinkers close to
anarchism?](secA4.html#seca43)
-[A.4.4 Are there any Marxist thinkers close to anarchism? ](secA4.html#seca44)
+> [A.4.4 Are there any Marxist thinkers close to anarchism?
+](secA4.html#seca44)
## [A.5 What are some examples of "Anarchy in Action"?](secA5.html)
-### [A.5.1 The Paris Commune.](secA5.html#seca51)
-[A.5.2 The Haymarket Martyrs.](secA5.html#seca52)
-[A.5.3 Building the syndicalist unions.](secA5.html#seca53)
-[A.5.4 Anarchists in the Russian Revolution.](secA5.html#seca54)
-[A.5.5 Anarchists in the Italian Factory Occupations.](secA5.html#seca55)
-[A.5.6 Anarchism and the Spanish Revolution.](secA5.html#seca56)
-[A.5.7 The May-June revolt in France, 1968.](secA5.html#seca57)
+> ### [A.5.1 The Paris Commune.](secA5.html#seca51)
+> [A.5.2 The Haymarket Martyrs.](secA5.html#seca52)
+> [A.5.3 Building the syndicalist unions.](secA5.html#seca53)
+> [A.5.4 Anarchists in the Russian Revolution.](secA5.html#seca54)
+> [A.5.5 Anarchists in the Italian Factory Occupations.](secA5.html#seca55)
+> [A.5.6 Anarchism and the Spanish Revolution.](secA5.html#seca56)
+> [A.5.7 The May-June revolt in France, 1968.](secA5.html#seca57)
+
+ * [A.0 Section A Introduction](/afaq/secAint.html)
+ * [A.1 What is anarchism?](/afaq/secA1.html)
+ * [A.2 What does anarchism stand for?](/afaq/secA2.html)
+ * [A.3 What types of anarchism are there?](/afaq/secA3.html)
+ * [A.4 Who are the major anarchist thinkers?](/afaq/secA4.html)
+ * [A.5 What are some examples of "Anarchy in Action"?](/afaq/secA5.html)
+
+[‹ An Anarchist FAQ Webpage Contacts](/afaq/contact.html "Go to previous page"
+) [up](/afaq/index.html "Go to parent page" ) [A.0 Section A Introduction
+›](/afaq/secAint.html "Go to next page" )
diff --git a/markdown/secAint.md b/markdown/secAint.md
index 6a3dd317ca3551f575ba6fa633f5435cb412fc0a..6731806526e2d64cde3e8a5b28e674ee9219206d 100644
--- a/markdown/secAint.md
+++ b/markdown/secAint.md
@@ -123,3 +123,7 @@ topics based on how we understand and apply these ideas. We are sure, however,
that all anarchists will agree with the core ideas we present, even if they
may disagree with our application of them here and there.
+[‹ Section A - What is Anarchism?](/afaq/secAcon.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/secAcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [A.1 What is anarchism?
+›](/afaq/secA1.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secB1.md b/markdown/secB1.md
index ac21e606adc08b6f482ea885da9c9186cb03ec68..031d7eebd20c729aa85c44d39caee1ff10130ff4 100644
--- a/markdown/secB1.md
+++ b/markdown/secB1.md
@@ -113,11 +113,12 @@ clear:
> _"either the workman. . . will be simply the employee of the proprietor-
capitalist-promoter; or he will participate. . . [and] have a voice in the
-council, in a word he will become an associate.
+council, in a word he will become an associate.
+> _
>
-> "In the first case the workman is subordinated, exploited: his permanent
+> _"In the first case the workman is subordinated, exploited: his permanent
condition is one of obedience. . . In the second case he resumes his dignity
as a man and citizen. . . he forms part of the producing organisation, of
which he was before but the slave; as, in the town, he forms part of the
@@ -190,7 +191,7 @@ themselves (for example, bosses will use racism to divide and so rule their
workers). From this it follows that abolishing one or some of these
hierarchies, while desirable, would not be sufficient. Abolishing capitalism
while maintaining the state would not lead to a free society (and vice versa)
-\-- if it were possible. As Murray Bookchin notes:
+-- if it were possible. As Murray Bookchin notes:
> _"there can be a decidedly classless, even a non-exploitative society in the
**economic** sense that still preserves hierarchical rule and domination in
@@ -341,7 +342,7 @@ human."_ While the _"rise of capitalism, with a law of life based on
competition, capital accumulation, and limitless growth, brought these
problems -- ecological and social -- to an acute point,"_ anarchists
_"emphasise that major ecological problems have their roots in social problems
-\-- problems that go back to the very beginnings of patricentric culture
+-- problems that go back to the very beginnings of patricentric culture
itself."_ [Murray Bookchin, **Remaking Society**, p. 72, p. 44, p. 72 and pp.
154-5]
@@ -1133,7 +1134,7 @@ sexuality are experienced on many different levels, from extreme violence to
less pay for doing the same work.
Gays are not oppressed on a whim but because of the specific need of
-capitalism for the nuclear family. The nuclear family, as the primary \- and
+capitalism for the nuclear family. The nuclear family, as the primary - and
inexpensive - creator of submissive people (growing up within the
authoritarian family gets children used to, and "respectful" of, hierarchy and
subordination - see [section B.1.5](secB1.html#secb15)) as well as provider
@@ -1181,7 +1182,7 @@ White workers especially appear to benefit economically from the **absence**
of economic discrimination. . . both in the absolute level of their earnings
**and** in relative equality among whites."_ [p. 413] In other words, the less
wage discrimination there was against black workers, the better were the wages
-that white workers received.
+that white workers received.
(2) the more "non-white" people in the population of a given American State,
the more inequality there was between whites. In other words, the existence of
@@ -1189,13 +1190,13 @@ a poor, oppressed group of workers reduced the wages of white workers,
although it did not affect the earnings of non-working class whites very much
(_"the greater the discrimination against [non-white] people, the greater the
inequality among whites"_ [p. 410]). So white workers clearly lost
-economically from this discrimination.
+economically from this discrimination.
(3) He also found that _"the more intense racial discrimination is, the lower
are the white earnings **because** of . . . [its effect on] working-class
solidarity."_ [p. 412] In other words, racism economically disadvantages white
workers because it undermines the solidarity between black and white workers
-and weakens trade union organisation.
+and weakens trade union organisation.
So overall, these white workers receive some apparent privileges from racism,
but are in fact screwed by it. Thus racism and other forms of hierarchy
@@ -1334,11 +1335,12 @@ because the shifting of power and of wealth from the democratic gens [maternal
clans] to the authoritarian family of the chief was mainly implemented with
the help of the suppression of the sexual strivings of the people. It was in
this way that sexual suppression became an essential factor in the division of
-society into classes.
+society into classes.
+> _
>
-> "Marriage, and the lawful dowry it entailed, became the axis of the
+> _"Marriage, and the lawful dowry it entailed, became the axis of the
transformation of the one organisation into the other. In view of the fact
that the marriage tribute of the wife's gens to the man's family strengthened
the male's, especially the chief's, position of power, the male members of the
@@ -1650,7 +1652,7 @@ J.4.2](secJ4.html#secj42)). Anarchists are not surprised for, as discussed in
[section J.1](secJ1.html) and [J.2.1](secJ2.html#secj21), we have long
recognised the liberating aspects of social struggle and the key role it plays
in creating free people and the other preconditions for needed for an
-anarchist society (like the initial social structure \-- see [section
+anarchist society (like the initial social structure -- see [section
I.2.3](secI2.html#seci23)).
Needless to say, a hierarchical system like capitalism cannot survive with a
@@ -1826,3 +1828,7 @@ Only in this way can the hold of these social diseases be weakened and a
better, non-hierarchical system be created. An injury to one is an injury to
all.
+[‹ B.0 Section B Introduction](/afaq/secBint.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/secBcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [B.2 Why are anarchists against
+the state? ›](/afaq/secB2.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secB2.md b/markdown/secB2.md
index 958170621d859cd9fad6570c45156a418efe70bd..2d46d68e48b589dbd27696a9b0e4f88184648931 100644
--- a/markdown/secB2.md
+++ b/markdown/secB2.md
@@ -8,13 +8,14 @@ symbiotic relationship and cannot be easily separated:
> _"[T]he State . . . and Capitalism are facts and conceptions which we cannot
separate from each other. In the course of history these institutions have
-developed, supporting and reinforcing each other.
+developed, supporting and reinforcing each other.
+> _
>
-> "They are connected with each other -- not as mere accidental co-incidences.
-They are linked together by the links of cause and effect."_ [Kropotkin,
-**Evolution and Environment**, p. 94]
+> _"They are connected with each other -- not as mere accidental co-
+incidences. They are linked together by the links of cause and effect."_
+[Kropotkin, **Evolution and Environment**, p. 94]
In this section, in consequence, as well as explaining why anarchists oppose
the state, we will necessarily have to analyse the relationship between it and
@@ -120,10 +121,10 @@ However, as much as the state may change its form it still has certain
characteristics which identify a social institution as a state. As such, we
can say that, for anarchists, the state is marked by three things:
-1) A _**"monopoly of violence"**_ in a given territorial area;
-2) This violence having a _"professional,"_ institutional nature; and
+ 1) A _**"monopoly of violence"**_ in a given territorial area;
+2) This violence having a _"professional,"_ institutional nature; and
3) A hierarchical nature, centralisation of power and initiative into the
-hands of a few.
+hands of a few.
Of these three aspects, the last one (its centralised, hierarchical nature) is
the most important simply because the concentration of power into the hands of
@@ -215,11 +216,12 @@ protects. As Bakunin put it:
> _ "**The State . . . is the most flagrant, the most cynical, and the most
complete negation of humanity.** It shatters the universal solidarity of all
men [and women] on the earth, and brings some of them into association only
-for the purpose of destroying, conquering, and enslaving all the rest . . .
+for the purpose of destroying, conquering, and enslaving all the rest . . .
+> _
>
-> "This flagrant negation of humanity which constitutes the very essence of
+> _"This flagrant negation of humanity which constitutes the very essence of
the State is, from the standpoint of the State, its supreme duty and its
greatest virtue . . . Thus, to offend, to oppress, to despoil, to plunder, to
assassinate or enslave one's fellowman [or woman] is ordinarily regarded as a
@@ -229,11 +231,11 @@ preservation or the extension of its power, it is all transformed into duty
and virtue. And this virtue, this duty, are obligatory for each patriotic
citizen; everyone if supposed to exercise them not against foreigners only but
against one's own fellow citizens . . . whenever the welfare of the State
-demands it.
+demands it. _
>
-> "This explains why, since the birth of the State, the world of politics has
+> _"This explains why, since the birth of the State, the world of politics has
always been and continues to be the stage for unlimited rascality and
brigandage . . . This explains why the entire history of ancient and modern
states is merely a series of revolting crimes; why kings and ministers, past
@@ -363,6 +365,8 @@ reading on this subject. Harold Barclay's **The State** is a good overview of
the origins of the state, how it has changed over the millenniums and the
nature of the modern state.
+
+
## B.2.1 What is main function of the state?
The main function of the state is to guarantee the existing social
@@ -408,7 +412,7 @@ punishment."_ [**Anarchism**, p. 215]
Simply put, if the state _"presented nothing but a collection of prescriptions
serviceable to rulers, it would find some difficulty in insuring acceptance
and obedience"_ and so the law reflects customs "essential to the very being
-of society"_ but these are _"cleverly intermingled with usages imposed by the
+of society" but these are _"cleverly intermingled with usages imposed by the
ruling caste and both claim equal respect from the crowd."_ Thus the state's
laws have a _"two-fold character."_ While its _"origin is the desire of the
ruling class to give permanence to customs imposed by themselves for their own
@@ -456,7 +460,7 @@ relations of members of society, the dominant classes whose rights are thus to
be protected must perforce obtain from the government such rules as are
consonant with the larger interests necessary to the continuance of their
economic processes, or they must themselves control the organs of
-government."_ ["An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution,"_ quoted by
+government."_ ["An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution," quoted by
Howard Zinn, **Op. Cit.**, p. 89]
This role of the state -- to protect capitalism and the property, power and
@@ -551,6 +555,8 @@ subjection of . . . the people . . . to the minority allegedly representing it
but actually governing it."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 210] How this is achieved is
discussed in [section B.2.3](secB2.html#secb23).
+
+
## B.2.2 Does the state have subsidiary functions?
Yes, it does. While, as discussed in the [last section](secB2.html#secb21),
@@ -663,7 +669,7 @@ rights on the world market.
All this means that capitalism has rarely relied on purely economic power to
keep the capitalists in their social position of dominance (either nationally,
-vis--vis the working class, or internationally, vis--vis competing foreign
+vis-à-vis the working class, or internationally, vis-à-vis competing foreign
elites). While a "free market" capitalist regime in which the state reduces
its intervention to simply protecting capitalist property rights has been
approximated on a few occasions, this is not the standard state of the system
@@ -837,6 +843,8 @@ This is not to dismiss all attempts at reform as irrelevant, it simply means
recognising that we, the oppressed, need to rely on our own strength and
organisations to improve our circumstances.
+
+
## B.2.3 How does the ruling class maintain control of the state?
In some systems, it is obvious how economic dominant minorities control the
@@ -918,9 +926,9 @@ while the average willing senator spent $7 million. Even local races require
significant amounts of fundraising. One candidate for the Illinois House
raised over $650,000 while another candidate for the Illinois Supreme Court
raised $737,000. In the UK, similarly prohibitive amounts were spent. In the
-2001 general election the Labour Party spent a total of 10,945,119, the Tories
-12,751,813 and the Liberal Democrats (who came a distant third) just
-1,361,377.
+2001 general election the Labour Party spent a total of £10,945,119, the
+Tories £12,751,813 and the Liberal Democrats (who came a distant third) just
+£1,361,377.
To get this sort of money, wealthy contributors need to be found and wooed, in
other words promised that that their interests will be actively looked after.
@@ -999,7 +1007,7 @@ sharing of interests and income with the elite can only aid that task!
Then there is the sad process by which politicians, once they leave politics,
get jobs in the corporate hierarchy (particularly with the very companies they
had previously claimed to regulate on behalf of the public). This was termed
-"the revolving door."_ Incredibly, this has changed for the worse. Now the
+"the revolving door." Incredibly, this has changed for the worse. Now the
highest of government officials arrive directly from the executive offices of
powerful corporations. Lobbyists are appointed to the jobs whose occupants
they once vied to influence. Those who regulate and those supposed to be
@@ -1189,7 +1197,7 @@ discuss this in the next two sections.
Mills, **The Power Elite** [Oxford, 1956]; cf. Ralph Miliband, **The State in
Capitalist Society** [Basic Books, 1969] and **Divided Societies** [Oxford,
1989]; G. William Domhoff, **Who Rules America?** [Prentice Hall, 1967]; and
-**Who Rules America Now? A View for the '80s** [Touchstone, 1983]).<.p>
+**Who Rules America Now? A View for the '80s** [Touchstone, 1983]).
## B.2.4 How does state centralisation affect freedom?
@@ -1469,51 +1477,53 @@ American revolution). Kropotkin indicates the process at work:
people, in order to obtain constitutional laws and to dominate the higher
nobility, were going, now that they had seen and felt the strength of the
people, to do all they could to dominate the people, to disarm them and to
-drive them back into subjection.
+drive them back into subjection.
+> _
>
-> [. . .]
+> _[. . .] _
>
-> "[T]hey made haste to legislate in such a way that the political power which
-was slipping out of the hand of the Court should not fall into the hands of
-the people. Thus . . . [it was] proposed . . . to divide the French into two
-classes, of which one only, the **active** citizens, should take part in the
-government, whilst the other, comprising the great mass of the people under
-the name of **passive** citizens, should be deprived of all political rights .
-. . [T]he [National] Assembly divided France into departments . . . always
-maintaining the principle of excluding the poorer classes from the Government
-. . . [T]hey excluded from the primary assemblies the mass of the people . . .
-who could no longer take part in the primary assemblies, and accordingly had
-no right to nominate the electors [who chose representatives to the National
-Assembly], or the municipality, or any of the local authorities . . .
+> _"[T]hey made haste to legislate in such a way that the political power
+which was slipping out of the hand of the Court should not fall into the hands
+of the people. Thus . . . [it was] proposed . . . to divide the French into
+two classes, of which one only, the **active** citizens, should take part in
+the government, whilst the other, comprising the great mass of the people
+under the name of **passive** citizens, should be deprived of all political
+rights . . . [T]he [National] Assembly divided France into departments . . .
+always maintaining the principle of excluding the poorer classes from the
+Government . . . [T]hey excluded from the primary assemblies the mass of the
+people . . . who could no longer take part in the primary assemblies, and
+accordingly had no right to nominate the electors [who chose representatives
+to the National Assembly], or the municipality, or any of the local
+authorities . . . _
>
-> "And finally, the **permanence** of the electoral assemblies was
+> _"And finally, the **permanence** of the electoral assemblies was
interdicted. Once the middle-class governors were appointed, these assemblies
were not to meet again. Once the middle-class governors were appointed, they
must not be controlled too strictly. Soon the right even of petitioning and of
-passing resolutions was taken away -- 'Vote and hold your tongue!'
+passing resolutions was taken away -- 'Vote and hold your tongue!' _
>
-> "As to the villages . . . the general assembly of the inhabitants . . . [to
+> _"As to the villages . . . the general assembly of the inhabitants . . . [to
which] belonged the administration of the affairs of the commune . . . were
forbidden by the . . . law. Henceforth only the well-to-do peasants, the
**active** citizens, had the right to meet, **once a year**, to nominate the
mayor and the municipality, composed of three or four middle-class men of the
-village.
+village. _
>
-> "A similar municipal organisation was given to the towns. . .
+> _"A similar municipal organisation was given to the towns. . . _
>
-> "[Thus] the middle classes surrounded themselves with every precaution in
+> _"[Thus] the middle classes surrounded themselves with every precaution in
order to keep the municipal power in the hands of the well-to-do members of
the community."_ [**The Great French Revolution**, vol. 1, pp. 179-186]
@@ -1724,8 +1734,8 @@ So while _"on election days even the proudest bourgeois who have any political
ambitions are forced to court . . . The Sovereign People."_ But on the _"day
after the elections every one goes back to their daily business"_ and the
politicians are given carte blanche to rule in the name of the people they
-claim to represent."_ [Bakunin, **The Political Philosophy of Bakunin**, p.
-218 and p. 219]
+claim to represent." [Bakunin, **The Political Philosophy of Bakunin**, p. 218
+and p. 219]
## B.2.6 Can the state be an independent power within society?
@@ -1807,7 +1817,7 @@ independence from the class whose interests it, in general, defends. And such
independence can be used to further its own interests, even to the detriment
of the capitalist class, if the circumstances allow. If the capitalist class
is weak or divided then the state can be in a position to exercise its
-autonomy vis--vis the economically dominant elite, using against the
+autonomy vis-à-vis the economically dominant elite, using against the
capitalists as a whole the tools it usually applies to them individually to
further its own interests and powers.
@@ -1909,3 +1919,8 @@ represents nor that it has to be the tool of an economically dominant class.
One thing is sure, however. The state is not a suitable tool for securing the
emancipation of the oppressed.
+[‹ B.1 Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?](/afaq/secB1.html
+"Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secBcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [B.3 Why
+are anarchists against private property? ›](/afaq/secB3.html "Go to next page"
+)
+
diff --git a/markdown/secB3.md b/markdown/secB3.md
index 7d7cf8692e340f6a41e64a9cd5ef22c3ebbeea4e..e929c1699c37559aa97a4853695ea59ee1e7dfe9 100644
--- a/markdown/secB3.md
+++ b/markdown/secB3.md
@@ -10,14 +10,14 @@ the case -- anarchists are against every form of property rights regime which
results in the many working for the few.
Anarchist opposition to private property rests on two, related, arguments.
-These were summed up by Proudhon's maxims (from **What is Property?** that
+These were summed up by Proudhon's maxims (from What is Property? that
_"property is theft"_ and _"property is despotism."_ In his words, _"Property
. . . violates equality by the rights of exclusion and increase, and freedom
-by despotism . . . [and has] perfect identity with robbery."_ [Proudhon,
-**What is Property**, p. 251] Anarchists, therefore, oppose private property
-(i.e. capitalism) because it is a source of coercive, hierarchical authority
-as well as exploitation and, consequently, elite privilege and inequality. It
-is based on and produces inequality, in terms of both wealth and power.
+by despotism . . . [and has] perfect identity with robbery."_ [Proudhon, What
+is Property, p. 251] Anarchists, therefore, oppose private property (i.e.
+capitalism) because it is a source of coercive, hierarchical authority as well
+as exploitation and, consequently, elite privilege and inequality. It is based
+on and produces inequality, in terms of both wealth and power.
We will summarise each argument in turn.
@@ -97,21 +97,23 @@ direct contradiction to what the defenders of property promise. This is
unsurprising given the nature of the property they are defending:
> _ "Our opponents . . . are in the habit of justifying the right to private
-property by stating that property is the condition and guarantee of liberty.
+property by stating that property is the condition and guarantee of liberty.
+> _
>
-> "And we agree with them. Do we not say repeatedly that poverty is slavery?
+> _"And we agree with them. Do we not say repeatedly that poverty is slavery?
+_
>
-> "But then why do we oppose them?
+> _"But then why do we oppose them? _
>
-> "The reason is clear: in reality the property that they defend is capitalist
-property, namely property that allows its owners to live from the work of
-others and which therefore depends on the existence of a class of the
+> _"The reason is clear: in reality the property that they defend is
+capitalist property, namely property that allows its owners to live from the
+work of others and which therefore depends on the existence of a class of the
disinherited and dispossessed, forced to sell their labour to the property
owners for a wage below its real value . . . This means that workers are
subjected to a kind of slavery, which, though it may vary in degree of
@@ -164,7 +166,7 @@ exploitation and authority. Moreover, such a system requires a state to
maintain itself for as _"long as within society a possessing and non-
possessing group of human beings face one another in enmity, the state will be
indispensable to the possessing minority for the protection for its
-privileges."_ [Rudolf Rocker, **Anarcho-Syndicalism**, p. 11] Thus private
+privileges."_ [Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 11] Thus private
ownership of the means of production is only possible if there is a state,
meaning mechanisms of organised coercion at the disposal of the propertied
class (see [section B.2](secB2.html)).
@@ -176,7 +178,7 @@ this inequality in resource distribution will give rise to a further
inequality in the relative bargaining positions of the propertied and the
property less. While apologists for capitalism usually attempt to justify
private property by claiming that "self-ownership" is a "universal right" (see
-section B.4.2 \-- [_"Is capitalism based on self-
+section B.4.2 -- [_"Is capitalism based on self-
ownership?"_](secB4.html#secb42)), it is clear that capitalism actually makes
universal autonomy implied by the flawed concept of self-ownership (for the
appeal of the notion of self-ownership rests on the ideal that people are not
@@ -323,7 +325,7 @@ those engaged in the work can be the only rational answer. Hence Proudhon's
comment that _"all accumulated capital being social property, no one can be
its exclusive proprietor."_ _"In order to destroy despotism and inequality of
conditions, men must . . . become associates"_ and this implies workers' self-
-management \-- _"leaders, instructors, superintendents . . . must be chosen
+management -- _"leaders, instructors, superintendents . . . must be chosen
from the labourers by the labourers themselves."_ [Proudhon, **Op. Cit.**, p.
130, p. 372 and p. 137]
@@ -340,9 +342,9 @@ Capitalist property rights would be ended and a new system introduced rooted
in the concept of possession and use. While the exact nature of that new
system differs between schools of anarchist thought, the basic principles are
the same as they flow from the same anarchist theory of property to be found
-in Proudhon's, **What is Property?**.
+in Proudhon's, What is Property?.
-Significantly, William Godwin in his **Enquiry Concerning Political Justice**
+Significantly, William Godwin in his Enquiry Concerning Political Justice
makes the same point concerning the difference between property and possession
(although not in the same language) fifty years before Proudhon, which
indicates its central place in anarchist thought. For Godwin, there were
@@ -382,11 +384,15 @@ domination does not need extensive force to maintain.
Under capitalism, there are four major kinds of property, or exploitative
monopolies, that the state protects:
-(1) the power to issue credit and currency, the basis of capitalist banking;
-(2) land and buildings, the basis of landlordism;
-(3) productive tools and equipment, the basis of industrial capitalism;
-(4) ideas and inventions, the basis of copyright and patent (_"intellectual
-property"_) royalties.
+ (1) the power to issue credit and currency, the basis of capitalist
+banking;
+
+ (2) land and buildings, the basis of landlordism;
+
+ (3) productive tools and equipment, the basis of industrial capitalism;
+
+ (4) ideas and inventions, the basis of copyright and patent
+(_"intellectual property"_) royalties.
By enforcing these forms of property, the state ensures that the objective
conditions within the economy favour the capitalist, with the worker free only
@@ -495,7 +501,7 @@ Henwood, **Wall Street**, pp. 64-6]
Thus credit _"is an important form of social coercion; mortgaged workers are
more pliable."_ [Henwood, **Op. Cit.**, p. 232] Money is power and any means
which lessens that power by increasing the options of workers is considered a
-threat by the capitalist class \-- whether it is tight labour markets, state
+threat by the capitalist class -- whether it is tight labour markets, state
provided unemployment benefit, or cheap, self-organised, credit -- will be
resisted. The credit monopoly can, therefore, only be fought as part of a
broader attack on all forms of capitalist social power.
@@ -653,7 +659,7 @@ system.
In this way usury became self-perpetuating, with apparently _"free exchanges"_
being the means by which capitalist domination survives. In other words, "past
-initiations of force"_ combined with the current state protection of property
+initiations of force" combined with the current state protection of property
ensure that capitalist domination of society continues with only the use of
_"defensive"_ force (i.e. violence used to protect the power of property
owners against unions, strikes, occupations, etc.). The _"fees"_ extracted
@@ -699,7 +705,7 @@ still in place.
The irony that this regime was created in a process allegedly about trade
liberalisation should not go unnoticed. _"Intellectual property rights,"_ as
Noam Chomsky correctly points out, _"are a protectionist measure, they have
-nothing to do with free trade \-- in fact, they're the exact **opposite** of
+nothing to do with free trade -- in fact, they're the exact **opposite** of
free trade."_ [**Understanding Power**, p. 282] The fundamental injustice of
the _"ideas monopoly"_ is exacerbated by the fact that many of these patented
products are the result of government funding of research and development,
@@ -777,7 +783,7 @@ the result of patent control."_ The two competitors simply pooled their
patents and _"yet another means of patent and market control had developed:
corporate patent-pooling agreements. Designed to minimise the expense and
uncertainties of conflict between the giants, they greatly reinforced the
-position of each vis--vis lesser competitors and new entrants into the
+position of each vis-à-vis lesser competitors and new entrants into the
field."_ [David Noble, **American By Design**, p. 10]
While the patent system is, in theory, promoted to defend the small scale
@@ -843,13 +849,13 @@ create.
In other words, capitalists desire to skew the _"free market"_ in their favour
by ensuring that the law reflects and protects their interests, namely their
_"property rights."_ By this process they ensure that co-operative tendencies
-within society are crushed by state-supported "market forces."_ As Noam
-Chomsky puts it, modern capitalism is _"state protection and public subsidy
-for the rich, market discipline for the poor."_ [_"Rollback, Part I"_, **Z
-Magazine**] Self-proclaimed defenders of "free market"_ capitalism are usually
-nothing of the kind, while the few who actually support it only object to the
-_"public subsidy"_ aspect of modern capitalism and happily support state
-protection for property rights.
+within society are crushed by state-supported "market forces." As Noam Chomsky
+puts it, modern capitalism is _"state protection and public subsidy for the
+rich, market discipline for the poor."_ [_"Rollback, Part I"_, **Z Magazine**]
+Self-proclaimed defenders of "free market" capitalism are usually nothing of
+the kind, while the few who actually support it only object to the _"public
+subsidy"_ aspect of modern capitalism and happily support state protection for
+property rights.
All these monopolies seek to enrich the capitalist (and increase their capital
stock) at the expense of working people, to restrict their ability to
@@ -914,12 +920,13 @@ the goods for themselves as **their profit.** The workers only get their wages
their daily labour is taken from them for the privilege of **using** those
factories . . . Though the workers have made the tools and the machinery,
another slice of their daily labour is taken from them for the privilege of
-**using** those tools and machinery . . .
+**using** those tools and machinery . . .
+> _
>
-> "Can you guess now why the wisdom of Proudhon said that **the possessions of
-the rich are stolen property**? Stolen from the producer, the worker."_
+> _"Can you guess now why the wisdom of Proudhon said that **the possessions
+of the rich are stolen property**? Stolen from the producer, the worker."_
[Berkman, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 7-8]
Thus the daily theft/exploitation associated with capitalism is dependent on
@@ -1007,14 +1014,15 @@ capitalism itself would be rendered illegal.
To get round this problem, Nozick utilises the work of Locke (_"The Lockean
Proviso"_) which can be summarised as:
-1\. People own themselves and, consequently, their labour.
-2\. The world is initially owned in common (or unowned in Nozick's case.)
-3\. By working on common (or unowned) resources, people turn it into their own
-property because they own their own labour.
-4\. You can acquire absolute rights over a larger than average share in the
-world, if you do not worsen the condition of others.
-5\. Once people have appropriated private property, a free market in capital
-and labour is morally required.
+ 1. People own themselves and, consequently, their labour.
+
+ 2. The world is initially owned in common (or unowned in Nozick's case.)
+
+ 3. By working on common (or unowned) resources, people turn it into their own property because they own their own labour.
+
+ 4. You can acquire absolute rights over a larger than average share in the world, if you do not worsen the condition of others.
+
+ 5. Once people have appropriated private property, a free market in capital and labour is morally required.
However, there are numerous flaws in this theory. Most obvious is why does the
mixing of something you own (labour) with something owned by all (or unowned)
@@ -1043,11 +1051,12 @@ cultivator finds the reward of his industry in the abundancy and superiority
of his crop. If he has made improvements in the soil, he has the possessor's
right of preference. Never, under any circumstances, can he be allowed to
claim a property-title to the soil which he cultivates, on the ground of his
-skill as a cultivator.
+skill as a cultivator.
+> _
>
-> "To change possession into property, something is needed besides labour,
+> _"To change possession into property, something is needed besides labour,
without which a man would cease to be proprietor as soon as he ceased to be a
laborer. Now, the law bases property upon immemorial, unquestionable
possession; that is, prescription. Labour is only the sensible sign, the
@@ -1056,21 +1065,21 @@ remains proprietor after he has ceased to labor and produce; if his
possession, first conceded, then tolerated, finally becomes inalienable, -- it
happens by permission of the civil law, and by virtue of the principle of
occupancy. So true is this, that there is not a bill of sale, not a farm
-lease, not an annuity, but implies it . . .
+lease, not an annuity, but implies it . . . _
>
-> "Man has created every thing -- every thing save the material itself. Now, I
-maintain that this material he can only possess and use, on condition of
+> _"Man has created every thing -- every thing save the material itself. Now,
+I maintain that this material he can only possess and use, on condition of
permanent labor, -- granting, for the time being, his right of property in
-things which he has produced.
+things which he has produced. _
>
-> "This, then, is the first point settled: property in product, if we grant so
-much, does not carry with it property in the means of production; that seems
-to me to need no further demonstration. There is no difference between the
-soldier who possesses his arms, the mason who possesses the materials
+> _"This, then, is the first point settled: property in product, if we grant
+so much, does not carry with it property in the means of production; that
+seems to me to need no further demonstration. There is no difference between
+the soldier who possesses his arms, the mason who possesses the materials
committed to his care, the fisherman who possesses the water, the hunter who
possesses the fields and forests, and the cultivator who possesses the lands:
all, if you say so, are proprietors of their products -- not one is proprietor
@@ -1257,8 +1266,8 @@ system which respects the liberty of all rather than a few.
For more anarchist analysis on private property and why it cannot be justified
(be it by occupancy, labour, natural right, or whatever) consult Proudhon's
-classic work **What is Property?**. For further discussion on capitalist
-property rights see [section F.4](secF4.html).
+classic work What is Property?. For further discussion on capitalist property
+rights see [section F.4](secF4.html).
## B.3.5 Is state owned property different from private property?
@@ -1340,9 +1349,13 @@ capitalist ownership with state property have shown the validity the anarchist
analysis in these matters (_"all-powerful, centralised Government with State
Capitalism as its economic expression,"_ to quote Emma Goldman's summation of
Lenin's Russia [**Op. Cit.**, p. 388]). State property is in no way
-fundamentally different from private property \-- all that changes is who
+fundamentally different from private property -- all that changes is who
exploits and oppresses the workers.
For more discussion see section H.3.13 -- [_"Why is state socialism just state
capitalism?"_](secH3.html#sech313)
+[‹ B.2 Why are anarchists against the state?](/afaq/secB2.html "Go to previous
+page" ) [up](/afaq/secBcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [B.4 How does capitalism
+affect liberty? ›](/afaq/secB4.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secB4.md b/markdown/secB4.md
index ab858b54c96775f41ae1fafe26625c005cb602a5..408df67331a4032bbeab971395e79b7e2480b081 100644
--- a/markdown/secB4.md
+++ b/markdown/secB4.md
@@ -99,8 +99,8 @@ company. The 'laws' were the company's rules. Curfews were imposed,
had a monopoly on goods sold in the camp. The doctor was a company doctor, the
schoolteachers hired by the company . . . Political power in Colorado rested
in the hands of those who held economic power. This meant that the authority
-of Colorado Fuel & Iron and other mine operators was virtually supreme . . .
-Company officials were appointed as election judges. Company-dominated
+of Colorado Fuel & Iron and other mine operators was virtually supreme . .
+. Company officials were appointed as election judges. Company-dominated
coroners and judges prevented injured employees from collecting damages."_
[**The Colorado Coal Strike, 1913-14**, pp. 9-11]
@@ -411,7 +411,7 @@ their own labour.
Anarchists, while understanding the appeal of the idea, are not convinced.
That "self-ownership," like slavery, places issues of freedom and
-individuality within the context of private property \-- as such it shares the
+individuality within the context of private property -- as such it shares the
most important claim of slavery, namely that people can be objects of the
rules of private property. It suggests an alienated perspective and, moreover,
a fatal flaw in the dogma. This can be seen from how the axiom is used in
@@ -493,7 +493,7 @@ In developing nations, this control can easily been seen to be an utter
affront to human dignity and liberty. There a workplace is often _"surrounded
by barbed wire. Behind its locked doors . . . workers are supervised by guards
who beat and humiliate them on the slightest pretext . . . Each worker repeats
-the same action \-- sewing on a belt loop, stitching a sleeve -- maybe two
+the same action -- sewing on a belt loop, stitching a sleeve -- maybe two
thousand times a day. They work under painfully bright lights, for twelve- to
fourteen-hour shifts, in overheated factories, with too few bathroom breaks,
and restricted access to water (to reduce the need for more bathroom breaks),
@@ -533,11 +533,12 @@ length:
slaves instead of free labourers, like the West India planter, would be
regarded as owner both of the capital, and of the labour. He would be owner,
in short, of both instruments of production: and the whole of the produce,
-without participation, would be his own.
+without participation, would be his own.
+> _
>
-> "What is the difference, in the case of the man, who operates by means of
+> _"What is the difference, in the case of the man, who operates by means of
labourers receiving wages? The labourer, who receives wages, sells his labour
for a day, a week, a month, or a year, as the case may be. The manufacturer,
who pays these wages, buys the labour, for the day, the year, or whatever
@@ -651,11 +652,11 @@ become little more than spare parts for the wealthy. After all, the poor own
their bodies and, consequently, can sell all or part of it to a willing party.
This means that someone in dire economic necessity can sell parts of their
body to the rich. Ultimately, _"[t]o tell a poor man that he **has** property
-because he **has** arms and legs \-- that the hunger from which he suffers,
-and his power to sleep in the open air are his property, -- is to play upon
-words, and to add insult to injury."_ [Proudhon, **Op. Cit.**, p. 80]
+because he **has** arms and legs -- that the hunger from which he suffers, and
+his power to sleep in the open air are his property, -- is to play upon words,
+and to add insult to injury."_ [Proudhon, **Op. Cit.**, p. 80]
-Obviously the ability to labour is **not** the property of a person \-- it is
+Obviously the ability to labour is **not** the property of a person -- it is
their possession. Use and ownership are fused and cannot be separated out. As
such, anarchists argue that the history of capitalism shows that there is a
considerable difference whether one said (like the defenders of capitalism)
@@ -712,7 +713,7 @@ be delayed. When they conceive the possibility of a complete international
federation of labour, whose constituent groups shall take possession of land,
mines, factories, all the instruments of production . . . , in short, conduct
their own industry without regulative interference from law-makers or
-employers, then we may hope for the only help which counts for aught \-- Self-
+employers, then we may hope for the only help which counts for aught -- Self-
Help; the only condition which can guarantee free speech [along with their
other rights] (and no paper guarantee needed)."_ [Voltairine de Cleyre, **The
Voltairine de Cleyre Reader**, pp. 4-6]
@@ -1141,7 +1142,7 @@ own activities. Instead, they are told what to do, when to do it and how to do
it. Indeed, the history of experiments in workers' control and self-management
within capitalist companies confirms our claims that, for the worker,
capitalism is incompatible with the desire to be "left alone." As an
-illustration we will use the _**"Pilot Program"_** conducted by General
+illustration we will use the _**"Pilot Program"**_ conducted by General
Electric between 1968 and 1972.
General Electric proposed the "Pilot Program" as a means of overcoming the
@@ -1304,3 +1305,8 @@ is handicapped by its hierarchical and competitive nature -- and how such a
desire can be twisted into a means of enhancing the power of the few over the
many.
+[‹ B.3 Why are anarchists against private property?](/afaq/secB3.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secBcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [B.5 Is
+capitalism empowering and based on human action? ›](/afaq/secB5.html "Go to
+next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secB5.md b/markdown/secB5.md
index 6d345471b0259d4d3815cd716cf1979c1d4b0b5e..b5ccd46fff19d807f7f38f6a40b839bf595ab0c4 100644
--- a/markdown/secB5.md
+++ b/markdown/secB5.md
@@ -190,3 +190,8 @@ a social framework, one that allows each individual to take an active part in
improving the quality of life for us all by removing "Hobson choices" as far
as possible.
+[‹ B.4 How does capitalism affect liberty?](/afaq/secB4.html "Go to previous
+page" ) [up](/afaq/secBcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [B.6 But won't decisions
+made by individuals with their own money be the best? ›](/afaq/secB6.html "Go
+to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secB6.md b/markdown/secB6.md
index 1061fd867960493f50a06e3b7ce6c35b91a7a241..c4d9643ca20ca8f77f7b4b1802c6ea8665862786 100644
--- a/markdown/secB6.md
+++ b/markdown/secB6.md
@@ -104,3 +104,8 @@ system, but in a direct libertarian democracy, this danger would be greatly
reduced, for reasons discussed in section I.5.6 ( [Won't there be a danger of
a "tyranny of the majority" under libertarian socialism?](secI5.html#seci56)).
+[‹ B.5 Is capitalism empowering and based on human action?](/afaq/secB5.html
+"Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secBcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [B.7
+What classes exist within modern society? ›](/afaq/secB7.html "Go to next
+page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secB7.md b/markdown/secB7.md
index f5c00009622e4ad7ad6a636826c57fc6e01c9cb7..04d54a863c59308a66cf284d4bf4ea389176a0b9 100644
--- a/markdown/secB7.md
+++ b/markdown/secB7.md
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ class, as would the bulk of peasants and artisans (where applicable). In a
nutshell, the producing classes and those who either were producers or will be
producers. This group makes up the vast majority of the population.
-(2) _**Ruling class_** \-- those who control investment decisions, determine
+(2) _**Ruling class**_ \-- those who control investment decisions, determine
high level policy, set the agenda for capital and state. This is the elite at
the top, owners or top managers of large companies, multinationals and banks
(i.e., the capitalists), owners of large amounts of land (i.e. landlords or
@@ -203,16 +203,17 @@ of Horatio Alger"_, **The Nation**, January 5, 2004]
Doug Henwood provides some more details on income [**Op. Cit.**, p. 90]:
-**Changes in income, 1977-1999** | real income growth
-1977-99 | Share of total income | | 1977 | 1999 | Change
----|---|---|---
-poorest 20%| -9%| 5.7%| 4.2% | -1.5%
-second 20% | +1| 11.5| 9.7| -1.8
-middle 20%| +8| 16.4| 14.7| -1.7
-fourth 20%| +14| 22.8| 21.3| -1.5
-top 20%| +43| 44.2| 50.4| +6.2
-top 1%| +115| 7.3| 12.9| +5.6
-
+**Changes in income, 1977-1999** | real income growth
+1977-99 | Share of total income
+---|---|---
+ | 1977 | 1999 | Change
+poorest 20% | -9% | 5.7% | 4.2% | -1.5%
+second 20% | +1 | 11.5 | 9.7 | -1.8
+middle 20% | +8 | 16.4 | 14.7 | -1.7
+fourth 20% | +14 | 22.8 | 21.3 | -1.5
+top 20% | +43 | 44.2 | 50.4 | +6.2
+top 1% | +115 | 7.3 | 12.9 | +5.6
+
By far the biggest gainers from the wealth concentration since the 1980s have
been the super-rich. The closer you get to the top, the bigger the gains. In
other words, it is not simply that the top 20 percent of families have had
@@ -235,7 +236,7 @@ All this proves that classes do in fact exist, with wealth and power
concentrating at the top of society, in the hands of the few.
To put this inequality of income into some perspective, the average full-time
-Wal-Mart employee was paid only about $17,000 a year in 2004\. Benefits are
+Wal-Mart employee was paid only about $17,000 a year in 2004. Benefits are
few, with less than half the company's workers covered by its health care
plan. In the same year Wal-Mart's chief executive, Scott Lee Jr., was paid
$17.5 million. In other words, every two weeks he was paid about as much as
@@ -361,7 +362,7 @@ pay for most US workers is lower in 2005 than it was in 1973!). This, combined
with "trickle-down" economic policies of tax cuts for the wealthy, tax raises
for the working classes, the maintaining of a "natural" law of unemployment
(which weakens unions and workers power) and cutbacks in social programs, has
-seriously eroded living standards for all but the upper strata \-- a process
+seriously eroded living standards for all but the upper strata -- a process
that is clearly leading toward social breakdown, with effects that will be
discussed later (see [section D.9](secD9.html)).
@@ -438,11 +439,11 @@ was a reduction in income mobility upward from low to medium incomes of over
Here are the exact figures [cited by Paul Krugman, _"The Rich, the Right, and
the Facts,"_ **The American Prospect** no. 11, Fall 1992, pp. 19-31]:
-** Percentages of families making transitions to and from middle class (5-year period before and after 1980) **
+** Percentages of families making transitions to and from middle class (5-year period before and after 1980) **
-| Transition| Before 1980 | After 1980
+Transition | Before 1980 | After 1980
---|---|---
-Middle income to low income| 8.5 | 9.8
+Middle income to low income | 8.5 | 9.8
Middle income to high income | 5.8 | 6.8
Low income to middle income | 35.1 | 24.6
High income to middle income | 30.8 | 27.6
@@ -559,7 +560,7 @@ which accompany the differences in income. In other words, because it is
possible (in theory) for everyone to become a boss this does not make the
power and authority that bosses have over their workers (or the impact of
their wealth on society) any more legitimate (just because everyone -- in
-theory \-- can become a member of the government does not make government any
+theory -- can become a member of the government does not make government any
less authoritarian). Because the membership of the boss class can change does
not negate the fact that such a class exists.
@@ -571,6 +572,8 @@ reference to this fact of social mobility they would be dismissed as mad. The
evil of slavery is not mitigated by the fact that a few slaves could stop
being slaves if they worked hard enough.
+
+
## B.7.3 Why is the existence of classes denied?
It is clear, then, that classes do exist, and equally clear that individuals
@@ -613,7 +616,7 @@ taboo in mainstream academic circles to suggest that anything like a ruling
class even exists in the United States. Students are instead indoctrinated
with the myth of a "pluralist" and "democratic" society -- a Never-Never Land
where all laws and public policies supposedly get determined only by the
-amount of "public support" they have \-- certainly not by any small faction
+amount of "public support" they have -- certainly not by any small faction
wielding power in disproportion to its size.
To deny the existence of class is a powerful tool in the hands of the
@@ -852,3 +855,8 @@ driven robots of capitalist and Leninist mythology. They are concerned about
everything that affects them -- their parents, their children, their friends,
their neighbours, their planet and, very often, total strangers.
+[‹ B.6 But won't decisions made by individuals with their own money be the
+best? ](/afaq/secB6.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secBcon.html "Go
+to parent page" ) [Section C - What are the myths of capitalist economics?
+›](/afaq/secCcon.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secBcon.md b/markdown/secBcon.md
index 4e98b92cbdac4080cecccffee4c8970b7dcf660c..a3544bafde597b55422ed7ca4e63daf33bbb755d 100644
--- a/markdown/secBcon.md
+++ b/markdown/secBcon.md
@@ -1,58 +1,82 @@
# Section B - Why do anarchists oppose the current system?
+##
+
## [ Introduction](secBint.html)
+##
+
## [B.1 Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?](secB1.html)
-### [B.1.1 What are the effects of authoritarian social
+> ### [B.1.1 What are the effects of authoritarian social
relationships?](secB1.html#secb11)
-[B.1.2 Is capitalism hierarchical? ](secB1.html#secb12)
-[B.1.3 What kind of hierarchy of values does capitalism
+> [B.1.2 Is capitalism hierarchical? ](secB1.html#secb12)
+> [B.1.3 What kind of hierarchy of values does capitalism
create?](secB1.html#secb13)
-[B.1.4 Why do racism, sexism and homophobia exist?](secB1.html#secb14)
-[B.1.5 How is the mass-psychological basis for authoritarian civilisation
+> [B.1.4 Why do racism, sexism and homophobia exist?](secB1.html#secb14)
+> [B.1.5 How is the mass-psychological basis for authoritarian civilisation
created?](secB1.html#secb15)
-[B.1.6 Can hierarchy be ended?](secB1.html#secb16)
+> [B.1.6 Can hierarchy be ended?](secB1.html#secb16)
## [B.2 Why are anarchists against the state?](secB2.html)
-### [B.2.1 What is the main function of the state? ](secB2.html#secb21)
-[B.2.2 Does the state have subsidiary functions? ](secB2.html#secb22)
-[B.2.3 How does the ruling class maintain control of the
+> ### [B.2.1 What is the main function of the state? ](secB2.html#secb21)
+> [B.2.2 Does the state have subsidiary functions? ](secB2.html#secb22)
+> [B.2.3 How does the ruling class maintain control of the
state?](secB2.html#secb23)
-[B.2.4 How does state centralisation affect freedom?](secB2.html#secb24)
-[B.2.5 Who benefits from centralisation?](secB2.html#secb25)
-[B.2.6 Can the state be an independent power within
-society?](secB2.html#secb26)
+> [B.2.4 How does state centralisation affect freedom?](secB2.html#secb24)
+> [B.2.5 Who benefits from centralisation?](secB2.html#secb25)
+> [B.2.6 Can the state be an independent power within society?
+> ](secB2.html#secb26)
## [B.3 Why are anarchists against private property?](secB3.html)
-### [B.3.1 What is the difference between private property and
+> ### [B.3.1 What is the difference between private property and
possession?](secB3.html#secb31)
-[B.3.2 What kinds of private property does the state protect?
+> [B.3.2 What kinds of private property does the state protect?
](secB3.html#secb32)
-[B.3.3 Why is private property exploitative?](secB3.html#secb33)
-[B.3.4 Can private property be justified?](secB3.html#secb34)
-[B.3.5 Is state owned property different from private
+> [B.3.3 Why is private property exploitative?](secB3.html#secb33)
+> [B.3.4 Can private property be justified?](secB3.html#secb34)
+> [B.3.5 Is state owned property different from private
property?](secB3.html#secb35)
## [B.4 How does capitalism affect liberty?](secB4.html)
-### [B.4.1 Is capitalism based on freedom? ](secB4.html#secb41)
-[B.4.2 Is capitalism based on self-ownership? ](secB4.html#secb42)
-[B.4.3 But no one forces you to work for them! ](secB4.html#secb43)
-[B.4.4 But what about periods of high demand for labour? ](secB4.html#secb44)
-[B.4.5 But I want to be "left alone"!](secB4.html#secb45)
+> ### [B.4.1 Is capitalism based on freedom? ](secB4.html#secb41)
+> [B.4.2 Is capitalism based on self-ownership? ](secB4.html#secb42)
+> [B.4.3 But no one forces you to work for them! ](secB4.html#secb43)
+> [B.4.4 But what about periods of high demand for labour?
+](secB4.html#secb44)
+> [B.4.5 But I want to be "left alone"!](secB4.html#secb45)
## [B.5 Is capitalism empowering and based on human action?](secB5.html)
+##
+
## [ B.6 But won't decisions made by individuals with their own money be the
best? ](secB6.html)
+##
+
## [B.7 What classes exist within modern society?](secB7.html)
-### [B.7.1 But do classes actually exist? ](secB7.html#secb71)
-[B.7.2 Does social mobility make up for class inequality?](secB7.html#secb72)
-[B.7.3 Why is the existence of classes denied?](secB7.html#secb73)
-[B.7.4 What do anarchists mean by _"class consciousness"_?](secB7.html#secb74)
+> ### [B.7.1 But do classes actually exist? ](secB7.html#secb71)
+> [B.7.2 Does social mobility make up for class
+inequality?](secB7.html#secb72)
+> [B.7.3 Why is the existence of classes denied?](secB7.html#secb73)
+> [B.7.4 What do anarchists mean by _"class
+consciousness"_?](secB7.html#secb74)
+
+ * [B.0 Section B Introduction](/afaq/secBint.html)
+ * [B.1 Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?](/afaq/secB1.html)
+ * [B.2 Why are anarchists against the state?](/afaq/secB2.html)
+ * [B.3 Why are anarchists against private property?](/afaq/secB3.html)
+ * [B.4 How does capitalism affect liberty?](/afaq/secB4.html)
+ * [B.5 Is capitalism empowering and based on human action?](/afaq/secB5.html)
+ * [B.6 But won't decisions made by individuals with their own money be the best? ](/afaq/secB6.html)
+ * [B.7 What classes exist within modern society?](/afaq/secB7.html)
+
+[‹ A.5 What are some examples of "Anarchy in Action"?](/afaq/secA5.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/index.html "Go to parent page" ) [B.0 Section B
+Introduction ›](/afaq/secBint.html "Go to next page" )
diff --git a/markdown/secBint.md b/markdown/secBint.md
index 0e3ba8661dc531fdadc1d7f5ee8f26e4deab3df3..6ad694817c18a54039d10f2211b709b5ca650e1a 100644
--- a/markdown/secBint.md
+++ b/markdown/secBint.md
@@ -167,3 +167,8 @@ discusses how the social relationships and institutions described in this
section impact on society as a whole. [Section E](secEcon.html) discusses the
causes (and some suggested solutions) to the ecological problems we face.
+[‹ Section B - Why do anarchists oppose the current
+system?](/afaq/secBcon.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secBcon.html
+"Go to parent page" ) [B.1 Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?
+›](/afaq/secB1.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secC1.md b/markdown/secC1.md
index cbb872483963bf28363e8b0452e12e7cd65b074c..946f1c5ef02d612be9b06e81704169f8a1f67375 100644
--- a/markdown/secC1.md
+++ b/markdown/secC1.md
@@ -44,11 +44,12 @@ rigor as understood in math departments is everything and empirical relevance
(as understood in physics departments) is nothing . . . general equilibrium
theory . . . using economic terms like 'prices', 'quantities', 'factors of
production,' and so on, but that nevertheless is clearly and even scandalously
-unrepresentative of any recognisable economic system. . .
+unrepresentative of any recognisable economic system. . .
+> _
>
-> "Perfect competition never did exist and never could exist because, even
+> _"Perfect competition never did exist and never could exist because, even
when firms are small, they do not just take the price but strive to make the
price. All the current textbooks say as much, but then immediately go on to
say that the 'cloud-cuckoo' fantasyland of perfect competition is the
@@ -57,11 +58,11 @@ competition . . . But how can an idealised state of perfection be a benchmark
when we are never told how to measure the gap between it and real-world
competition? It is implied that all real-world competition is 'approximately'
like perfect competition, but the degree of the approximation is never
-specified, even vaguely . . .
+specified, even vaguely . . . _
>
-> "Think of the following typical assumptions: perfectly infallible, utterly
+> _"Think of the following typical assumptions: perfectly infallible, utterly
omniscient, infinitely long-lived identical consumers; zero transaction costs;
complete markets for all time-stated claims for all conceivable events, no
trading of any kind at disequilibrium prices; infinitely rapid velocities of
@@ -172,7 +173,7 @@ Discontents**, p. 89, p. 90, p. 91 and p. 93] Even worse, the obvious
conclusion from these events is more than just the ideological perspective of
economists, it is that "the market" is not all-knowing as investors (like the
experts) failed to see the statist policies so bemoaned by the ideologues of
-capitalism **after** 1997\.
+capitalism **after** 1997.
This is not to say that the models produced by neoclassical economists are not
wonders of mathematics or logic. Few people would deny that a lot of very
@@ -378,11 +379,12 @@ determined by household saving; and that the rate of interest is identical
with the rate of profit on capital. Similarly, Piero Sraffa's demolition of
the neoclassical production function in labour and 'capital' was admitted to
be unanswerable, but it has not been allowed to affect the propagation of the
-'marginal productivity' theory of wages and profits.
+'marginal productivity' theory of wages and profits.
+> _
>
-> "The most sophisticated practitioners of orthodoxy maintain that the whole
+> _"The most sophisticated practitioners of orthodoxy maintain that the whole
structure is an exercise in pure logic which has no application to real life
at all. All the same they give their pupils the impression that they are being
provided with an instrument which is valuable, indeed necessary, for the
@@ -477,8 +479,8 @@ winning any intellectual battles (it was decisively refuted by leading
Keynesians like Nicholas Kaldor who saw their predicted fears become true when
it was applied -- see [section C.8](secC8.html)). Hopefully by analysing the
myths of capitalist economics we will aid those fighting for a better world by
-giving them the means of counteracting those who claim the mantle of
-"science"_ to foster the _"economics of the rich"_ onto society.
+giving them the means of counteracting those who claim the mantle of "science"
+to foster the _"economics of the rich"_ onto society.
To conclude, neo-classical economics shows the viability of an unreal system
and this is translated into assertions about the world that we live in. Rather
@@ -550,11 +552,12 @@ always in a country a considerable number of people who cannot subsist a
month, or even a fortnight, without earning a salary and accepting for that
purpose the conditions of work imposed upon them by the State, or offered to
them by those whom the State recognises as owners of land, factories,
-railways, etc., then the results will be so and so.'
+railways, etc., then the results will be so and so.'
+> _
>
-> "So far academic political economy has been only an enumeration of what
+> _"So far academic political economy has been only an enumeration of what
happens under these conditions -- without distinctly stating the conditions
themselves. And then, having described **the facts** which arise in our
society under these conditions, they represent to us these **facts** as rigid,
@@ -787,10 +790,10 @@ dominate and exploit future generations."_ [**At the Cafe**, p. 48]
Then there is the strange co-incidence that "value free" economics generally
ends up blaming all the problems of capitalism on workers. Unemployment?
Recession? Low growth? Wages are too high! Proudhon summed up capitalist
-economic theory well when he stated that _"Political economy \-- that is,
+economic theory well when he stated that _"Political economy -- that is,
proprietary despotism -- can never be in the wrong: it must be the
proletariat."_ [**System of Economical Contradictions**, p. 187] And little
-has changed since 1846 (or 1776!) when it comes to economics "explaining"_
+has changed since 1846 (or 1776!) when it comes to economics "explaining"
capitalism's problems (such as the business cycle or unemployment).
As such, it is hard to consider economics as "value free" when economists
@@ -815,7 +818,7 @@ disaster and making windfall profits while, at the same time, attacking
workers who decide to raise their wages by striking for being selfish. It is,
of course, unlikely that they would let similar charges against bosses pass
without comment. But what can you expect from an ideology which presents
-unemployment as a good thing (namely, increased leisure \-- see [section
+unemployment as a good thing (namely, increased leisure -- see [section
C.1.5](secC1.html#secc15)) and being rich as, essentially, a **disutility**
(the pain of abstaining from present consumption falls heaviest on those with
wealth -- see [section C.2.7](secC2.html#secc27)).
@@ -1020,11 +1023,11 @@ are less generous that other academics in charitable giving. Undergraduate
economics majors are more likely to defect in the classic prisoner's dilemma
game that are other majors. And on other tests, students grow less honest --
expressing less of a tendency, for example, to return found money -- after
-studying economics, but not studying a control subject like astronomy.
+studying economics, but not studying a control subject like astronomy. _
>
-> "This is no surprise, really. Mainstream economics is built entirely on a
+> _"This is no surprise, really. Mainstream economics is built entirely on a
notion of self-interested individuals, rational self-maximisers who can order
their wants and spend accordingly. There's little room for sentiment,
uncertainty, selflessness, and social institutions. Whether this is an
@@ -1105,7 +1108,7 @@ costs beyond it."_ [Joan Robinson, **Collected Economic Papers**, vol. 5, p.
increasing returns to scale, then large firms would have cost advantages
against small ones and would drive them out of business in competition. This
would destroy the concept of perfect competition. However, the invention of
-the average cost curve allowed the theory to work as "proved"_ that a
+the average cost curve allowed the theory to work as "proved" that a
competitive market could **not** become dominated by a few large firms, as
feared.
@@ -1225,23 +1228,24 @@ As Steve Keen notes, this is extremely significant:
> _ "Strange as it may seem . . . this is a very big deal. If marginal returns
are constant rather than falling, then the neo-classical explanation of
everything collapses. Not only can economic theory no longer explain how much
-a firm produces, it can explain nothing else.
+a firm produces, it can explain nothing else.
+> _
>
-> "Take, for example, the economic theory of employment and wage determination
-. . . The theory asserts that the real wage is equivalent to the marginal
-product of labour . . . An employer will employ an additional worker if the
-amount the worker adds to output -- the worker's marginal product -- exceeds
-the real wage . . . [This] explains the economic predilection for blaming
-everything on wages being too high -- neo-classical economics can be summed
-up, as [John Kenneth] Galbraith once remarked, in the twin propositions that
-the poor don't work hard enough because they're paid too much, and the rich
-don't work hard enough because they're not paid enough . . .
+> _"Take, for example, the economic theory of employment and wage
+determination . . . The theory asserts that the real wage is equivalent to the
+marginal product of labour . . . An employer will employ an additional worker
+if the amount the worker adds to output -- the worker's marginal product --
+exceeds the real wage . . . [This] explains the economic predilection for
+blaming everything on wages being too high -- neo-classical economics can be
+summed up, as [John Kenneth] Galbraith once remarked, in the twin propositions
+that the poor don't work hard enough because they're paid too much, and the
+rich don't work hard enough because they're not paid enough . . . _
>
-> "If in fact the output to employment relationship is relatively constant,
+> _"If in fact the output to employment relationship is relatively constant,
then the neo-classical explanation for employment and output determination
collapses. With a flat production function, the marginal product of labour
will be constant, and it will **never** intersect the real wage. The output of
@@ -1600,8 +1604,8 @@ addition of production **can** help"_ economic analysis nor the conclusion
that the _"idea that we should start at the level of the isolated individual
is one which we may well have to abandon . . . If we aggregate over several
individuals, such a model is unjustified."_ [Alan Kirman, _"The Intrinsic
-Limits of Modern Economy Theory",_ pp. 126-139, ** The Economic Journal**,
-Vol. 99, No. 395, p. 138, p. 136 and p. 138]
+Limits of Modern Economy Theory",_ pp. 126-139, The Economic Journal, Vol. 99,
+No. 395, p. 138, p. 136 and p. 138]
So why all the bother? Why spend over 100 years driving economics into a dead-
end? Simply because of political reasons. The advantage of the neoclassical
@@ -1855,22 +1859,23 @@ income in an industrialised economy. As Joan Robinson summarises:
> _ "The neo-classical theory . . . pretends to derive a system of prices from
the relative scarcity of commodities in relation to the demand for them. I say
-**pretend** because this system cannot be applied to capitalist production.
+**pretend** because this system cannot be applied to capitalist production.
+> _
>
-> "The Walrasian conception of equilibrium arrived at by higgling and haggling
-in a market illuminates the account of prisoners of war swapping the contents
-of their Red Cross parcels.
+> _"The Walrasian conception of equilibrium arrived at by higgling and
+haggling in a market illuminates the account of prisoners of war swapping the
+contents of their Red Cross parcels. _
>
-> "It makes sense also, with some modifications, in an economy of artisans and
-small traders . . .
+> _"It makes sense also, with some modifications, in an economy of artisans
+and small traders . . . _
>
-> "Two essential characteristics of industrial capitalism are absent in these
+> _"Two essential characteristics of industrial capitalism are absent in these
economic systems -- the distinction between income from work and income from
property and the nature of investments made in the light of uncertain
expectations about a long future."_ [**Collected Economic Papers**, vol. 5, p.
@@ -2063,16 +2068,17 @@ empirical evidence nor does it have any real logical basis (it is just an
assumption). In fact, the evidence we do have points against it and in favour
of the socialist analysis of unemployment and the labour market.
-One of the reasons why neoclassical economics is so blas about unemployment is
-because it argues that it should never happen. That capitalism has always been
-marked by unemployment and that this rises and falls as part of the business
-cycle is a inconvenient fact which neoclassical economics avoided seriously
-analysing until the 1930s. This flows from Say's law, the argument that supply
-creates its own demand. This theory, and its more formally put Walras' Law, is
-the basis on which the idea that capitalism could never face a general
-economic crisis is rooted in. That capitalism has **always** been marked by
-boom and bust has never put Say's Law into question except during the 1930s
-and even then it was quickly put back into the centre of economic ideology.
+One of the reasons why neoclassical economics is so blasé about unemployment
+is because it argues that it should never happen. That capitalism has always
+been marked by unemployment and that this rises and falls as part of the
+business cycle is a inconvenient fact which neoclassical economics avoided
+seriously analysing until the 1930s. This flows from Say's law, the argument
+that supply creates its own demand. This theory, and its more formally put
+Walras' Law, is the basis on which the idea that capitalism could never face a
+general economic crisis is rooted in. That capitalism has **always** been
+marked by boom and bust has never put Say's Law into question except during
+the 1930s and even then it was quickly put back into the centre of economic
+ideology.
For Say, _"every producer asks for money in exchange for his products only for
the purpose of employing that money again immediately in the purchase of
@@ -2169,7 +2175,7 @@ most countries, the US has seen the largest increases (followed by the UK). In
average worker on the shop floor. By 2002 a boss of a FTSE 100 company could
expect to make 54 times as much as the typical worker. This means that while
the wages for those on the shopfloor went up a little, once inflation is taken
-into account, the bosses wages arose from 200,000 per year to around 1.4m a
+into account, the bosses wages arose from £200,000 per year to around £1.4m a
year. In America, the increase was even worse. In 1980, the ratio of CEO to
worker pay 50 to 1. Twenty years later it was 525 to 1, before falling back to
281 to 1 in 2002 following the collapse of the share price bubble. [Larry
@@ -2198,7 +2204,7 @@ of the economies and companies in question. In Britain trend growth was a bit
more than 2% in 1980 and is still a bit more than 2% a quarter of a century
later. A study of corporate performance in Britain and the United States
looked at the companies that make up the FTSE 100 index in Britain and the
-S&P; 500 in the US and found that executive income is rarely justified by
+S&P 500 in the US and found that executive income is rarely justified by
improved performance. [Julie Froud, Sukhdev Johal, Adam Leaver and Karel
Williams, **Financialisation and Strategy: Narrative and Number** ] Rising
stock prices in the 1990s, for example, were the product of one of the
@@ -2474,7 +2480,7 @@ The Austrian school has a radically different perspective. This school, so
named because its founders were Austrian, is passionately pro-capitalist and
argues against **any** form of state intervention (bar, of course, the
definition and defence of capitalist property rights and the power that these
-create). Economists of this school include Eugen von Bhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von
+create). Economists of this school include Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von
Mises, Murray Rothbard, Israel Kirzner and Frederick von Hayek (the latter is
often attacked by other Austrian economists as not being sufficiently robust
in his opposition to state intervention). It is very much a minority school.
@@ -2520,7 +2526,7 @@ enough, economists of this school often maintain that while equilibrium does
not exist their analysis is rooted on two key markets being in such a state:
the labour market and the market for credit. The reason for these strange
exceptions to their general assumption is, fundamentally, political. The
-former is required to deflect claims that "pure"_ capitalism would result in
+former is required to deflect claims that "pure" capitalism would result in
the exploitation of the working class, the latter is required to show that
such a system would be stable.
@@ -2537,7 +2543,7 @@ Studies**, p. 201] Therefore, we see the usual embrace of equilibrium theory
to defend capitalism against the evils it creates even by those who claim to
know better.
-Of course, the need to argue that there would be full employment under "pure"_
+Of course, the need to argue that there would be full employment under "pure"
capitalism is required to maintain the fiction that everyone will be better
off under it. It is hard to say that working class people will benefit if they
are subject to high levels of unemployment and the resulting fear and
@@ -2900,3 +2906,7 @@ Those who seek freedom for all and want to base themselves on more than faith
in an economic system marked by hierarchy, inequality and oppression would be
better seeking a more realistic and less apologetic economic theory.
+[‹ C.0 Section C Introduction](/afaq/secCint.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/secCcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [C.2 Why is capitalism
+exploitative? ›](/afaq/secC2.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secC10.md b/markdown/secC10.md
index d5a0171ac0b47c38bc7695fa3ca5c589ed29901f..6be9a3c44a298b6b3feb53f88f85fac152607b1b 100644
--- a/markdown/secC10.md
+++ b/markdown/secC10.md
@@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ p. 172] we will return to this issue in [section C.10.3](secC10.html#secc103).
Things did not get any better in the 1990s. Growth in GDP per capita was
steadily decreased in the UK, from 2.3% per annum between 1950 and 1970, to
-2.1% between 1970 and 1979 and to 1.9% between 1979 and 1997\. For the US, a
+2.1% between 1970 and 1979 and to 1.9% between 1979 and 1997. For the US, a
similar process was at work (from 2.0%, to 2.3% to 1.5%). At best, it can be
said that the growth rates of Germany and France between 1979 and 1997 were
worse (at 1.7% and 1.4%, respectively). However, before 1979 their growth was
@@ -280,11 +280,12 @@ rate of growth of world GDP per capita was 3.5% per annum . . . The average
rate of growth of world GDP per capital was 2.1% per annum during the 1970s,
1.3% per annum during the 1980s and 1% per annum during the 1990s. This growth
was more volatile compared with the past, particularly in the developing
-world. the growth was also unevenly distributed across countries . . .
+world. the growth was also unevenly distributed across countries . . .
+> _
>
-> "Economic inequalities have increased in the late twentieth century as the
+> _"Economic inequalities have increased in the late twentieth century as the
income gap between rich and poor countries, between rich and the poor in the
world's population, as also between rich and poor people within countries, has
widen. The ratio of GDP per capital in the richest country to GDP per capita
@@ -432,13 +433,14 @@ capitalism. While an impressive piece of ideological obfuscation, the argument
ignores changes **within** countries. The article states that _"average
incomes in India and China are going up extremely rapidly"_ but not every
person receives the average. The average hides a lot. For example, 9 homeless
-people have an average income of 0 but add a multi-millionaire and the average
-income of the ten people is in the millions. On average, at the end of a game
-of poker everyone has the same amount of money they started with. As such, to
-ignore the fact that inequality increased dramatically both countries during
-the 1990s is disgraceful when trying to evaluate whether poverty has actually
-decreased or not. And it should be obvious that if inequality is increasing
-**within** a country then it must also be increasing internationally as well.
+people have an average income of £0 but add a multi-millionaire and the
+average income of the ten people is in the millions. On average, at the end of
+a game of poker everyone has the same amount of money they started with. As
+such, to ignore the fact that inequality increased dramatically both countries
+during the 1990s is disgraceful when trying to evaluate whether poverty has
+actually decreased or not. And it should be obvious that if inequality is
+increasing **within** a country then it must also be increasing
+internationally as well.
Significantly, _"where governments adopted the [neo-liberal] Washington
Consensus, the poor have benefited less from growth."_ [Joseph E. Stiglitz,
@@ -894,11 +896,12 @@ competitors while it was exploiting an effective monopoly of the steam engine,
from 1780 to 1840. Through most of that period the nation had a high and
complicated tariff . . ., massive public investment and spending . . . and an
extensive public welfare system with wage supplements and welfare allowances
-indexed to basic costs of living . . .
+indexed to basic costs of living . . .
+> _
>
-> "There followed a long period, from about 1840 to 1931, when Britain did
+> _"There followed a long period, from about 1840 to 1931, when Britain did
indeed have the freest trade and relatively speaking the cheapest government
and (until 1914) the smallest public sector among the industrially developing
nations, Yet, for competitiveness, that century saw the relative decline of
@@ -1161,7 +1164,7 @@ owner of a business which combines work effort and ownership, for example a
farmer or some other self-employed worker) fell, with farm income going from
6.8% to 3.0%, while other such income dropped from 10.1% to 8.7%. [Walter S.
Measday, _"Labor's Share in the National Income,"_ **The Quarterly Review of
-Economics & Business**, Vol. 2, No. 3, August 1962] Unless Friedman would
+Economics & Business**, Vol. 2, No. 3, August 1962] Unless Friedman would
argue that 1929 America was more statist than 1959, it seems that his
assertion was false even when it was first made. How did his comment fare
after he made it? Looking at the period after 1959 there was continuing
@@ -1230,32 +1233,32 @@ as the lack of concern about the inflationary nature of such massive "pay"
rises (particularly when contrasted to the response over very slight increases
in workers' pay). This means that "labour" income could remain constant while
CEO salaries explode and worker wages stagnant or even fall, as is the case in
-both the US (and UK) since 1980\. In such circumstances, looking at "human
+both the US (and UK) since 1980. In such circumstances, looking at "human
services" becomes misleading as returns to capital are listed as "labour"
simply because they are in the form of bosses pay. Equally, CEO perks and
bonuses would be included as "labour" non-wage compensation.
To see what this means we must use an example. Take a country with 100 people
-with a combined income of 10,000. The average income would be 100 each. Taking
-a labour/capital split of 70/30, we get an income of labour of 7000 and an
-income to capital of 3000. Assuming that 5% of the population own the capital
-stock, that is an average income of 600 each while labour gets an average of
-73.68. However, 10% of the population are managers and assuming another 70/30
-split between management and worker income this means that management gets
-2100 in total (an average of 210) while workers get 4900 (an average of
-57.65). This means that the owners of capital get 6 times the national average
-income, managers just over twice that amount and workers just over half the
-average. In other words, a national statistic of 70% labour income hides the
-reality that workers, who make up 85% of the population, actually get less
-than half the income (49%). Capital income, although less, is distributed to
-fewer people and so causes massive inequality (15% of the population get an
-average income of 340, nearly 6 times more than the average for the remaining
-85% while the upper 5% get over 10 times). If the share of management in
-labour income rises to 35%, then workers wages fall and inequality rises while
-labour income remains constant at 70% (management's average income rises to
-363.33 while workers' falls to 53.53). It should be stressed this example
-**underestimates** inequality in capitalist economies, particularly ones which
-had the misfortunate to apply Friedman's ideas.
+with a combined income of £10,000. The average income would be £100 each.
+Taking a labour/capital split of 70/30, we get an income of labour of £7000
+and an income to capital of £3000. Assuming that 5% of the population own the
+capital stock, that is an average income of £600 each while labour gets an
+average of £73.68. However, 10% of the population are managers and assuming
+another 70/30 split between management and worker income this means that
+management gets £2100 in total (an average of £210) while workers get £4900
+(an average of £57.65). This means that the owners of capital get 6 times the
+national average income, managers just over twice that amount and workers just
+over half the average. In other words, a national statistic of 70% labour
+income hides the reality that workers, who make up 85% of the population,
+actually get less than half the income (49%). Capital income, although less,
+is distributed to fewer people and so causes massive inequality (15% of the
+population get an average income of £340, nearly 6 times more than the average
+for the remaining 85% while the upper 5% get over 10 times). If the share of
+management in labour income rises to 35%, then workers wages fall and
+inequality rises while labour income remains constant at 70% (management's
+average income rises to £363.33 while workers' falls to £53.53). It should be
+stressed this example **underestimates** inequality in capitalist economies,
+particularly ones which had the misfortunate to apply Friedman's ideas.
Looking further a field, this pattern has been repeated everywhere "free(r)
market" capitalism has been imposed. In Chile equality and labour's share
@@ -1442,11 +1445,12 @@ People may consume more goods and become less happy or less free at the same
time . . . [For example] real wages [may have] advanced . . . but at the cost
of longer hours and greater intensity of labour . . . In statistical terms,
this reveals an upward curve. To the families concerned it might feel like
-immiseration.
+immiseration.
+> _
>
-> "Thus it is perfectly possible . . . [to have an] improvement in average
+> _"Thus it is perfectly possible . . . [to have an] improvement in average
material standards . . . [at the same time as] intensified exploitation,
greater insecurity, and increasing human misery . . . most people [can be]
'better off' than their forerunners had been fifty years before, but they had
@@ -1590,34 +1594,27 @@ industrial nation to the unknown ideal of pure capitalism. It is also
interesting to note that it is also number one, or close to it, in the
following areas [Richard Du Boff, **Accumulation and Power**, pp. 183-4]:
-> * lowest level of job security for workers, with greatest chance of being
-dismissed without notice or reason.
->
+> * lowest level of job security for workers, with greatest chance of being
+dismissed without notice or reason.
-> * greatest chance for a worker to become unemployed without adequate
-unemployment and medical insurance.
->
+> * greatest chance for a worker to become unemployed without adequate
+unemployment and medical insurance.
-> * less leisure time for workers, such as holiday time.
->
+> * less leisure time for workers, such as holiday time.
-> * one of the most lopsided income distribution profiles.
->
+> * one of the most lopsided income distribution profiles.
-> * lowest ratio of female to male earnings, in 1987 64% of the male wage.
->
+> * lowest ratio of female to male earnings, in 1987 64% of the male wage.
-> * highest incidence of poverty in the industrial world.
->
+> * highest incidence of poverty in the industrial world.
-> * among the worse rankings of all advanced industrial nations for pollutant
-emissions into the air.
->
+> * among the worse rankings of all advanced industrial nations for
+pollutant emissions into the air.
-> * highest murder rates.
->
+> * highest murder rates.
+
+> * worse ranking for life expectancy and infant morality.
-> * worse ranking for life expectancy and infant morality.
>
It seems strange that the more laissez-faire system has the worse job
@@ -1882,3 +1879,8 @@ crisis. When it boils down to it, we all have two options -- you can do what
is right or you can do what you are told. "Free market" capitalist economics
opts for the latter.
+[‹ C.9 Would laissez-faire capitalism reduce unemployment?](/afaq/secC9.html
+"Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secCcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [C.11
+Doesn't neo-liberalism in Chile prove that the free market benefits everyone?
+›](/afaq/secC11.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secC11.md b/markdown/secC11.md
index d722c49a566bba81021a8b6f7646f62fce5d8581..98513ec46a8ef8fd18ae223f359241d0319650d8 100644
--- a/markdown/secC11.md
+++ b/markdown/secC11.md
@@ -334,7 +334,7 @@ Pinochet's state took a more active role in promoting economic activity. For
example, it developed new export industries which _"benefited from a series of
subsidies, privatisations, and deregulations that allowed for unrestricted
exploitation of natural resources of limited renewability. Equally important
-were low wages, great flexibility of employers vis--vis workers, and high
+were low wages, great flexibility of employers vis-à-vis workers, and high
levels of unemployment."_ [Collins and Lear, **Op. Cit.**, p. 20] The forestry
sector was marked by government hand-outs to the already rich. Joseph Collins
and John Lear argue that the neoliberals' _"stated goals were to curtail
@@ -709,7 +709,7 @@ means that the deeper the recession, the higher the subsequent growth in the
up-turn. So to see if Chile's economic growth was a miracle and worth the
decrease in income for the many, we need to look at whole business cycle,
rather than for the upturn. If we do this we find that Chile had the second
-worse rate of growth in Latin America between 1975 and 1980\. The average
+worse rate of growth in Latin America between 1975 and 1980. The average
growth in GDP was 1.5% per year between 1974 and 1982, which was lower than
the average Latin American growth rate of 4.3% and lower than the 4.5% of
Chile in the 1960's. [Rayack, **Op. Cit.**, p. 64]
@@ -1032,8 +1032,8 @@ have portrayed the boom natural-resource extraction as the result of the "free
market," in reality private capital lacked the initiative and foresight to
develop these industries and CORFO provided aid as well as credits and
subsidies to encourage it. [James M. Cypher, _"Is Chile a Neoliberal
-Success?"_, **Dollars & Sense**, September/October 2004] Then there is the
-role of Fundacin Chile, a public-private agency designed to develop firms in
+Success?"_, **Dollars & Sense**, September/October 2004] Then there is the
+role of Fundación Chile, a public-private agency designed to develop firms in
new areas where private capital will not invest. This pays for research and
development before selling its stake to the private sector once a project
becomes commercially viable. [Jon Jeter, _"A Smoother Road To Free Markets,"_
@@ -1068,3 +1068,8 @@ usually does, in increased inequality, exploitation, poverty, pollution, crime
and social alienation. The irony is that many right-wing free-marketers point
to it as a model of the benefits of capitalism.
+[‹ C.10 Is "free market" capitalism the best way to reduce
+poverty?](/afaq/secC10.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secCcon.html
+"Go to parent page" ) [C.12 Doesn't Hong Kong show the potentials of "free
+market" capitalism? ›](/afaq/secC12.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secC12.md b/markdown/secC12.md
index c8ea259a8994e080594c733ffd0b98810a55cdab..3c78ba492ea0af2e7a22cb33c2cfa9663936f49b 100644
--- a/markdown/secC12.md
+++ b/markdown/secC12.md
@@ -19,17 +19,18 @@ consider important). Milton Friedman played a leading role in this
idealisation of the former UK colony. In his words:
> _ "Take the fifty-year experiment in economic policy provided by Hong Kong
-between the end of World War II and . . . when Hong Kong reverted to China.
+between the end of World War II and . . . when Hong Kong reverted to China.
+> _
>
-> "In this experiment, Hong Kong represents the experimental treatment . . . I
-take Britain as one control because Britain, a benevolent dictator, imposed
-different policies on Hong Kong from the ones it pursued at home . . .
+> _"In this experiment, Hong Kong represents the experimental treatment . . .
+I take Britain as one control because Britain, a benevolent dictator, imposed
+different policies on Hong Kong from the ones it pursued at home . . . _
>
-> "Nonetheless, there are some statistics, and in 1960, the earliest date for
+> _"Nonetheless, there are some statistics, and in 1960, the earliest date for
which I have been able to get them, the average per capita income in Hong Kong
was 28 percent of that in Great Britain; by 1996, it had risen to 137 percent
of that in Britain. In short, from 1960 to 1996, Hong Kong's per capita income
@@ -68,11 +69,12 @@ points out:
> _ "The main explanation for low tax rates . . . is not low social spending.
One important factor is that Hong Kong does not have to support a defence
industry . . . The most crucial explanation . . . lies in the fact that less
-than half of the government's revenues comes from direct taxation.
+than half of the government's revenues comes from direct taxation.
+> _
>
-> "The Hong Kong government actually derives much of its revenue from land
+> _"The Hong Kong government actually derives much of its revenue from land
transactions. The territory's land is technically owned by the government, and
the government fills its coffers by selling fifty-year leases to developers
(the fact that there are no absolute private property rights to land will come
@@ -246,14 +248,14 @@ There are other explanations for Hong Kong's high growth rates than simply
economic growth rate than regions (which are held back by large rural areas).
This is because the agricultural sector rarely achieves high economic growth
rates and so in its absence a high growth rate is easier to achieve. Secondly,
-there is Hong Kong's location and its corresponding role as an entrept
+there is Hong Kong's location and its corresponding role as an entrepôt
economy. Wade notes that _"its economic growth is a function of its service
-role in a wider regional economy, as entrept trader, regional headquarters for
-multinational companies, and refuge for nervous money."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p.
+role in a wider regional economy, as entrepôt trader, regional headquarters
+for multinational companies, and refuge for nervous money."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p.
331] Being between China and the rest of the world means its traders could act
as a middleman, earning income from the mark-up they could impose on good
going through the territory. This is why Hong Kong is often referred to as an
-entrept economy, a place that imports, stores, and re-exports goods. In other
+entrepôt economy, a place that imports, stores, and re-exports goods. In other
words, Hong Kong made a lot of its money because many Chinese exports and
imports went through it and its traders marked-up the prices. It should be
obvious if most of Western Europe's goods went through, say, Liverpool, that
@@ -430,3 +432,8 @@ did, however, contribute to the myth that the British were benign imperialists
and the "free market" they introduced into Hong Kong was in the interests of
all rather than for those who exercised the dictatorship.
+[‹ C.11 Doesn't neo-liberalism in Chile prove that the free market benefits
+everyone? ](/afaq/secC11.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secCcon.html
+"Go to parent page" ) [Section D - How do statism and capitalism affect
+society? ›](/afaq/secDcon.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secC2.md b/markdown/secC2.md
index e657fa244ac9c9690ef804de284b64d34099e430..11d77ceb27bb7756052b2ef05f5ff635abe96962 100644
--- a/markdown/secC2.md
+++ b/markdown/secC2.md
@@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ same -- the hierarchical and class nature of capitalist society.
Before discussing how surplus-value exists and the flaws in capitalist
defences of it, we need to be specific about what we mean by the term
-_**"surplus value."_** To do this we must revisit the difference between
+_**"surplus value."**_ To do this we must revisit the difference between
possession and private property we discussed in [section B.3](secB3.html). For
anarchists, private property (or capital) is _"the power to produce without
labour."_ [Proudhon, **What is Property?**, p. 161] As such, surplus value is
@@ -307,11 +307,11 @@ dear. We are discussing the situation at the level of the economy as a whole,
explained in terms of buying cheap in order to sell dear then, over all, such
transactions would cancel each other out when we look at the market as a whole
as any profit will cancel any loss. For example, if someone buys a product at,
-say, 20 and sells it at 25 then there would be no surplus overall as someone
-else will have to pay 20 for something which cost 25. In other words, what one
-person gains as a seller, someone else will lose as a buyer and no net surplus
-has been created. Capitalists, in other words, do not simply profit at each
-other's expense. There is a creation of surplus rather than mere
+say, £20 and sells it at £25 then there would be no surplus overall as someone
+else will have to pay £20 for something which cost £25. In other words, what
+one person gains as a seller, someone else will lose as a buyer and no net
+surplus has been created. Capitalists, in other words, do not simply profit at
+each other's expense. There is a creation of surplus rather than mere
redistribution of a given product. This means that we are explaining why
production results in a aggregate surplus and why it gets distributed between
social classes under capitalism.
@@ -464,7 +464,7 @@ for you"_ (as if pieces of paper can actually do any form of work!) obviously
this is not the case -- human beings have to do the actual work. As Kropotkin
put it, _"if [the capitalist] locks [his money] up, it will not increase,
because [it] does not grow like seed, and after a lapse of a twelve month he
-will not find 110 in his drawer if he only put 100 into it._ [**The Place of
+will not find £110 in his drawer if he only put £100 into it._ [**The Place of
Anarchism in Socialistic Evolution**, p. 4] Capital only becomes productive in
the labour process when workers use it:
@@ -625,11 +625,12 @@ dealing with the worker in the production process. The more dependent the
worker is on his or her particular employer, the more power the capitalist has
to demand longer and harder work in return for a day's pay. The resultant
unremunerated increase in the productivity of the worker per unit of time is
-the source of surplus-value.
+the source of surplus-value.
+> _
>
-> "The measure of surplus-value is the difference between the value-added by
+> _"The measure of surplus-value is the difference between the value-added by
and the value paid to the worker. As owner of the means of production, the
industrial capitalist has a legal right to keep the surplus-value for
himself."_ [**Competitive Advantage on the Shop Floor**, p. 54]
@@ -744,14 +745,14 @@ This is where marginal productivity theory comes in. In neo-classical theory,
the contribution of a specific factor is defined as the marginal product of
that factor when the other factors are left constant. Take, as an example, a
hundred bushels of wheat produced by X acres of land being worked by Y workers
-using Z worth of capital. The contribution of land can then be defined as the
+using £Z worth of capital. The contribution of land can then be defined as the
increase in wheat that an extra acre of land would produce (X+1) if the same
number of workers employed the same capital worked it. Similarly, the
contribution of a worker would be the increase that would result if an
addition worker was hired (Y + 1) to work the same land (X) with the same
-capital (Z). The contribution of capital, obviously, would be the increase in
+capital (£Z). The contribution of capital, obviously, would be the increase in
wheat produced by the same number of workers (X) working the same amount of
-land (Y) using one more unit of capital (Z+1). Then mathematics kicks in. If
+land (Y) using one more unit of capital (£Z+1). Then mathematics kicks in. If
enough assumptions are made in terms of the substitutability of factors,
diminishing returns, and so forth, then a mathematical theorem (Euler's
Theorem) can be used to show that the sum of these marginal contributions
@@ -826,7 +827,7 @@ quality** infused into the soil -- endow it with vigour and fertility? Exactly
there lies the monopoly of the proprietor, though he did not make the
implement, he asks pay for its use. When the Creator shall present himself and
claim farm-rent, we will consider the matter with him; or even when the
-proprietor \-- his pretended representative -- shall exhibit his power of
+proprietor -- his pretended representative -- shall exhibit his power of
attorney."_ [**What is Property?**, pp. 166-7]
In other words, granting permission cannot be considered as a "contribution"
@@ -858,7 +859,7 @@ Equally, if the land and the capital were owned by the labourers then
productive process and, consequently, having "aided" production. Which shows
the fallacy of the idea that profits, interest and rent represent a form of
"contribution" to the productive process by land and capital which needs
-rewarded. They only get a "reward"_ when they hire labour to work them, i.e.
+rewarded. They only get a "reward" when they hire labour to work them, i.e.
they give permission for others to use the property in question in return for
telling them what to do and keeping the product of their labour.
@@ -1040,12 +1041,13 @@ when an extra shovel is added and the other factors, such as labour, are held
constant. The labour is the human activity of carrying out this production
process. If labour was held 'constant' is the sense of carrying out the same
human activity, then any third shovel would just lie unused and the extra
-product would be identically zero.
+product would be identically zero.
+> _
>
-> "'Holding labour constant' really means reorganising the human activity in a
-more capital intensive way so that the extra shovel will be optimally
+> _"'Holding labour constant' really means reorganising the human activity in
+a more capital intensive way so that the extra shovel will be optimally
utilised. For instance, all three workers could use the three shovels to fill
the wheelbarrow and then they could take turns emptying the wheelbarrow. In
this manner, the workers would use the extra shovel and by so doing they would
@@ -1103,11 +1105,12 @@ productivity of a technology is given to the firm, irrespective of the social
context in which the firm attempts to utilise the technology . . . this
assumption, typically implicit in mainstream economic analysis and [is]
derived from an ignorance of the nature of the production process as much as
-everything else . . ."
+everything else . . ."
+> _
>
-> "The second flaw in the neo-classical theoretical structure is the
+> _"The second flaw in the neo-classical theoretical structure is the
assumption that factor prices are independent of factor productivities. On the
basis of this assumption, factor productivities arising from different
combinations of capital and labour can be taken as given to the firm; hence
@@ -1190,12 +1193,13 @@ and when this price is once paid to the manufacturer, the tools which he has
delivered belong to him no more. Never can he claim double payment for the
same tool, or the same job of repairs. If he annually shares in the products
of the farmer, it is owing to the fact that he annually does something for the
-farmer.
+farmer.
+> _
>
-> "The proprietor, on the contrary, does not yield his implement; eternally he
-is paid for it, eternally he keeps it."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 169-170]
+> _"The proprietor, on the contrary, does not yield his implement; eternally
+he is paid for it, eternally he keeps it."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 169-170]
While the capitalist, in general, gets their investment back plus something
extra, the workers can never get their time back. That time has gone, forever,
@@ -1441,11 +1445,12 @@ profit on capital . . . the value of capital equipment, reckoned as its future
earnings discounted at a rate of interest equal to the rate of profit, is
equal to its initial cost, which involves prices including profit at the same
rate on the value of the capital involved in producing it, allowing for
-depreciation at the appropriate rate over its life up to date.
+depreciation at the appropriate rate over its life up to date.
+> _
>
-> "The value of a stock of capital equipment, therefore, involves the rate of
+> _"The value of a stock of capital equipment, therefore, involves the rate of
profit. There is no meaning in a 'quantity of capital' apart from the rate of
profit."_ [**Collected Economic Papers**, vol. 4, p. 125]
@@ -1687,11 +1692,12 @@ settle at the level which equated supply and demand for loans. Whether it was
positive or negative would depend upon whether spendthrifts or prudent family
men happened to predominate in the community. There is no **a priori**
presumption in favour of a positive rate. Thus, the rate of interest cannot be
-account for as the 'cost of waiting.'
+account for as the 'cost of waiting.'
+> _
>
-> "The reason why there is always a demand for loans at a positive rate of
+> _"The reason why there is always a demand for loans at a positive rate of
interest, in an economy where there is property in the means of production and
means of production are scarce, is that finance expended now can be used to
employ labour in productive processes which will yield a surplus in the future
@@ -1951,11 +1957,12 @@ difference:
> _ "Comparing a loan to a **sale**, you say: Your argument is as valid
against the latter as against the former, for the hatter who sells hats does
-not **deprive** himself.
+not **deprive** himself.
+> _
>
-> "No, for he receives for his hats -- at least he is reputed to receive for
+> _"No, for he receives for his hats -- at least he is reputed to receive for
them -- their exact value immediately, neither **more** nor **less**. But the
capitalist lender not only is not deprived, since he recovers his capital
intact, but he receives more than his capital, more than he contributes to the
@@ -1967,7 +1974,7 @@ Progress**]
The reason why interest rates do not fall to zero is due to the class nature
of capitalism, **not** "time preference." That it is ultimately rooted in
-social institutions can be seen from Bhm-Bawerk's acknowledgement that
+social institutions can be seen from Böhm-Bawerk's acknowledgement that
monopoly can result in exploitation by increasing the rate of interest above
the rate specified by "time preference" (i.e. the market):
@@ -1977,11 +1984,12 @@ will suspend the capitalists' competition, and then those unfortunates, whom
fate has thrown on a local market ruled by monopoly, are delivered over to the
discretion of the adversary. Hence direct usury, of which the poor borrower is
only too often the victim; and hence the low wages forcibly exploited from the
-workers. . .
+workers. . .
+> _
>
-> "It is not my business to put excesses like these, where there actually is
+> _"It is not my business to put excesses like these, where there actually is
exploitation, under the aegis of that favourable opinion I pronounced above as
to the essence of interest. But, on the other hand, I must say with all
emphasis, that what we might stigmatise as 'usury' does not consist in the
@@ -1998,9 +2006,9 @@ Little wonder, then, that Proudhon continually stressed the need for working
people to organise themselves and credit (which, of course, they would have
done naturally, if it were not for the state intervening to protect the
interests, income and power of the ruling class, i.e. of itself and the
-economically dominant class). If, as Bhm-Bawerk admitted, interest rates could
-be high due to institutional factors then, surely, they do not reflect the
-"time preferences" of individuals. This means that they could be lower
+economically dominant class). If, as Böhm-Bawerk admitted, interest rates
+could be high due to institutional factors then, surely, they do not reflect
+the "time preferences" of individuals. This means that they could be lower
(effectively zero) if society organised itself in the appropriate manner. The
need for savings could be replaced by, for example, co-operation and credit
(as already exists, in part, in any developed economy). Organising these could
@@ -2097,8 +2105,8 @@ would work hard without reward."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 232]
The interest rate is, in neo-classical economic theory, set when the demand
for loans meets the supply of savings. The interest rate stems from the fact
that people prefer present spending over future spending. If someone borrows
-200 for one year at 5%, this is basically the same as saying that there would
-rather have 200 now than 210 a year from now. Thus interest is the cost of
+£200 for one year at 5%, this is basically the same as saying that there would
+rather have £200 now than £210 a year from now. Thus interest is the cost of
providing a service, namely time. People are able to acquire today what they
would otherwise not have until sometime in the future. With a loan, interest
is the price of the advantage obtained from having money immediately rather
@@ -2109,7 +2117,7 @@ economics and look purely at individuals and their preferences independently
of their social circumstances then it can make sense. However, once you look
wider you start to see this argument start to fall apart. Why is it that the
wealthy are willing to save and provide funds while it is the working class
-who do not save and get into debt? Surely a person's "time preference"_ is
+who do not save and get into debt? Surely a person's "time preference" is
dependent on their socio-economic position? As we argued in the [last
section](secC2.html#secc26), this means that any subjective evaluation of the
present and future is dependent on, not independent of, the structure of
@@ -2213,13 +2221,13 @@ critique:
with the existence and the height of a 'sacrifice of abstinence.' Interest, in
exceptional cases, is received where there has been no individual sacrifice of
abstinence. High interest is often got where the sacrifice of the abstinence
-is very trifling -- as in the case of [a] millionaire \-- and 'low interest'
-is often got where the sacrifice entailed by the abstinence is very great. The
+is very trifling -- as in the case of [a] millionaire -- and 'low interest' is
+often got where the sacrifice entailed by the abstinence is very great. The
hardly saved sovereign which the domestic servant puts in the savings bank
bears, absolutely and relatively, less interest than the lightly spared
thousands which the millionaire puts to fructify in debenture and mortgage
funds. These phenomena fit badly into a theory which explains interest quite
-universally as a 'wage of abstinence.'"_ [Eugen von Bhm-Bawerk, **Capital and
+universally as a 'wage of abstinence.'"_ [Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, **Capital and
Interest**, p. 277]
All in all, as Joan Robinson pointed out, _"that the rate of interest is the
@@ -2258,7 +2266,7 @@ The lesson is obvious, in mainstream economics if reality conflicts with your
theory, do not reconsider the theory, change its name!
The problems of "waiting" and "abstinence" as the source of interest becomes
-even clearer when we look at inherited wealth. Talking about "abstinence"_ or
+even clearer when we look at inherited wealth. Talking about "abstinence" or
"waiting" when discussing a capitalist inheriting a company worth millions is
silly. Senior recognised this, arguing that income in this case is not profit,
but rather _"has all the attributes of rent."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 129] That
@@ -2276,7 +2284,7 @@ _"arises independently of any personal act of the capitalist. It accrues to
him even though he has not moved any finger in creating it . . . And it flows
without ever exhausting that capital from which it arises, and therefore
without any necessary limit to its continuance. It is, if one may use such an
-expression in mundane matters, capable of everlasting life."_ [Bhm-Bawerk,
+expression in mundane matters, capable of everlasting life."_ [Böhm-Bawerk,
**Op. Cit.**, p. 1] Little wonder we argued in [section
C.2.3](secC2.html#secc23) that simply owning property does not justify non-
labour income.
@@ -2301,12 +2309,13 @@ exploitation of labour exists. As Joan Robinson summarised:
> _ "Obviously, the reward of saving is owning some more wealth. One of the
advantages, though by no means the only one, of owning wealth is the
-possibility of getting interest on it.
+possibility of getting interest on it.
+> _
>
-> "But why is it possible to get interest? Because businesses make profits and
-are willing to borrow."_ [**Collected Economic Papers**, vol. 5, p. 36]
+> _"But why is it possible to get interest? Because businesses make profits
+and are willing to borrow."_ [**Collected Economic Papers**, vol. 5, p. 36]
This is the key. If ones ability and willingness to "wait" is dependent on
social facts (such as available resources, ones class, etc.), then interest
@@ -2328,11 +2337,12 @@ future . . . It is impossible to say what price would rule if there were a
market for present **versus** future purchasing power, unaffected by any other
influence except the desires of individuals about the time-pattern of their
consumption. It might will be such a market would normally yield a negative
-rate of discount . . .
+rate of discount . . .
+> _
>
-> "The rate of interest is normally positive for a quite different reason.
+> _"The rate of interest is normally positive for a quite different reason.
Present purchasing power is valuable partly because, under the capitalist
rules of the game, it permits its owner . . . to employ labour and undertake
production which will yield a surplus of receipts over costs. In an economy in
@@ -2380,11 +2390,11 @@ Much the same argument can be applied to "time-preference" theories of profit.
These argue that profits are the result of individuals preferring present
goods to future ones. Capitalists pay workers wages, allowing them to consumer
now rather than later. This is the providing of time and this is rewarded by
-profits. This principle was first stated clearly by Eugen von Bhm-Bawerk and
+profits. This principle was first stated clearly by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk and
has been taken as the basis of the "Austrian" school of capitalist economics
(see [section C.1.6](secC1.html#secc16)). After rejecting past theories of
interest (including, as noted above, "abstinence" theories, which he concluded
-the socialists were right to mock), Bhm-Bawerk argued that profits could only
+the socialists were right to mock), Böhm-Bawerk argued that profits could only
by explained by means of time preference:
> _ "**The loan is a real exchange of present goods against future goods** . .
@@ -2429,7 +2439,7 @@ who are unable to "wait" for future goods as they would have died of
starvation long before they arrived.
So it is the **class** position of workers which explains their time
-preferences, as Bhm-Bawerk **himself** acknowledged. Thus capitalism was
+preferences, as Böhm-Bawerk **himself** acknowledged. Thus capitalism was
marked by an _"enormous number of wage-earners who cannot employ their labour
remuneratively by working on their own account, and are accordingly, as a
body, inclined and ready to sell the future product of their labour for a
@@ -2442,16 +2452,16 @@ delivers up its products ready for consumption, that they become economically
dependent on the capitalists who already hold in their possession what we have
called 'intermediate products.'"_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 330 and p. 83]
-Bhm-Bawerk, ironically, simply repeats (although in different words) **and
+Böhm-Bawerk, ironically, simply repeats (although in different words) **and
agrees** with the socialist critique of capitalism which, as we discussed in
[section C.2.2](secC2.html#secc22), is also rooted in the class dependence of
workers to capitalists (Bakunin, for example, argued that the capitalists were
_"profiting by the economic dependence of the worker"_ in order to exploit
them by _"turn[ing] the worker into a subordinate."_ [**The Political
-Philosophy of Bakunin**, p. 188]). The difference is that Bhm-Bawerk thinks
+Philosophy of Bakunin**, p. 188]). The difference is that Böhm-Bawerk thinks
that the capitalists deserve their income from wealth while anarchists, like
other socialists, argue they do not as they simply are being rewarded for
-being wealthy. Bhm-Bawerk simply cannot bring himself to acknowledge that an
+being wealthy. Böhm-Bawerk simply cannot bring himself to acknowledge that an
individual's psychology, their subjective evaluations, are conditioned by
their social circumstances and so cannot comprehend the **class** character of
capitalism and profit. After all, a landless worker will, of course, estimate
@@ -2459,7 +2469,7 @@ the "sacrifice" or "disutility" of selling their labour to a master as much
less than the peasant farmer or artisan who possesses their own land or tools.
The same can be said of workers organised into a union.
-As such, Bhm-Bawerk ignores the obvious, that the source of non-labour income
+As such, Böhm-Bawerk ignores the obvious, that the source of non-labour income
is not in individual subjective evaluations but rather the **social** system
within which people live. The worker does not sell her labour power because
she "underestimates" the value of future goods but because she lacks the means
@@ -2475,7 +2485,7 @@ surplus value, the dependence of the working class on the capitalists will
tend to grow over time as the "waiting" required to go into business will tend
to increase also.
-An additional irony of Bhm-Bawerk's argument is that is very similar to the
+An additional irony of Böhm-Bawerk's argument is that is very similar to the
"abstinence" theory he so rightly mocked and which he admitted the socialists
were right to reject. This can be seen from one of his followers,
right-"libertarian" Murray Rothbard:
@@ -2497,9 +2507,9 @@ This meant that without risk, _"[e]ven if financial returns and consumer
demand are certain, **the capitalists are still providing present goods to the
owners of labour and land** and thus relieving them of the burden of waiting
until the future goods are produced and finally transformed into consumers'
-goods."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 298] Capitalists pay out, say, 100,000 this year in
-wages and reap 200,000 next year not because of exploitation but because both
-parties prefer this amount of money this year rather than next year.
+goods."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 298] Capitalists pay out, say, £100,000 this year
+in wages and reap £200,000 next year not because of exploitation but because
+both parties prefer this amount of money this year rather than next year.
Capitalists, in other words, pay out wages in advance and then wait for a
sale. They will only do so if compensated by profit.
@@ -2517,7 +2527,7 @@ even more money in the future. Clearly, the time preference position and the
echoes Senior's lament about the improvident working class, arguing that _"the
major problem with the lower-class poor is irresponsible present-mindedness."_
[**For a New Liberty**, p. 154]). As such, it is subject to the same critique
-(as can be found in, say, the works of a certain Eugen von Bhm-Bawerk).
+(as can be found in, say, the works of a certain Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk).
In other words, profit has a **social** basis, rooted in the different
economic situation of classes within capitalism. It is not the fact of
@@ -2592,7 +2602,7 @@ organising and striking to improve their pay and conditions? An
entrepreneurial act whose higher wages are, in fact, entrepreneurial profit.
Selling your shares in one company and buying others? Any higher dividends are
entrepreneurial profit. Not selling your shares? Likewise. What income flow
-could **not** be explained by "entrepreneurial"_ activity if we try hard
+could **not** be explained by "entrepreneurial" activity if we try hard
enough?
In other words, the term becomes meaningless unless it is linked to owning
@@ -2786,8 +2796,8 @@ class.**"_ [quoted by Kirzner, **Op. Cit.**, p. 189]
If, as Chomsky stresses, the capitalist firm is organised in a fascist way,
the "entrepreneurial" defence of profits is its ideology, its
-**"Fhrerprinzip"_** (the German for _"leader principle"_). This ideology sees
-each organisation as a hierarchy of leaders, where every leader (Fhrer, in
+**"Führerprinzip"** (the German for _"leader principle"_). This ideology sees
+each organisation as a hierarchy of leaders, where every leader (Führer, in
German) has absolute responsibility in his own area, demands absolute
obedience from those below him and answers only to his superiors. This
ideology was most infamously applied by fascism but its roots lie in military
@@ -2987,7 +2997,7 @@ arguing that the concentration on military goods and markets was neither the
best use of resources nor in itself desirable. It argued that if Lucas was to
look away from military production it could expand into markets for socially
useful goods (such as medical equipment) where it already had some expertise
-and sales. The management were not interested, it was their to "manage"_ Lucas
+and sales. The management were not interested, it was their to "manage" Lucas
and to decide where its resources would be used, including the 18,000 people
working there. Management were more than happy to exclude the workforce from
any say in such fundamental matter as implementing the workers' ideas would
@@ -3145,8 +3155,8 @@ becomes _"absolutely necessary and right"_ as the _"work to be accomplished"_
is _"the common and undivided property of all those who take part therein."_
If not, shareholders would _"plunder the bodies and souls of the wage-
workers"_ and it would be _"an outrage upon human dignity and personality."_
-[**The General Idea of the Revolution**, p. 219] In other words, as production
-is collective, so is the risk faced and, consequently, risk cannot be used to
+[**General Idea of the Revolution**, p. 219] In other words, as production is
+collective, so is the risk faced and, consequently, risk cannot be used to
justify excluding people from controlling their own working lives or the fruit
of their labour.
@@ -3166,11 +3176,11 @@ a productive act.
However, there is another sense in which risk does not, in general, contribute
to production within capitalism, namely finance markets. This bring us to our
-fourth objection, namely that most kinds of "risks"_ within capitalism do
+fourth objection, namely that most kinds of "risks" within capitalism do
**not** contribute to production and, thanks to state aid, not that risky.
Looking at the typical "risk" associated with capitalism, namely putting money
-into the stock market and buying shares, the idea that "risk"_ contributes to
+into the stock market and buying shares, the idea that "risk" contributes to
production is seriously flawed. As David Schweickart points out, _"[i]n the
vast majority of cases, when you buy stock, you give your money not to the
company but to another private individual. You buy your share of stock from
@@ -3231,7 +3241,7 @@ middle of the nineteenth century, business leaders and politicians broadly
advocated changing the law to limit the liability of shareholders to the
amounts they had invested in a company. If a person bought $100 worth of
shares, they reasoned, he or she should be immune to liability for anything
-beyond that, regardless of what happened to the company."_ Limited liability's
+beyond that, regardless of what happened to the company." Limited liability's
_"sole purpose . . . is to shield them from legal responsibility for
corporations' actions"_ as well as reducing the risks of investing (unlike for
small businesses). [**The Corporation**, p. 11 and p. 79]
@@ -3404,3 +3414,8 @@ source of surplus value or justified it, the riskiest investment and poorest
investor would receive the highest returns and this is not the case. In
summary, the "risk" defence of capitalism does not convince.
+[‹ C.1 What is wrong with economics?](/afaq/secC1.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/secCcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [C.3 What determines the
+distribution between labour and capital? ›](/afaq/secC3.html "Go to next page"
+)
+
diff --git a/markdown/secC3.md b/markdown/secC3.md
index 09fe832c4d9a8bf25039e10bab9985a77f664923..8656e12abb1195a55a9b97db3cfc59c91d1fe9a7 100644
--- a/markdown/secC3.md
+++ b/markdown/secC3.md
@@ -28,18 +28,19 @@ forced to increase indefinitely the yield of labour, production is determined
just as much by the workers' individual and collective resistance to such
increases. The extraction of 'use value form labour power' is not a technical
operation; it is a process of bitter struggle in which half the time, so to
-speak, the capitalists turn out to be losers.
+speak, the capitalists turn out to be losers.
+> _
>
-> "The same thing holds true for living standards, i.e., real wage levels.
+> _"The same thing holds true for living standards, i.e., real wage levels.
From its beginnings, the working class has fought to reduce the length of the
workday and to raise wage levels. It is this struggle that has determined how
-these levels have risen and fallen over the years . . .
+these levels have risen and fallen over the years . . . _
>
-> "Neither the actual labour rendered during an hour of labour time nor the
+> _"Neither the actual labour rendered during an hour of labour time nor the
wage received in exchange for this work can be determined by any kind of
'objective' law, norm, or calculation . . . What we are saying does not mean
that specifically economic or even 'objective' factors play no real in
@@ -294,3 +295,7 @@ dependent, of course, on the balance of forces within the economy.
In the next section, we discuss why capitalism is marked by big business and
what this concentrated market power means to the capitalist economy.
+[‹ C.2 Why is capitalism exploitative?](/afaq/secC2.html "Go to previous page"
+) [up](/afaq/secCcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [C.4 Why does the market
+become dominated by Big Business? ›](/afaq/secC4.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secC4.md b/markdown/secC4.md
index ecd3e7a62c91e74cd11b988274b8f21d2674dea5..ddda20d236369066db961695f702338ea0dc99c2 100644
--- a/markdown/secC4.md
+++ b/markdown/secC4.md
@@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ This last barrier means that larger companies are able to outbid smaller
companies for resources, ideas, etc. and put more money into Research and
Development and buying patents. Therefore they can have a technological and
material advantage over the small company. They can charge "uneconomic" prices
-for a time (and still survive due to their resources) \-- an activity called
+for a time (and still survive due to their resources) -- an activity called
_"predatory pricing"_ \-- and/or mount lavish promotional campaigns to gain
larger market share or drive competitors out of the market. In addition, it is
easier for large companies to raise external capital, and risk is generally
@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ to resources), privileged access to financial resources, larger amounts of
retained earnings to fund investment, economies of scale both within and
**between** workplaces, the undercutting of prices to "uneconomical" levels
and so on (and, of course, they can **buy** the smaller company -- IBM paid
-$3.5 billion for Lotus in 1995\. That is about equal to the entire annual
+$3.5 billion for Lotus in 1995. That is about equal to the entire annual
output of Nepal, which has a population of 20 million). The large firm or
firms can also rely on its established relationships with customers or
suppliers to limit the activities of smaller firms which are trying to expand
@@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ industry, considered the great hope for deregulation in 1978, it has seen the
six largest companies control of the market rise from 73% in 1978 to 85% in
1987 (and increasing fares across the board). [_"Unexpected Result of Airline
Decontrol is Return to Monopolies,"_ **Wall Street Journal**, 20/07/1987] By
-1998, the top sixs share had increased by 1% but control was effectively
+1998, the top six’s share had increased by 1% but control was effectively
higher with three code-sharing alliances now linking all six in pairs.[Amy
Taub, _"Oligopoly!"_ **Multinational Monitor**, November 1998, p. 9]
@@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ driving out small corner shops (the four-firm concentration ratio of the
supermarket industry is over 70%) while the British brewing industry has a
staggering 85% ratio. In American, the book industry is being dominated by a
few big companies, both in production and distribution. A few large
-conglomerates publish most leading titles while a few big chains (Barnes &
+conglomerates publish most leading titles while a few big chains (Barnes &
Nobles and Borders) have the majority of retail sales. On the internet, Amazon
dominates the field in competition with the online versions of the larger
bookshops. This process occurs in market after market. As such, it should be
@@ -269,22 +269,23 @@ small-scale businesses, the trend to consolidation has unmistakable:
> _ "The latest data available show that in the manufacturing sector the four
largest companies in a given industry controlled an average of 40 percent of
-the industrys output in 1992, and the top eight had 52 percent. These shares
+the industry’s output in 1992, and the top eight had 52 percent. These shares
were practically unchanged from 1972, but they are two percentage points
higher than in 1982. Retail trade (department stores, food stores, apparel,
furniture, building materials and home supplies, eating and drinking places,
and other retail industries) also showed a jump in market concentration since
the early 1980s. The top four firms accounted for an average of 16 percent of
-the retail industrys sales in 1982 and 20 percent in 1992; for the eight
+the retail industry’s sales in 1982 and 20 percent in 1992; for the eight
largest, the average industry share rose from 22 to 28 percent. Some figures
now available for 1997 suggest that concentration continued to increase during
the 1990s; of total sales receipts in the overall economy, companies with
2,500 employees or more took in 47 percent in 1997, compared with 42 percent
-in 1992.
+in 1992.
+> _
>
-> "In the financial sector, the number of commercial banks fell 30 percent
+> _"In the financial sector, the number of commercial banks fell 30 percent
between 1990 and 1999, while the ten largest were increasing their share of
loans and other industry assets from 26 to 45 percent. It is well established
that other sectors, including agriculture and telecommunications, have also
@@ -617,10 +618,10 @@ mergers might reduce prices even more than monopoly power would cause them to
rise. Economists also stressed 'entry,' claiming that if mergers did not
improve efficiency any price increases would be wiped out eventually by new
companies entering the industry. Entry is also the heart of the theory of
-'contestable markets,' developed by economic consultants to AT&T;, who
+'contestable markets,' developed by economic consultants to AT&T, who
argued that the ease of entry in cases where resources (trucks, aircraft) can
be shifted quickly at low cost, makes for effective competition."_ By pure co-
-incidence, AT&T; had hired economic consultants as part of their hundreds
+incidence, AT&T had hired economic consultants as part of their hundreds
of millions of dollars antitrust defences, in fact some 30 economists from
five leading economics departments during the 1970s and early 1980s. [Edward
S. Herman, _"The Threat From Mergers: Can Antitrust Make a Difference?"_,
@@ -630,7 +631,7 @@ Needless to say, these new "theories" are rooted in the same assumptions of
neo-classical economists and, as such, are based on notions we have already
debunked. As Herman notes, they _"suffer from over-simplification, a strong
infusion of ideology, and lack of empirical support."_ He notes that mergers
-_"often are motivated by factors other than enhancing efficiency \-- such as
+_"often are motivated by factors other than enhancing efficiency -- such as
the desire for monopoly power, empire building, cutting taxes, improving stock
values, and even as a cover for poor management (such as when the badly-run
U.S. Steel bought control of Marathon Oil)."_ The conclusion of these models
@@ -756,3 +757,8 @@ such equality, wage labour cannot be said to be a "voluntary" choice between
available options -- the options available have been skewed so far in one
direction that the other alternatives have been marginalised.
+[‹ C.3 What determines the distribution between labour and
+capital?](/afaq/secC3.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secCcon.html "Go
+to parent page" ) [C.5 Why does Big Business get a bigger slice of profits?
+›](/afaq/secC5.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secC5.md b/markdown/secC5.md
index ad43be24d3e6fa8c5d09b6fea44eb5448781c2b8..f394ff89b2767069e3fe9cc466f6a25160be2223 100644
--- a/markdown/secC5.md
+++ b/markdown/secC5.md
@@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ increasing their mark-up over costs. As the rate of profit levels off and
falls, mergers are an attempt to raise profits by increasing the degree of
monopoly in the market/economy. However, this is a short term solution and can
only postpone, but stop, the crisis as its roots lie in production, **not**
-the market (see [section C.7](secC7.html)) \-- there is only so much surplus
+the market (see [section C.7](secC7.html)) -- there is only so much surplus
value around and the capital stock cannot be wished away. Once the slump
occurs, a period of cut-throat competition will start and then, slowly, the
process of concentration will start again (as weak firms go under, successful
@@ -303,11 +303,12 @@ transportation and distribution. Oligopolies. . . [control] more of the
highest quality and most accessible supplies than they intend to market
immediately. . . competitors are left with lower quality or more expensive
supplies. . . [It is also] based on exclusive possession of technologies,
-patents and franchises as well as on excess productive capacity . . .
+patents and franchises as well as on excess productive capacity . . .
+> _
>
-> "Vertical controls substitute administrative command for exchange between
+> _"Vertical controls substitute administrative command for exchange between
steps of economic processes. The largest oligopolies procure materials from
their own subsidiaries, process and manufacture these in their own refineries,
mills and factories, transport their own goods and then market these through
@@ -415,7 +416,7 @@ become possible (i.e. profitable) again and so _"it should not be concluded
that oligopolies can set prices as high as they like. If prices are set too
high, dominant firms from other industries would be tempted to move in and
gain a share of the exceptional returns. Small producers -- using more
-expensive materials or out-dated technologies \-- would be able to increase
+expensive materials or out-dated technologies -- would be able to increase
their share of the market and make the competitive rate of profit or better."_
[Allan Engler, **Op. Cit.**, p. 53]
@@ -423,3 +424,8 @@ Big Business, therefore, receives a larger share of the available surplus
value in the economy, due to its size advantage and market power, not due to
"higher efficiency".
+[‹ C.4 Why does the market become dominated by Big Business?](/afaq/secC4.html
+"Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secCcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [C.6 Can
+market dominance by Big Business change? ›](/afaq/secC6.html "Go to next page"
+)
+
diff --git a/markdown/secC6.md b/markdown/secC6.md
index a11fee10175d70d0235a76459f9b1ff70ce59a2d..4669e6001875e1c8534cb0f344683d43d1a3081b 100644
--- a/markdown/secC6.md
+++ b/markdown/secC6.md
@@ -162,3 +162,8 @@ involved may change over time, the economy as a whole will always be marked by
Big Business due to the nature of capitalism. That's the way capitalism works
-- profits for the few at the expense of the many.
+[‹ C.5 Why does Big Business get a bigger slice of profits?](/afaq/secC5.html
+"Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secCcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [C.7
+What causes the capitalist business cycle? ›](/afaq/secC7.html "Go to next
+page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secC7.md b/markdown/secC7.md
index c76437c4e41b4ed0fd288b423f8d2baefb0b0c16..672fe6a799900192f8e731feb2e6a520613fb473 100644
--- a/markdown/secC7.md
+++ b/markdown/secC7.md
@@ -359,22 +359,23 @@ material wealth was predicted by Malatesta. In 1922 he argued that:
> _ "The fundamental error of the reformists is that of dreaming of
solidarity, a sincere collaboration, between masters and servants, between
-proprietors and workers . . .
+proprietors and workers . . .
+> _
>
-> "Those who envisage a society of well stuffed pigs which waddle contentedly
+> _"Those who envisage a society of well stuffed pigs which waddle contentedly
under the ferule of a small number of swineherd; who do not take into account
the need for freedom and the sentiment of human dignity . . . can also imagine
and aspire to a technical organisation of production which assures abundance
for all and at the same time materially advantageous both to bosses and the
workers. But in reality 'social peace' based on abundance for all will remain
a dream, so long as society is divided into antagonistic classes, that is
-employers and employees. And there will be neither peace nor abundance.
+employers and employees. And there will be neither peace nor abundance. _
>
-> "The antagonism is spiritual rather than material. There will never be a
+> _"The antagonism is spiritual rather than material. There will never be a
sincere understanding between bosses and workers for the better exploitation
[sic!] of the forces of nature in the interests of mankind, because the bosses
above all want to remain bosses and secure always more power at the expense of
@@ -575,7 +576,7 @@ twenty sacks will sell for less than ten would have sold for if it had been
but half as great; so, under similar circumstances, fifty yards of linen will
be worth less than twenty-five: so that value decreases as the production of
utility increases, and a producer may arrive at poverty by continually
-enriching himself."_ [**The System of Economical Contradictions**, pp. 77-78]
+enriching himself."_ [**System of Economical Contradictions**, pp. 77-78]
He argued that this occurred due to the _"contradiction"_ of _"the double
character of value"_ (i.e. between value in use and value in exchange). [**Op.
@@ -839,20 +840,22 @@ capital from the oppression of labour**! . . . Fool! though the workmen cost
you something, they are your customers: what will you do with your products,
when, driven away by you, they shall consume them no longer? Thus machinery,
after crushing the workmen, is not slow in dealing employers a counter-blow;
-for, if production excludes consumption, it is soon obliged to stop itself.
+for, if production excludes consumption, it is soon obliged to stop itself.
+> _
>
-> [. . .]
+> _[. . .] _
>
-> "These failures were caused by over-production, -- that is, by an inadequate
-market, or the distress of the people. What a pity that machinery cannot also
-deliver capital from the oppression of consumers! What a misfortune that
-machines do not buy the fabrics which they weave! The ideal society will be
-reached when commerce, agriculture, and manufactures can proceed without a man
-upon earth!"_ [Proudhon, **System of Economical Contradictions**, pp. 189-90]
+> _"These failures were caused by over-production, -- that is, by an
+inadequate market, or the distress of the people. What a pity that machinery
+cannot also deliver capital from the oppression of consumers! What a
+misfortune that machines do not buy the fabrics which they weave! The ideal
+society will be reached when commerce, agriculture, and manufactures can
+proceed without a man upon earth!"_ [Proudhon, **System of Economical
+Contradictions**, pp. 189-90]
So, if the profit rate falls to a level that does not allow capital formation
to continue, a slump sets in. This general slump means that the rate of profit
@@ -942,7 +945,7 @@ families made less than $2,000 a year, 42% less than $1,000). While the
richest 1% owned 40% of the nation's wealth by 1929 (and the number of people
claiming half-million dollar incomes rose from 156 in 1920 to 1,489 in 1929)
the bottom 93% of the population experienced a 4% drop in real disposable per-
-capita income between 1923 and 1929\. However, in spite (or, perhaps, because)
+capita income between 1923 and 1929. However, in spite (or, perhaps, because)
of this, US capitalism was booming and belief in capitalism was at its peak.
But by 1929 all this had changed with the stock market crash -- followed by a
@@ -1089,3 +1092,8 @@ discussion is somewhat academic for human beings are not commodities, the
labour "market" is not like the iron market, and the subjective revolt against
capitalist domination will exist as long as capitalism does.
+[‹ C.6 Can market dominance by Big Business change?](/afaq/secC6.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secCcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [C.8 Is state
+control of credit the cause of the business cycle? ›](/afaq/secC8.html "Go to
+next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secC8.md b/markdown/secC8.md
index 0f89433eec9a6eed9f33f24dcc897923ee7e6901..478bfcd22417c12af52293eaf08e75c498e91df3 100644
--- a/markdown/secC8.md
+++ b/markdown/secC8.md
@@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ towards, and never away from, equilibrium. As Post-Keynesian Paul Davidson
dryly noted, _"Austrian subjectivists cannot have it both ways -- they cannot
argue for the importance of time, uncertainty, and money, and simultaneously
presume that plan or pattern co-ordination must exist and is waiting to be
-discovered."__ [_"The economics of ignorance or the ignorance of economics?"_,
+discovered."_ [_"The economics of ignorance or the ignorance of economics?"_,
pp. 467-87, **Critical Review**, vol. 3, no. 3-4, p. 468]
In other words, the notion that if the actual interest rate somehow equalled
@@ -471,7 +471,7 @@ use of gold and 100% reverses and so eliminate the business cycle is
misplaced:
> _"This view overlooks the fact that the **emergence** of money-substitutes
-\-- whether in the form of bank notes, bank accounts, or credit cards -- was a
+-- whether in the form of bank notes, bank accounts, or credit cards -- was a
spontaneous process, not planned or regulated 'from above' by some central
authority, and for that reason alone it is impossible to treat some arbitrary
definition of money (which included specific forms of such money-substitutes
@@ -560,7 +560,7 @@ working class people to create their own financial institutions).
Thus the over supply of credit, rather than being the **cause** of the crisis
is actually a symptom. Competitive investment drives the business cycle
expansion, which is allowed and encouraged by the competition among banks in
-supplying credit. Such expansion complements -- and thus amplifies \-- other
+supplying credit. Such expansion complements -- and thus amplifies -- other
objective tendencies towards crisis, such as over-investment and
disportionalities. In other words, a pure "free market" capitalism would still
have a business cycle as this cycle is caused by the nature of capitalism, not
@@ -921,7 +921,7 @@ beyond the military establishment, incorporating also the Department of
Energy. . . and the space agency NASA, converted by the Kennedy administration
to a significant component of the state-directed public subsidy to advanced
industry. These arrangements impose on the public a large burden of the costs
-of industry (research and development, R&D;) and provide a guaranteed
+of industry (research and development, R&D) and provide a guaranteed
market for excess production, a useful cushion for management decisions.
Furthermore, this form of industrial policy does not have the undesirable
side-effects of social spending directed to human needs. Apart from unwelcome
@@ -947,10 +947,10 @@ Cit.**, pp. 157-8]
Social Keynesianism directs part of the total surplus value to workers and
unemployed while military Keynesianism transfers surplus value from the
-general population to capital and from capital to capital. This allows
-R&D; and capital to be publicly subsidised, as well as essential but
-unprofitable capital to survive. As long as real wages did not exceed a rise
-in productivity, Keynesianism would continue. However, both functions have
+general population to capital and from capital to capital. This allows R&D
+and capital to be publicly subsidised, as well as essential but unprofitable
+capital to survive. As long as real wages did not exceed a rise in
+productivity, Keynesianism would continue. However, both functions have
objective limits as the transfer of profits from successful capital to
essential, but less successful, or long term investment can cause a crisis is
there is not enough profit available to the system as a whole. The surplus
@@ -999,11 +999,12 @@ altered. One effect of such a change might be to remove a number of abuses to
which the workers have been compelled to submit in the past . . . [Another is
that] the absence of fear of unemployment might go further and have a
disruptive effect upon factory discipline . . . [He may] us[e] his newly-found
-freedom from fear to snatch every advantage that he can . . .
+freedom from fear to snatch every advantage that he can . . .
+> _
>
-> "The change in the workers' bargaining position which would follow from the
+> _"The change in the workers' bargaining position which would follow from the
abolition of unemployment would show itself in another and more subtle way.
Unemployment . . . has not only the function of preserving discipline in
industry, but also indirectly the function of preserving the value of money .
@@ -1047,7 +1048,7 @@ means that it would be wrong to conclude that wage increases "cause" inflation
as such. To do so ignores the fact that workers do not set prices, capitalists
do. Any increase in costs could, after all, be absorbed by lowering profits.
Instead working class people get denounced for being "greedy" and are
-subjected to calls for "restraint" \-- in order for their bosses to make
+subjected to calls for "restraint" -- in order for their bosses to make
sufficient profits! As Joan Robinson put it, while capitalist economies denies
it (unlike, significantly, Adam Smith) there is an _"inflationary pressure
that arises from an increase in the share of gross profits in gross income.
@@ -1516,12 +1517,12 @@ policy resulted in a significant shift in existing allocations from social to
military and law enforcement."_ [_"The radical right, politics and society"_,
**The Radical Right and the Welfare State**, Howard Glennerster and James
Midgley (eds.), p. 11] Indeed, the US state funds one third of all civil
-R&D; projects, and the UK state provides a similar subsidy. [Chomsky,
-**Op. Cit.**, p. 107] And, of course, the state remains waiting to save the
-elite from their own market follies (for example, after the widespread
-collapse of Savings and Loans Associations in deregulated corruption and
-speculation, the 1980s pro-"free market" Republican administration happily
-bailed them out, showing that market forces were only for one class).
+R&D projects, and the UK state provides a similar subsidy. [Chomsky, **Op.
+Cit.**, p. 107] And, of course, the state remains waiting to save the elite
+from their own market follies (for example, after the widespread collapse of
+Savings and Loans Associations in deregulated corruption and speculation, the
+1980s pro-"free market" Republican administration happily bailed them out,
+showing that market forces were only for one class).
The corporate owned media attacks social Keynesianism, while remaining silent
or justifying pro-business state intervention. Combined with extensive
@@ -1592,3 +1593,8 @@ the world. Even in the face of state repression and managed economic
recession, working class people are still fighting back. The job for
anarchists to is encourage these sparks of liberty and help them win.
+[‹ C.7 What causes the capitalist business cycle?](/afaq/secC7.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secCcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [C.9 Would
+laissez-faire capitalism reduce unemployment? ›](/afaq/secC9.html "Go to next
+page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secC9.md b/markdown/secC9.md
index ef13efaea5b56361a3c87b82e8dcb997eed85028..cb407785b2634633280a4a497309e816d17e5f33 100644
--- a/markdown/secC9.md
+++ b/markdown/secC9.md
@@ -18,14 +18,15 @@ That is, if prices are going up, unemployment is below the 'natural rate' and
too low, whether the actual rate is 4, 8, or 10 percent. In this world of
conservative economics, anybody is 'voluntarily' unemployed. Unemployment is a
matter of rational choice: some people prefer 'leisure' over the real wage
-available at going (or still lower) wage rates . . .
+available at going (or still lower) wage rates . . .
+> _
>
-> "Apart from the grossness of this kind of metaphysical legerdemain, the very
-concept of a natural rate of unemployment has a huge built-in bias. It takes
-as granted all the other institutional factors that influence the price level-
-unemployment trade-off (market structures and independent pricing power,
+> _"Apart from the grossness of this kind of metaphysical legerdemain, the
+very concept of a natural rate of unemployment has a huge built-in bias. It
+takes as granted all the other institutional factors that influence the price
+level-unemployment trade-off (market structures and independent pricing power,
business investment policies at home and abroad, the distribution of income,
the fiscal and monetary mix, etc.) and focuses solely on the tightness of the
labour market as the controllable variable. Inflation is the main threat, the
@@ -141,7 +142,7 @@ seem appropriate as most economists (and **The Economist**) do treat the
market like a god (a theodicy is a specific branch of theology and philosophy
that attempts to reconcile the existence of evil in the world with the
assumption of a benevolent God). And, as with all gods, sacrifices are
-required and Phelps theory is the means by which this is achieved. As the
+required and Phelps’ theory is the means by which this is achieved. As the
magazine noted: _"in much of his work he contends that unemployment is
necessary to cow workers, ensuring their loyalty to the company and their
diligence on the job, at a wage the company can afford to pay"_ (i.e., one
@@ -166,7 +167,7 @@ system. Somewhat ironically, then, Phelps got bourgeois economics highest
prize for restating, in neo-classical jargon, the model of the labour market
expounded by, say, Marx:
-> _"If [capitals] accumulation on the one hand increases the demand for
+> _"If [capital’s] accumulation on the one hand increases the demand for
labour, it increases on the other the supply of workers by 'setting them
free', while at the same time the pressure of the unemployed compels those
that are employed to furnish more labour, and therefore makes the supply of
@@ -211,11 +212,12 @@ were nervous and acting as if the unemployment rate were higher than the 4% it
reached in the boom. Still, Greenspan was a bit worried, because . . . if the
pool stayed dry, 'Significant increases in wages, in excess of productivity
growth, [would] inevitably emerge, absent the unlikely repeal of the law of
-supply and demand.' Which is why Greenspan & Co. raised short-term interest
-rates by about two points during 1999 and the first half of 2000. There was no
-threat of inflation . . . nor were there any signs of rising worker militancy.
-But wages were creeping higher, and the threat of the sack was losing some of
-its bite."_ [Doug Henwood, **After the New Economy**, pp. 206-7]
+supply and demand.' Which is why Greenspan & Co. raised short-term
+interest rates by about two points during 1999 and the first half of 2000.
+There was no threat of inflation . . . nor were there any signs of rising
+worker militancy. But wages were creeping higher, and the threat of the sack
+was losing some of its bite."_ [Doug Henwood, **After the New Economy**, pp.
+206-7]
Which is quite ironic, given that Greenspan's role in the economy was,
precisely, to _"repeal"_ the _"law of supply and demand."_ As one left-wing
@@ -232,7 +234,7 @@ intervenes in the economy to prevent it from creating too many jobs. But there
is even more to the story. When the Fed hits the brakes to slow job growth, it
is not doctors, lawyers, and CEOs who end up without jobs. The people who lose
are those in the middle and the bottom -- sales clerks, factory workers,
-custodians, and dishwashers. These are the workers who dont get hired or get
+custodians, and dishwashers. These are the workers who don’t get hired or get
laid off when the economy slows or goes into a recession."_ [**The
Conservative Nanny State**, p. 31] Thus the state pushes up unemployment rates
to slow wage growth, and thereby relieve inflationary pressure. The reason
@@ -245,11 +247,12 @@ other employment options. The Fed is well aware of the difficulties that
employers face in periods of low unemployment. It compiles a regular survey,
called the 'Beige Book,' of attitudes from around the country about the state
of the economy. Most of the people interviewed for the Beige Book are
-employers.
+employers.
+> _
>
-> "From 1997 to 2000, when the unemployment rate was at its lowest levels in
+> _"From 1997 to 2000, when the unemployment rate was at its lowest levels in
30 years, the Beige Book was filled with complaints that some companies were
pulling workers from other companies with offers of higher wages and better
benefits. Some Beige Books reported that firms had to offer such non-wage
@@ -257,11 +260,11 @@ benefits as flexible work hours, child care, or training in order to retain
workers. The Beige Books give accounts of firms having to send buses into
inner cities to bring workers out to the suburbs to work in hotels and
restaurants. It even reported that some employers were forced to hire workers
-with handicaps in order to meet their needs for labour.
+with handicaps in order to meet their needs for labour. _
>
-> "From the standpoint of employers, life is much easier when the workers are
+> _"From the standpoint of employers, life is much easier when the workers are
lined up at the door clamouring for jobs than when workers have the option to
shop around for better opportunities. Employers can count on a sympathetic ear
from the Fed. When the Fed perceives too much upward wage pressure, it slams
@@ -361,7 +364,7 @@ is observed is natural -- case closed.
Since natural rate theory cannot be tested, a sensible thing would be to
examine its assumptions for plausibility and reasonableness. However, Milton
-Friedmans early work on economic methodology blocks this route as he asserted
+Friedman’s early work on economic methodology blocks this route as he asserted
that realism and plausibility of assumptions have no place in economics. With
most economists blindly accepting this position, the result is a church in
which entry is conditional on accepting particular assumptions about the
@@ -378,7 +381,7 @@ interest incomes and full employment squeezes profits by increasing workers'
power). This does not seem to bother most economists, for whom empirical
evidence at the best of times is of little consequence. This is doubly true
with the NAIRU, for with an invisible, mobile value, the theory is always true
-after the fact \-- if inflation rises as unemployment rises, then the natural
+after the fact -- if inflation rises as unemployment rises, then the natural
rate has increased; if inflation falls as unemployment rises, it has fallen!
As post-Keynesian economist James K. Galbraith noted in his useful critique of
the NAIRU, _"as the real unemployment rate moves, the apparent NAIRU moves in
@@ -833,11 +836,12 @@ process described by Kropotkin (nearly 40 years before Keynes made the same
point in **The General Theory**):
> _"Profits being the basis of capitalist industry, low profits explain all
-ulterior consequences.
+ulterior consequences.
+> _
>
-> "Low profits induce the employers to reduce the wages, or the number of
+> _"Low profits induce the employers to reduce the wages, or the number of
workers, or the number of days of employment during the week. . . As Adam
Smith said, low profits ultimately mean a reduction of wages, and low wages
mean a reduced consumption by the worker. Low profits mean also a somewhat
@@ -1035,7 +1039,7 @@ unemployment can exist"_ as reducing the wage need not bring the demand and
supply of labour into alignment. While the possibility of backward-bending
labour supply curves is sometimes pointed out in textbooks, the assumption of
an upward sloping supply curve is taken as the normal situation but _"there is
-no theoretical \-- or empirical -- justification for this."_ Sadly for the
+no theoretical -- or empirical -- justification for this."_ Sadly for the
world, this assumption is used to draw very strong conclusions by economists.
The standard arguments against minimum wage legislation, trade unions and
demand management by government are all based on it. Yet, as Keen notes, such
@@ -1231,10 +1235,10 @@ increase in real wages.
Since then, economists have generally confirmed that real wage are
procyclical. In fact, _"a great deal of empirical research has been conducted
-in this area \-- research which mostly contradicts the neo-classical
-assumption of an inverse relation between real wages and employment."_
-[Ferdinando Targetti, **Nicholas Kaldor**, p. 50] Nicholas Kaldor, one of the
-first Keynesians, also stressed that the notion that there is an inverse
+in this area -- research which mostly contradicts the neo-classical assumption
+of an inverse relation between real wages and employment."_ [Ferdinando
+Targetti, **Nicholas Kaldor**, p. 50] Nicholas Kaldor, one of the first
+Keynesians, also stressed that the notion that there is an inverse
relationship between real wages and employment is _"contradicted by numerous
empirical studies which show that, in the short period, changes in real wages
are positively correlated with changes in employment and not negatively."_
@@ -1247,11 +1251,12 @@ employment. Wages -- especially for the least-skilled and lowest paid -- are
lowest when there is least employment. The causes chiefly run from the
employment to the wages, rather than the other way. Unemployment weakens the
bargaining power, worsens the job security and working conditions, and lowers
-the pay of those still in jobs.
+the pay of those still in jobs.
+> _
>
-> "The lower wages do not induce employers to create more jobs . . . most
+> _"The lower wages do not induce employers to create more jobs . . . most
business firms have no reason to take on more hands if wages decline. Only
empty warehouses, or the prospect of more sales can get them to do that, and
these conditions rarely coincide with falling employment and wages. The causes
@@ -1267,15 +1272,16 @@ other economists that suggests high wages do not cause unemployment:
unemployment -- and what they have discovered is another major challenge to
the free market account of the labour market. Free market theory would predict
that low wages would be correlated with low local unemployment; and high wages
-with high local unemployment.
+with high local unemployment.
+> _
>
-> "Blanchflower and Oswald have found precisely the opposite relationship. The
-higher the wages, the lower the local unemployment -- and the lower the wages,
-the higher the local unemployment. As they say, this is not a conclusion that
-can be squared with free market text-book theories of how a competitive labour
-market should work."_ [**The State We're In**, p. 102]
+> _"Blanchflower and Oswald have found precisely the opposite relationship.
+The higher the wages, the lower the local unemployment -- and the lower the
+wages, the higher the local unemployment. As they say, this is not a
+conclusion that can be squared with free market text-book theories of how a
+competitive labour market should work."_ [**The State We're In**, p. 102]
Unemployment was highest where real wages were lowest and nowhere had falling
wages being followed by rising employment or falling unemployment.
@@ -2013,18 +2019,19 @@ massive imbalance of power that exists between individual workers and
corporate capital. The importance of labour market bargaining power for the
distribution of income, means that unions are a fundamental prop for
widespread prosperity. Weakening unions does not create a 'natural' market: it
-just creates a market in which business has the power to dominate labour.
+just creates a market in which business has the power to dominate labour.
+> _
>
-> "The notion of perfect natural markets is built on the assumption that
+> _"The notion of perfect natural markets is built on the assumption that
market participants have no power. In reality, the process of labour exchange
is characterised not only by the presence of power, but also by gross
inequality of power. An individual worker is at a great disadvantage in
dealing with large corporations that have access to massive pools of capital
and can organise in a fashion that renders every individual dispensible . . .
Unions help rectify the imbalance of power in labour markets, and they
-therefore correct market failure rather than causing it."_ {**Op. Cit.**, pp.
+therefore correct market failure rather than causing it."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp.
36-7]
The welfare state also increases the bargaining power of workers against their
@@ -2330,3 +2337,8 @@ commodity (and as we discussed in [section C.7](secC7.html), this revolt
against commodification is a key part of understanding the business cycle and
so unemployment).
+[‹ C.8 Is state control of credit the cause of the business
+cycle?](/afaq/secC8.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secCcon.html "Go
+to parent page" ) [C.10 Is "free market" capitalism the best way to reduce
+poverty? ›](/afaq/secC10.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secCcon.md b/markdown/secCcon.md
index e9a06b3c141c30a0b0e0a43b677f7f05e0a26319..03d860b46705182259fd10f2aaed0767c6a0d8c2 100644
--- a/markdown/secCcon.md
+++ b/markdown/secCcon.md
@@ -1,65 +1,75 @@
# Section C - What are the myths of capitalist economics?
+##
+
## [Introduction](secCint.html)
+##
+
## [C.1 What is wrong with economics?](secC1.html)
-### [C.1.1 Is economics really value free?](secC1.html#secc11)
-[C.1.2 Is economics a science?](secC1.html#secc12)
-[C.1.3 Can you have an economics based on individualism?](secC1.html#secc13)
-[C.1.4 What is wrong with equilibrium analysis?](secC1.html#secc14)
-[C.1.5 Does economics really reflect the reality of
+> ### [C.1.1 Is economics really value free?](secC1.html#secc11)
+> [C.1.2 Is economics a science?](secC1.html#secc12)
+> [C.1.3 Can you have an economics based on
+individualism?](secC1.html#secc13)
+> [C.1.4 What is wrong with equilibrium analysis?](secC1.html#secc14)
+> [C.1.5 Does economics really reflect the reality of
capitalism?](secC1.html#secc15)
-[C.1.6 Is it possible to have non-equilibrium based capitalist
+> [C.1.6 Is it possible to have non-equilibrium based capitalist
economics?](secC1.html#secc16)
## [C.2 Why is capitalism exploitative?](secC2.html)
-### [C.2.1 What is _"surplus-value"_?
-[C.2.2 How does exploitation happen?](secC2.html#secc22)
-[C.2.3 Is owning capital sufficient reason to justify
+> ### [C.2.1 What is _"surplus-value"_?](secC2.html#secc21)
+> [C.2.2 How does exploitation happen?](secC2.html#secc22)
+> [C.2.3 Is owning capital sufficient reason to justify
profits?](secC2.html#secc23)
-[C.2.4 Do profits represent the productivity of capital?](secC2.html#secc24)
-[C.2.5 Do profits represent the contribution of capital to
+> [C.2.4 Do profits represent the productivity of
+capital?](secC2.html#secc24)
+> [C.2.5 Do profits represent the contribution of capital to
production?](secC2.html#secc25)
-[C.2.6 Does the "time value" of money justify interest?](secC2.html#secc26)
-[C.2.7 Are interest and profits not the reward for
+> [C.2.6 Does the "time value" of money justify interest?](secC2.html#secc26)
+> [C.2.7 Are interest and profits not the reward for
waiting?](secC2.html#secc27)
-[C.2.8 Are profits the result of innovation and entrepreneurial
+> [C.2.8 Are profits the result of innovation and entrepreneurial
activity?](secC2.html#secc28)
-[C.2.9 Do profits reflect a reward for risk?](secC2.html#secc29)
+> [C.2.9 Do profits reflect a reward for risk?](secC2.html#secc29)
## [C.3 What determines the distribution between labour and
capital?](secC3.html)
+##
+
## [C.4 Why does the market become dominated by Big Business?](secC4.html)
-### [C.4.1 How extensive is Big Business?](secC4.html#secc41)
-[C.4.2 What are the effects of Big Business on society?](secC4.html#secc42)
-[C.4.3 What does the existence of Big Business mean for economic theory and
+> ### [C.4.1 How extensive is Big Business?](secC4.html#secc41)
+> [C.4.2 What are the effects of Big Business on society?](secC4.html#secc42)
+> [C.4.3 What does the existence of Big Business mean for economic theory and
wage labour?](secC4.html#secc43)
## [C.5 Why does Big Business get a bigger slice of profits?](secC5.html)
-### [C.5.1 Aren't the super-profits of Big Business due to its higher
+> ### [C.5.1 Aren't the super-profits of Big Business due to its higher
efficiency?](secC5.html#secc51)
## [C.6 Can market dominance by Big Business change?](secC6.html)
+##
+
## [C.7 What causes the capitalist business cycle? ](secC7.html)
-### [ C.7.1 What role does class struggle play in the business
+> ### [ C.7.1 What role does class struggle play in the business
cycle?](secC7.html#secc71)
-[C.7.2 What role does the market play in the business
+> [C.7.2 What role does the market play in the business
cycle?](secC7.html#secc72)
-[C.7.3 What else affects the business cycle?](secC7.html#secc73)
+> [C.7.3 What else affects the business cycle?](secC7.html#secc73)
## [C.8 Is state control of money the cause of the business
cycle?](secC8.html)
-### [C.8.1 Does this mean that Keynesianism works?](secC8.html#secc81)
-[C.8.2 What happened to Keynesianism in the 1970s?](secC8.html#secc82)
-[C.8.3 How did capitalism adjust to the crisis in
+> ### [C.8.1 Does this mean that Keynesianism works?](secC8.html#secc81)
+> [C.8.2 What happened to Keynesianism in the 1970s?](secC8.html#secc82)
+> [C.8.3 How did capitalism adjust to the crisis in
Keynesianism?](secC8.html#secc83)
## [C.9 Would laissez-faire policies reduce unemployment, as supporters of
@@ -67,32 +77,50 @@ Keynesianism?](secC8.html#secc83)
###
-[C.9.1 Would cutting wages reduce unemployment?](secC9.html#secc91)
-[C.9.2 Is unemployment caused by wages being too high?](secC9.html#secc92)
-[C.9.3 Are "flexible" labour markets the answer to
+> [C.9.1 Would cutting wages reduce unemployment?](secC9.html#secc91)
+> [C.9.2 Is unemployment caused by wages being too high?](secC9.html#secc92)
+> [C.9.3 Are "flexible" labour markets the answer to
unemployment?](secC9.html#secc93)
-[C.9.4 Is unemployment voluntary?](secC9.html#secc94)
+> [C.9.4 Is unemployment voluntary?](secC9.html#secc94)
## [C.10 Is "free market" capitalism the best way to reduce
poverty?](secC10.html)
-### [C.10.1 Hasn't neo-liberalism benefited the world's
+> ### [C.10.1 Hasn't neo-liberalism benefited the world's
poor?](secC10.html#secc101)
-[C.10.2 Does "free trade" benefit everyone?](secC10.html#secc102)
-[C.10.3 Does "free market" capitalism benefit everyone, _especially_ working
-class people?](secC10.html#secc103)
-[C.10.4 Does growth automatically mean people are better
+> [C.10.2 Does "free trade" benefit everyone?](secC10.html#secc102)
+> [C.10.3 Does "free market" capitalism benefit everyone, _especially_
+working class people?](secC10.html#secc103)
+> [C.10.4 Does growth automatically mean people are better
off?](secC10.html#secc104)
## [C.11 Doesn't neo-liberalism in Chile prove that the free market benefits
everyone?](secC11.html)
-### [C.11.1 Who benefited from Chile's experiment?](secC11.html#secc111)
-[C.11.2 What about Chile's economic growth and low
+> ### [C.11.1 Who benefited from Chile's experiment?](secC11.html#secc111)
+> [C.11.2 What about Chile's economic growth and low
inflation?](secC11.html#secc112)
-[C.11.3 Did neo-liberal Chile confirm capitalist
+> [C.11.3 Did neo-liberal Chile confirm capitalist
economics?](secC11.html#secc113)
## [C.12 Doesn't Hong Kong show the potentials of "free market"
capitalism?](secC12.html)
+ * [C.0 Section C Introduction](/afaq/secCint.html)
+ * [C.1 What is wrong with economics?](/afaq/secC1.html)
+ * [C.2 Why is capitalism exploitative?](/afaq/secC2.html)
+ * [C.3 What determines the distribution between labour and capital?](/afaq/secC3.html)
+ * [C.4 Why does the market become dominated by Big Business?](/afaq/secC4.html)
+ * [C.5 Why does Big Business get a bigger slice of profits?](/afaq/secC5.html)
+ * [C.6 Can market dominance by Big Business change?](/afaq/secC6.html)
+ * [C.7 What causes the capitalist business cycle?](/afaq/secC7.html)
+ * [C.8 Is state control of credit the cause of the business cycle?](/afaq/secC8.html)
+ * [C.9 Would laissez-faire capitalism reduce unemployment?](/afaq/secC9.html)
+ * [C.10 Is "free market" capitalism the best way to reduce poverty?](/afaq/secC10.html)
+ * [C.11 Doesn't neo-liberalism in Chile prove that the free market benefits everyone? ](/afaq/secC11.html)
+ * [C.12 Doesn't Hong Kong show the potentials of "free market" capitalism?](/afaq/secC12.html)
+
+[‹ B.7 What classes exist within modern society?](/afaq/secB7.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/index.html "Go to parent page" ) [C.0 Section C
+Introduction ›](/afaq/secCint.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secCint.md b/markdown/secCint.md
index 13f07895e92ec9f86b8366d6928790ca437737fe..a8193b6ffefb889be75295a898fa48104cdbb817 100644
--- a/markdown/secCint.md
+++ b/markdown/secCint.md
@@ -331,3 +331,9 @@ views. The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made
answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by
economists."_ [**Contributions to Modern Economics**, p. 75]
+
+
+[‹ Section C - What are the myths of capitalist economics?](/afaq/secCcon.html
+"Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secCcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [C.1
+What is wrong with economics? ›](/afaq/secC1.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secD1.md b/markdown/secD1.md
index 32b7cfe8a0804aadc0d61bff1864f9100a155c96..3f77238edaaf318ac437ee53ecd777458db0221c 100644
--- a/markdown/secD1.md
+++ b/markdown/secD1.md
@@ -15,9 +15,9 @@ is, and cannot be, a capitalist economy which does not exhibit some form of
state action within it. The state is forced to intervene in society for three
reasons:
-1\. To bolster the power of capital as a whole within society.
-2\. To benefit certain sections of the capitalist class against others.
-3\. To counteract the anti-social effects of capitalism.
+ 1. To bolster the power of capital as a whole within society.
+ 2. To benefit certain sections of the capitalist class against others.
+ 3. To counteract the anti-social effects of capitalism.
From our discussion of the state and its role in [section B.2](secB2.html),
the first two reasons are unexpected and straight forward. The state is an
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ of resisting the oppression by capitalists. . . The state has **always**
interfered in the economic life in favour of the capitalist exploiter. It has
always granted him protection in robbery, given aid and support for further
enrichment. **And it could not be otherwise.** To do so was one of the
-functions \-- the chief mission -- of the State."_ [**Evolution and
+functions -- the chief mission -- of the State."_ [**Evolution and
Environment**, pp. 97-8]
In addition to this role, the state has also regulated certain industries and,
@@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ accordance with its own laws of motion. But as soon as it begins to feel
itself as a hindrance to further development and is recognised as such, it
adapts forms of behaviour through the harnessing of competition which
seemingly indicate its absolute rule but actually point to its decay and
-dissolution."_ [quoted by Paul Mattick, **Marx and Keynes**, p. 96] Council
+dissolution." [quoted by Paul Mattick, **Marx and Keynes**, p. 96] Council
Communist Paul Mattick comments that a _"healthy"_ capitalism _"is a strictly
competitive capitalism, and the imperfections of competition in the early and
late stages of its development must be regarded as the ailments of an
@@ -261,11 +261,12 @@ accumulation' -- as if this 'push' given to capitalists were a thing of the
past? . . . In short, nowhere has the system of 'non-intervention of the
State' ever existed . . . Nowhere, since States have grown up, have the masses
had the freedom of resisting the oppression by capitalists. The few rights
-they have now they have gained only by determination and endless sacrifice.
+they have now they have gained only by determination and endless sacrifice.
+> _
>
-> "To speak therefore of 'non-intervention of the State' may be all right for
+> _"To speak therefore of 'non-intervention of the State' may be all right for
middle-class economists, who try to persuade the workers that their misery is
'a law of Nature.' But -- how can Socialists use such language?"_ [**Op.
Cit.**, pp. 97-8]
@@ -309,11 +310,11 @@ of state violence against the working class -- was required to create and
protect capitalism and industry in the first place (see [section
F.8](secF8.html) for details).
-In short, although laissez-faire may be the ideological basis of capitalism
-\-- the religion that justifies the system -- it has rarely if ever been
-actually practised. So, while the ideologues are praising "free enterprise" as
-the fountainhead of modern prosperity, the corporations and companies are
-gorging at the table of the State. As such, it would be wrong to suggest that
+In short, although laissez-faire may be the ideological basis of capitalism --
+the religion that justifies the system -- it has rarely if ever been actually
+practised. So, while the ideologues are praising "free enterprise" as the
+fountainhead of modern prosperity, the corporations and companies are gorging
+at the table of the State. As such, it would be wrong to suggest that
anarchists are somehow "in favour" of state intervention. This is not true. We
are "in favour" of reality, not ideology. The reality of capitalism is that it
needs state intervention to be created and needs state intervention to
@@ -368,8 +369,8 @@ generated more threatening externalities and created demands for things the
market is not well suited to provide. It may also be true that the growth of
the government further weakens the market. This does not alter the fact that
powerful underlying forces -- not power hungry bureaucrats or frustrated
-intellectuals \-- are determining the main drift."_ [Edward Herman,
-**Corporate Control, Corporate Power**, pp. 300-1]
+intellectuals -- are determining the main drift."_ [Edward Herman, **Corporate
+Control, Corporate Power**, pp. 300-1]
In other words, state intervention is the result of the problems caused by
capitalism rather than their cause. To say otherwise is like arguing that
@@ -1019,11 +1020,12 @@ anarchists stressed during the first post-war Labour Government:
> _ "The fact that the alternative, under capitalism, is destitution and the
sharper anomalies of poverty, does not make the Liberal-Socialistic
-alternative a sound proposition."
+alternative a sound proposition."
+> _
>
-> "The only rational insurance against the evils of poverty and industrialism
+> _"The only rational insurance against the evils of poverty and industrialism
and old age under the wages system is the abolition of poverty and the wages
system, and the transformation of industrialism to serve human ends instead of
grinding up human beings."_ [Vernon Richards (ed.), **World War - Cold War**,
@@ -1068,7 +1070,7 @@ sanction the new forms which that exploitation continually assumes, as capital
swallows up another branch of human activity . . . They exist to keep up the
machinery of government which serves to secure to capital the exploitation and
monopoly of wealth produced."_ This means that all modern states _"all serve
-one God -- capital; all have but one object \-- to facilitate the exploitation
+one God -- capital; all have but one object -- to facilitate the exploitation
of the worker by the capitalist."_ [**Anarchism**, p. 210]
Given that the capitalist market is marked by inequalities of power, any legal
@@ -1151,7 +1153,7 @@ Ultimately, the business class wants the state to intervene in the economy
beyond the minimum desired by a few ideologues of capitalism simply to ensure
it gets even more wealth and power -- and to ensure that the system does not
implode. Ironically, to get capitalism to work as some of its defenders want
-it to would require a revolution in itself \-- against the capitalists! Yet if
+it to would require a revolution in itself -- against the capitalists! Yet if
we go to the trouble of fighting public tyranny (the state), why should we
stop there? Why should private tyranny (capitalism, its autocratic structures
and hierarchical social relationships) remain untouched? Particularly, as
@@ -1216,7 +1218,7 @@ anarchist should be to defend some state institutions from the attack against
them, while trying at the same time to pry them open to more meaningful public
participation -- and, ultimately, to dismantle them in a much more free
society, of the appropriate circumstances can be achieved."_ [**Chomsky on
-Anarchism**, p. 193 and p. 194]
+Anarchism**, pp. 193-4]
There is, of course, a tension in this position. The state may be influenced
by popular struggle but it remains an instrument of **capitalist** rule. It
@@ -1288,11 +1290,12 @@ is far too often spun out by people on the left without their taking into
account that there is a massive difference between state control/ownership and
workers' control/ownership . . . we all know that even if the revenues . . .
were still in state ownership, spending it on housing the homeless or reducing
-hospital waiting lists would not top the agenda of the government.
+hospital waiting lists would not top the agenda of the government.
+> _
>
-> "Put simply, state ownership does not equal workers' ownership . . . we are
+> _"Put simply, state ownership does not equal workers' ownership . . . we are
sold the lie that the resource . . . is 'public property.' The reality however
is that far from being in the ownership of 'the public,' ordinary people have
no direct say in the allocation of these resources. Just as working class
@@ -1304,7 +1307,7 @@ the purse strings supposedly 'in the public interest' will actually spend
revenues generated from these 'public assets' on measures that will have the
long-term effect of re-enforcing rather than alleviating social division.
Public policy consistently results in an increase in the gap between the well-
-off and the poor."_ [Kerr, Opt. Cit.**, pp. 16-7 and p. 17]
+off and the poor."_ [Kerr, **Opt. Cit.**, pp. 16-7 and p. 17]
Thus an anarchist approach to this issue would be to reject both privatisation
**and** nationalisation in favour of socialisation, i.e. placing nationalised
@@ -1321,14 +1324,15 @@ social functions. It does not follow that **only** the state could assume such
control. The postmen are 'civil servants' only because the State makes them
such. The railways were not always run by the state, They belonged to the
capitalists [and do once more, at least in the UK], and could as easily have
-been run by the railway workers.
+been run by the railway workers.
+> _
>
-> "The opponents of anarchism assure us that if we put government under a ban,
-there would be no education, for the state controls the schools. There would
-be no hospitals - where would the money come from? Nobody would work -- who
-would pay their wages? . . . But in reality, not . . . the state, but the
+> _"The opponents of anarchism assure us that if we put government under a
+ban, there would be no education, for the state controls the schools. There
+would be no hospitals - where would the money come from? Nobody would work --
+who would pay their wages? . . . But in reality, not . . . the state, but the
people provide what the people have. If the people do not provide for
themselves, the state cannot help them. It only appears to do so because it is
in control. Those who have power may apportion work or regulate the standard
@@ -1499,3 +1503,7 @@ always . . . a corresponding debilitation of grassroots elements. Men may come
and go, but the state remains."_ [Jose Peirats, **The CNT in the Spanish
Revolution**, vol. 2, p. 150]
+[‹ D.0 Section D Introduction](/afaq/secDint.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/secDcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [D.2 What influence does wealth
+have over politics? ›](/afaq/secD2.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secD10.md b/markdown/secD10.md
index 589b989d9772b2793ff350bdcb4f6eabbf0a506c..80dc3bb7982a53d36f31dd9c98e6d71eceed7750 100644
--- a/markdown/secD10.md
+++ b/markdown/secD10.md
@@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ new labour system in the steel industry was repeated throughout the economy in
different industries. As in the steel industry, the core of these new labour
systems were the creation of artificial job hierarchies and the transfer of
skills from workers to the managers."_ [_"The Origins of Job Structure in the
-Steel Industry,"_ pp. 123-157, Root & Branch (ed.), **Root and Branch: The
+Steel Industry,"_ pp. 123-157, Root & Branch (ed.), **Root and Branch: The
Rise of the Workers' Movements**, p. 155, p. 153, p. 152 and pp. 153-4]
This process of deskilling workers was complemented by other factors -- state
@@ -526,3 +526,8 @@ ecological needs. [**Op. Cit.**, p. 43 and p. 80] See [section
I.4.9](secI4.html#seci49) for more discussion on technology within an
anarchist society.
+[‹ D.9 Why does political power become concentrated under
+capitalism?](/afaq/secD9.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secDcon.html
+"Go to parent page" ) [D.11 Can politics and economics be separated from each
+other? ›](/afaq/secD11.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secD11.md b/markdown/secD11.md
index 28b8e5c8b1a8b8f8bffd3102161530d63998de17..e26a58ce37e6359e723826d2636f58708adc8831 100644
--- a/markdown/secD11.md
+++ b/markdown/secD11.md
@@ -547,7 +547,7 @@ ordered combat-ready troops and tanks onto the streets for an 'exercise' . . .
Throughout the Aylwin presidency, Pinochet maintained an army 'shadow cabinet'
that acted as a political pressure group."_ Unsurprisingly, the first post-
Pinochet government _"often backed down in practice for the sake of social
-peace \-- or out of fear of endangering the transition to democracy. As a
+peace -- or out of fear of endangering the transition to democracy. As a
result, Aylwin was unable to fulfil his promises of constitutional and
institutional reforms that would reverse Pinochet's authoritarian legacy."_
This was because the new government thought that the coup and dictatorship
@@ -623,3 +623,8 @@ overboard."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 42] Chile is a classic example of this, a
bloody example which helps deter genuine democracy in that country decades
later.
+[‹ D.10 How does capitalism affect technology?](/afaq/secD10.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secDcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [Section E -
+What do anarchists think causes ecological problems? ›](/afaq/secEcon.html "Go
+to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secD2.md b/markdown/secD2.md
index cf6ce7d7a673247f4f1d2d482a8b6bbac254edb3..06201c47122efac25a70a3e67ae34eb4169ab2ca 100644
--- a/markdown/secD2.md
+++ b/markdown/secD2.md
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ society]. Moreover, they have special ease of access to government officials,
and they are disproportionately represented at all upper levels of
government."_ [David Schweickart, **Against Capitalism**, pp. 210-1]
-Therefore, logically, politics will be dominated by the rich and powerful \--
+Therefore, logically, politics will be dominated by the rich and powerful --
in fact if not in theory -- since, in general, only the rich can afford to run
and only parties supported by the wealthy will gain enough funds and
favourable press coverage to have a chance (see [section D.3](secD3.html) for
@@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ fallen to 150 points. [John Casey, _"The Seventies"_, **The Heavy Stuff**, no.
3, p. 21] By 1976 the Treasury was _"spending $100 million a day buying back
its own money on the markets to support the pound."_ [**The Times**, 10/6/76]
-**The Times** [27/5/76] noted that _"the further decline in the value of the pound has occurred despite the high level of interest rates. . . . [D]ealers said that selling pressure against the pound was not heavy or persistent, but there was an almost total lack of interest amongst buyers. The drop in the pound is extremely surprising in view of the unanimous opinion of bankers, politicians and officials that the currency is undervalued."_ While there was much talk of private armies and military intervention, this was not needed. As anarchist John Casey argues, the ruling class _"chose to play the economic card . . . They decided to subdue the rogue Labour administration by pulling the financial plugs out of the economy . . . This resulted in the stock market and the pound plummeting . . . This was a much neater solution than bullets and forced the Wilson government to clean up the mess by screwing the working class with public spending cuts and a freeze on wage claims . . . The whole process of economic sabotage was neatly engineering through third parties like dealers in the currency markets."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 23]
+**The Times** [27/5/76] noted that _"the further decline in the value of the pound has occurred despite the high level of interest rates. . . . [D]ealers said that selling pressure against the pound was not heavy or persistent, but there was an almost total lack of interest amongst buyers. The drop in the pound is extremely surprising in view of the unanimous opinion of bankers, politicians and officials that the currency is undervalued."_ While there was much talk of private armies and military intervention, this was not needed. As anarchist John Casey argues, the ruling class _"chose to play the economic card . . . They decided to subdue the rogue Labour administration by pulling the financial plugs out of the economy . . . This resulted in the stock market and the pound plummeting . . . This was a much neater solution than bullets and forced the Wilson government to clean up the mess by screwing the working class with public spending cuts and a freeze on wage claims . . . The whole process of economic sabotage was neatly engineering through third parties like dealers in the currency markets."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 23]
The Labour government, faced with the power of international capital, ended up
having to receive a temporary "bailing out" by the IMF, which imposed a
@@ -367,7 +367,7 @@ organisation, funds economic education for teachers and provides books,
pamphlets and films as teaching aids. In 1974, 20,000 teachers participated in
its workshops. The aim is to induce teachers to present corporations in an
uncritical light to their students. Funding for this propaganda machine comes
-from the American Bankers Association, AT&T;, the Sears Roebuck Foundation
+from the American Bankers Association, AT&T, the Sears Roebuck Foundation
and the Ford Foundation. As Domhoff points out, _"[a]lthough it [and other
bodies like it] has not been able to bring about active acceptance of all
power elite policies and perspectives, on economic or other domestic issues,
@@ -439,3 +439,7 @@ about the direction their country is taking. The task of anarchists is to help
the struggle, in America and across the globe, by which they can take their
country and lives back from the elite.
+[‹ D.1 Why does state intervention occur?](/afaq/secD1.html "Go to previous
+page" ) [up](/afaq/secDcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [D.3 How does wealth
+influence the mass media? ›](/afaq/secD3.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secD3.md b/markdown/secD3.md
index 6a4843eab335224ea06691f3b6d413508902844c..111599b1e7343ab01698117c60cfb8b39b8c94cb 100644
--- a/markdown/secD3.md
+++ b/markdown/secD3.md
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ nature of these five filters below before refuting two common objections to
the model. As with Chomsky and Herman, examples are mostly from the US media.
For more extensive analysis, we would recommend two organisations which study
and critique the performance of the media from a perspective informed by the
-"propaganda model." These are the American **Fairness & Accuracy In
+"propaganda model." These are the American **Fairness & Accuracy In
Reporting** (FAIR) and the UK based **MediaLens** (neither, it should be
pointed out, are anarchist organisations).
@@ -180,7 +180,8 @@ for their existence on advertising revenue (which in turn comes from private
business). Business also provides a substantial share of "experts" for news
programmes and generates massive "flak." Claims that the media are "left-
leaning" are sheer disinformation manufactured by the "flak" organisations
-described below (in [section D.3.4). Thus Herman and Chomsky:
+described below (in [section D.3.4](secD3.html#secd34)). Thus Herman and
+Chomsky:
> _"the dominant media forms are quite large businesses; they are controlled
by very wealthy people or by managers who are subject to sharp constraints by
@@ -449,11 +450,12 @@ is useful as well as dramatic, they focus on it intensively and use it to
enlighten the public. This was true, for example, of the shooting down by the
Soviets of the Korean airliner KAL 007 in early September 1983, which
permitted an extended campaign of denigration of an official enemy and greatly
-advanced Reagan administration arms plans."
+advanced Reagan administration arms plans."
+> _
>
-> "In sharp contrast, the shooting down by Israel of a Libyan civilian
+> _"In sharp contrast, the shooting down by Israel of a Libyan civilian
airliner in February 1973 led to no outcry in the West, no denunciations for
'cold-blooded murder,' and no boycott. This difference in treatment was
explained by the **New York Times** precisely on the grounds of utility: 'No
@@ -634,3 +636,8 @@ should furthermore be encourages within these bounds, this helping to
establish these doctrines as the very condition of thinkable thought while
reinforcing the belief that freedom reigns."_ [**Necessary Illusions**, p. 48]
+[‹ D.2 What influence does wealth have over politics?](/afaq/secD2.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secDcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [D.4 What is
+the relationship between capitalism and the ecological crisis?
+›](/afaq/secD4.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secD4.md b/markdown/secD4.md
index 4e8624290523630443a17c9a4bfb4df4f4a4592b..9a3b089d7ca94c4f171f1224a8f3f9f3d3bdaa95 100644
--- a/markdown/secD4.md
+++ b/markdown/secD4.md
@@ -144,3 +144,7 @@ based on either regulation or (more usually in these neo-liberal days) on
arguments are unsound and why libertarian socialism is our best hope for
preventing ecological catastrophe.
+[‹ D.3 How does wealth influence the mass media?](/afaq/secD3.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secDcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [D.5 What
+causes imperialism? ›](/afaq/secD5.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secD5.md b/markdown/secD5.md
index 9de0262d1750bcc7444bcf65bdfe10d518f9db3e..8873f72f7932862168de9f5e4abdc9ccf56896d7 100644
--- a/markdown/secD5.md
+++ b/markdown/secD5.md
@@ -729,7 +729,7 @@ then they can commit any crime against their own people while being praised
for making progress towards "democracy." However, the moment they step out of
line and act in ways which clash with the interests of the imperialist powers
then their short-comings will used to justify intervention (the example of
-Saddam Hussein is the most obvious one to raise here). As for "democracy,"_
+Saddam Hussein is the most obvious one to raise here). As for "democracy,"
this can be tolerated by imperialism as long as its in _"the traditional sense
of 'top-down' rule by elites linked to US power, with democratic forms of
little substance -- unless they are compelled to do so, by their own
@@ -833,11 +833,12 @@ economy . . . That they are realised through different modes (for example,
capital exportation play a much more restricted role and acts in a different
way than is the case with monopoly domination) is the result of the
differences separating bureaucratic capitalism from monopoly capitalism, but
-at bottom this changes nothing.
+at bottom this changes nothing.
+> _
>
-> "We must strongly emphasise that the imperialistic features of capital are
+> _"We must strongly emphasise that the imperialistic features of capital are
not tied to 'private' or 'State' ownership of the means of production . . .
the same process takes place if, instead of monopolies, there is an exploiting
bureaucracy; in other words, this bureaucracy also can **exploit**, but only
@@ -1099,7 +1100,7 @@ force "free trade" on the "third world." This occurred when third world
countries faced with falling incomes and rising interest rates defaulted on
their loans (loans that were mainly given as a bribe to the ruling elites of
those countries and used as a means to suppress the working people of those
-countries \-- who now, sickenly, are expected to repay them!).
+countries -- who now, sickenly, are expected to repay them!).
Before this, as noted in [section D.5.1](secD5.html#secd51), many countries
had followed a policy of "import substitution." This tended to create new
@@ -1132,17 +1133,17 @@ that part of the problem is that the IMF and WB have been taken over by true
believers in capitalism and apply market fundamentalism in all cases. Thus,
they _"became the new missionary institutions"_ of _"free market ideology"_
through which _"these ideas were pushed on reluctant poor countries."_ Their
-policies were _"based on an ideology -- market fundamentalism \-- that
-required little, if any, consideration of a country's particular circumstances
-and immediate problems. IMF economists could ignore the short-term effects
-their policies might have on [a] country, content in the belief **in the long
-run** the country would be better off"_ \-- a position which many working
-class people there rejected by rioting and protest. In summary, globalisation
-_"as it has been practised has not lived up to what its advocates promised it
-would accomplish . . . In some cases it has not even resulted in growth, but
-when it has, it has not brought benefits to all; the net effect of the
-policies set by the Washington Consensus had all too often been to benefit the
-few at the expense of the many, the well-off at the expense of the poor."_
+policies were _"based on an ideology -- market fundamentalism -- that required
+little, if any, consideration of a country's particular circumstances and
+immediate problems. IMF economists could ignore the short-term effects their
+policies might have on [a] country, content in the belief **in the long run**
+the country would be better off"_ \-- a position which many working class
+people there rejected by rioting and protest. In summary, globalisation _"as
+it has been practised has not lived up to what its advocates promised it would
+accomplish . . . In some cases it has not even resulted in growth, but when it
+has, it has not brought benefits to all; the net effect of the policies set by
+the Washington Consensus had all too often been to benefit the few at the
+expense of the many, the well-off at the expense of the poor."_
[**Globalisation and Its Discontents**, p. 17, p. 20, p. 13, p. 36 and p. 20]
While transnational companies are, perhaps, the most well-known
@@ -1311,11 +1312,11 @@ radical movements.
As such, it would be a mistake (as many in the anti-globalisation movement do)
to contrast the market to the state. State and capital are not opposed to each
-other \-- in fact, the opposite is the case. The modern state exists to
-protect capitalist rule, just as every state exists to defend minority rule,
-and it is essential for nation states to attract and retain capital within
-their borders to ensure their revenue by having a suitably strong economy to
-tax. Globalisation is a state-led initiative whose primary aim is to keep the
+other -- in fact, the opposite is the case. The modern state exists to protect
+capitalist rule, just as every state exists to defend minority rule, and it is
+essential for nation states to attract and retain capital within their borders
+to ensure their revenue by having a suitably strong economy to tax.
+Globalisation is a state-led initiative whose primary aim is to keep the
economically dominant happy. The states which are being "undermined" by
globalisation are not horrified by this process as certain protestors are,
which should give pause for thought. States are complicit in the process of
@@ -1331,7 +1332,7 @@ they can be influenced by their subjects, unlike multinationals. NAFTA was
designed to reduce this influence even more. Changes in government policy
reflect the changing needs of business, modified, of course, by fear of the
working population and its strength. Which explains globalisation -- the need
-for capital to strengthen its position vis--vis labour by pitting one labour
+for capital to strengthen its position vis-à-vis labour by pitting one labour
force against -- and our next step, namely to strengthen and globalise working
class resistance. Only when it is clear that the costs of globalisation -- in
terms of strikes, protests, boycotts, occupations, economic instability and so
@@ -1517,7 +1518,7 @@ D.8](secD8.html).
However, under globalisation things are somewhat different. With the increase
in world trade and the signing of "free trade" agreements like NAFTA, the
position of workers in the imperialist nations need not improve. For example,
-since the 1970s, the wages \-- adjusted for inflation -- of the typical
+since the 1970s, the wages -- adjusted for inflation -- of the typical
American employee have actually fallen, even as the economy has grown. In
other words, the majority of Americans are no longer sharing in the gains from
economic growth. This is very different from the previous era, for example
@@ -1599,3 +1600,8 @@ class will pay the bill required to maintain it. This means that we have a
real interest in ending it -- particularly as under globalisation the few
benefits that used to accrue to us are much less.
+[‹ D.4 What is the relationship between capitalism and the ecological
+crisis?](/afaq/secD4.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secDcon.html "Go
+to parent page" ) [D.6 Are anarchists against Nationalism? ›](/afaq/secD6.html
+"Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secD6.md b/markdown/secD6.md
index f329cd271daa0022d6ddb310fff1be49ae93e090..d722d5f2ed78683b46790ebd51b50e2cd3d497bf 100644
--- a/markdown/secD6.md
+++ b/markdown/secD6.md
@@ -239,3 +239,7 @@ A. Miller, **Kropotkin**, p. 231] As we discuss in the [next
section](secD7.html), while rejecting Nationalism anarchists do not
necessarily oppose national liberation struggles against foreign domination.
+[‹ D.5 What causes imperialism?](/afaq/secD5.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/secDcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [D.7 Are anarchists opposed to
+National Liberation struggles? ›](/afaq/secD7.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secD7.md b/markdown/secD7.md
index 3880a1fe51747a5d8bec9a52ac5edaa3f4148429..6d1be7f3e8f0dfd85601bc3a92dd534f36de6d1b 100644
--- a/markdown/secD7.md
+++ b/markdown/secD7.md
@@ -253,17 +253,18 @@ every sphere. It is obvious that this clear and specific stance has absolutely
nothing to do with narrow nationalism of the 'separatist' variety which pits
nation against nation and substitutes an artificial and harmful separation for
the struggle to achieve a natural social union of toilers in one shared social
-communion.
+communion.
+> _
>
-> "In our view, national aspirations of a natural, wholesome character
+> _"In our view, national aspirations of a natural, wholesome character
(language, customs, culture, etc.) can achieve full and fruitful satisfaction
-only in the union of nationalities rather than in their antagonism . . .
+only in the union of nationalities rather than in their antagonism . . . _
>
-> "The speedy construction of a new life on [libertarian] socialist
+> _"The speedy construction of a new life on [libertarian] socialist
foundations will ineluctably lead to development of the culture peculiar to
each nationality. Whenever we Makhnovist insurgents speak of independence of
the Ukraine, we ground it in the social and economic plane of the toilers. We
@@ -306,3 +307,7 @@ labouring masses are and want to be Polish, it ends where, renouncing all
particular links with Poland, the masses wish to establish other national
links."_ [quoted by Jean Caroline Cahm, **Op. Cit.**, p. 43]
+[‹ D.6 Are anarchists against Nationalism?](/afaq/secD6.html "Go to previous
+page" ) [up](/afaq/secDcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [D.8 What causes
+militarism and what are its effects? ›](/afaq/secD8.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secD8.md b/markdown/secD8.md
index 28a858f645eb25550c46e1bc2aa7312bfb6b5ebe..ef63d2e63e686758cbf38883d94b94ad08f079a0 100644
--- a/markdown/secD8.md
+++ b/markdown/secD8.md
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ development at taxpayer expense, which often yields "spin-offs" with great
commercial potential as consumer products (e.g. computers). Needless to say,
all the profits go to the defence contractors and to the commercial companies
who buy licences to patented technologies from them, rather than being shared
-with the public which funded the R&D; that made the profits possible. Thus
+with the public which funded the R&D that made the profits possible. Thus
militarism is a key means of securing technological advances within
capitalism.
@@ -73,10 +73,10 @@ employment . . In most of them, basic research and technological progress were
closely linked to the expanding military sector. The major innovation in the
1950s was electronics . . . [which] increased its output 15 percent per year.
It was of critical importance in workplace automation, with the federal
-government providing the bulk of the research and development (R&D;)
+government providing the bulk of the research and development (R&D)
dollars for military-orientated purposes. Infrared instrumentation, pressure
and temperature measuring equipment, medical electronics, and thermoelectric
-energy conversion all benefited from military R&D.; By the 1960s indirect
+energy conversion all benefited from military R&D. By the 1960s indirect
and direct military demand accounted for as much as 70 percent of the total
output of the electronics industry. Feedbacks also developed between
electronics and aircraft, the second growth industry of the 1950s. By 1960 . .
@@ -84,22 +84,22 @@ electronics and aircraft, the second growth industry of the 1950s. By 1960 . .
level, and over 90 percent of its output went to the military. Synthetics
(plastics and fibres) was another growth industry owning much of its
development to military-related projects. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s,
-military-related R&D;, including space, accounted for 40 to 50 percent of
-total public and private R&D; spending and at least 85% of federal
+military-related R&D, including space, accounted for 40 to 50 percent of
+total public and private R&D spending and at least 85% of federal
government share."_ [Richard B. Du Boff, **Accumulation and Power**, pp.
103-4]
As another economist notes, it is _"important to recognise that the role of
the US federal government in industrial development has been substantial even
in the post-war period, thanks to the large amount of defence-related
-procurements and R&D; spending, which have had enormous spillover effects.
-The share of the US federal government in total R&D; speanding, which was
+procurements and R&D spending, which have had enormous spillover effects.
+The share of the US federal government in total R&D speanding, which was
only 16 per cent in 1930, remained between one-half and two-thirds during the
postwar years. Industries such as computers, aerospace and the internet, where
the USA still maintains an international edge despite the decline in its
overall technological leadership, would not have existed without defence-
-related R&D; funding by the country's federal government."_ Moreover, the
-state also plays a _"crucial role"_ in supporting R&D; in the
+related R&D funding by the country's federal government."_ Moreover, the
+state also plays a _"crucial role"_ in supporting R&D in the
pharmaceutical industry. [Ha-Joon Chang, **Kicking Away the Ladder**, p. 31]
Not only this, government spending on road building (initially justified using
@@ -272,3 +272,8 @@ noted, _"where military force prevails, there freedom has to take its leave --
especially the freedom and well-being of the working people."_ [**The
Political Philosophy of Bakunin**, pp. 221-2]
+[‹ D.7 Are anarchists opposed to National Liberation
+struggles?](/afaq/secD7.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secDcon.html
+"Go to parent page" ) [D.9 Why does political power become concentrated under
+capitalism? ›](/afaq/secD9.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secD9.md b/markdown/secD9.md
index 4f1458eef6834d6c3dc3d256055d22de26460187..ec49950c62a5755d7239886196ba189749d5dbff 100644
--- a/markdown/secD9.md
+++ b/markdown/secD9.md
@@ -348,6 +348,8 @@ always been the backbone of democracy, and anything that concentrates wealth
tends to weaken democratic institutions. [**A Dream Deferred**, p. 68] This
analysis is echoed by left-liberal economist James K. Galbraith:
+
+
> _"As polarisation of wages, incomes and wealth develops, the common
interests and common social programs of society fall into decline. We have
seen this too, in this country over thirty years, beginning with the erosion
@@ -360,6 +362,8 @@ solidarity and mutual reinforcement, the voices of civil society, the voices
of a democratic and egalitarian middle class."_ [**Created Unequal: The Crisis
in American Pay**, p. 265]
+
+
If this is true, then along with increasing wealth polarisation in the US we
should expect to see signs of growing authoritarianism. This hypothesis is
confirmed by numerous facts, including the following: continuing growth of an
@@ -682,18 +686,19 @@ to work at very low wages. As Lorenzo Lom'boa Ervin notes:
trying to build a mass movement which can hire itself out to the Capitalists
at the proper moment and assume state power . . . Fascism is the ultimate
authoritarian society when in power, even though it has changed its face to a
-mixture of crude racism and smoother racism in the modern democratic state.
+mixture of crude racism and smoother racism in the modern democratic state.
+> _
>
-> "So in addition to the Nazis and the Klan, there are other Right-Wing forces
-that have been on the rise . . . They include ultra-conservative rightist
-politicians and Christian fundamentalist preachers, along with the extreme
-right section of the Capitalist ruling class itself, small business owners,
-talk show hosts . . . along with the professors, economists, philosophers and
-others in academia who are providing the ideological weapons for the
-Capitalist offensive against the workers and oppresses people. So not all
-racists wear sheets. These are the 'respectable' racists, the New Right
+> _"So in addition to the Nazis and the Klan, there are other Right-Wing
+forces that have been on the rise . . . They include ultra-conservative
+rightist politicians and Christian fundamentalist preachers, along with the
+extreme right section of the Capitalist ruling class itself, small business
+owners, talk show hosts . . . along with the professors, economists,
+philosophers and others in academia who are providing the ideological weapons
+for the Capitalist offensive against the workers and oppresses people. So not
+all racists wear sheets. These are the 'respectable' racists, the New Right
conservatives . . . The Capitalist class has already shown their willingness
to use this conservative movement as a smoke screen for an attack on the Labor
movement, Black struggle, and the entire working class."_ [**Anarchism and the
@@ -780,11 +785,12 @@ liberal economist James K. Galbraith:
> _"What the economists did, in effect, was to reason backward, from the
troublesome effect to a cause that would rationalise and justify it . . . [I]t
is the work of the efficient market [they argued], and the fundamental
-legitimacy of the outcome is not supposed to be questioned.
+legitimacy of the outcome is not supposed to be questioned.
+> _
>
-> "The **apologia** is a dreadful thing. It has distorted our understanding,
+> _"The **apologia** is a dreadful thing. It has distorted our understanding,
twisted our perspective, and crabbed our politics. On the right, as one might
expect, the winners on the expanded scale of wealth and incomes are given a
reason for self-satisfaction and an excuse for gloating. Their gains are due
@@ -828,3 +834,7 @@ big business, etc. -- laissez-faire ideology points analysis into a dead-end
as well as apologetics for the wealthy, apologetics which can be, and are,
utilised by racists to justify their evil politics.
+[‹ D.8 What causes militarism and what are its effects?](/afaq/secD8.html "Go
+to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secDcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [D.10 How
+does capitalism affect technology? ›](/afaq/secD10.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secDcon.md b/markdown/secDcon.md
index f3069bd8bd78c990ba8f65187555d6284d01db64..b2df150a8c8a89245ceed05b4b5230fbcb0601b1 100644
--- a/markdown/secDcon.md
+++ b/markdown/secDcon.md
@@ -1,71 +1,105 @@
# Section D - How do statism and capitalism affect society?
-## [Introduction
+##
+
+## [Introduction](secDint.html)
+
+##
## [D.1 Why does state intervention occur?](secD1.html)
-### [D.1.1 Does state intervention cause the problems to begin
+> ### [D.1.1 Does state intervention cause the problems to begin
with?](secD1.html#secd11)
-[D.1.2 Is state intervention the result of democracy?](secD1.html#secd12)
-[D.1.3 Is state intervention socialistic?](secD1.html#secd13)
-[D.1.4 Is laissez-faire capitalism actually without state
+> [D.1.2 Is state intervention the result of democracy?](secD1.html#secd12)
+> [D.1.3 Is state intervention socialistic?](secD1.html#secd13)
+> [D.1.4 Is laissez-faire capitalism actually without state
intervention?](secD1.html#secd14)
-[D.1.5 Do anarchists support state intervention?](secD1.html#secd15)
+> [D.1.5 Do anarchists support state intervention?](secD1.html#secd15)
## [D.2 What influence does wealth have over politics?](secD2.html)
-### [D.2.1 Is capital flight that powerful?](secD2.html#secd21)
-[D.2.2 How extensive is business propaganda?](secD2.html#secd22)
+> ### [D.2.1 Is capital flight that powerful?](secD2.html#secd21)
+> [D.2.2 How extensive is business propaganda?](secD2.html#secd22)
## [D.3 How does wealth influence the mass media?](secD3.html)
-### [D.3.1 How does the structure of the media affect its
+> ### [D.3.1 How does the structure of the media affect its
content?](secD3.html#secd31)
-[D.3.2 What is the effect of advertising on the mass
+> [D.3.2 What is the effect of advertising on the mass
media?](secD3.html#secd32)
-[D.3.3 Why do the media rely on government and business "experts" for
+> [D.3.3 Why do the media rely on government and business "experts" for
information?](secD3.html#secd33)
-[D.3.4 How is "flak" used as a means of disciplining the
+> [D.3.4 How is "flak" used as a means of disciplining the
media?](secD3.html#secd34)
-[D.3.5 Why is "anticommunism" used as control mechanism?](secD3.html#secd35)
-[D.3.6 Isn't the "propaganda model" a conspiracy theory?](secD3.html#secd36)
-[D.3.7 Isn't the model contradicted by the media reporting government and
+> [D.3.5 Why is "anticommunism" used as control
+mechanism?](secD3.html#secd35)
+> [D.3.6 Isn't the "propaganda model" a conspiracy
+theory?](secD3.html#secd36)
+> [D.3.7 Isn't the model contradicted by the media reporting government and
business failures?](secD3.html#secd37)
## [D.4 What is the relationship between capitalism and the ecological
crisis?](secD4.html)
+##
+
## [D.5 What causes imperialism?](secD5.html)
-### [D.5.1 Has imperialism changed over time?](secD5.html#secd51)
-[D.5.2 Is imperialism just a product of private
+> ### [D.5.1 Has imperialism changed over time?](secD5.html#secd51)
+> [D.5.2 Is imperialism just a product of private
capitalism?](secD5.html#secd52)
-[D.5.3 Does globalisation mean the end of imperialism?](secD5.html#secd53)
-[ D.5.4 What is the relationship between imperialism and the social classes
+> [D.5.3 Does globalisation mean the end of imperialism?](secD5.html#secd53)
+> [ D.5.4 What is the relationship between imperialism and the social classes
within capitalism?](secD5.html#secd54)
## [D.6 Are anarchists against Nationalism?](secD6.html)
+##
+
## [D.7 Are anarchists opposed to National Liberation struggles?](secD7.html)
+##
+
## [D.8 What causes militarism and what are its effects?](secD8.html)
+##
+
## [D.9 Why does political power become concentrated under
capitalism?](secD9.html)
-### [D.9.1 What is the relationship between wealth polarisation and
+> ### [D.9.1 What is the relationship between wealth polarisation and
authoritarian government?](secD9.html#secd91)
-[D.9.2 Why is government surveillance of citizens on the
+> [D.9.2 Why is government surveillance of citizens on the
increase?](secD9.html#secd92)
-[D.9.3 What causes justifications for racism to appear?](secD9.html#secd93)
+> [D.9.3 What causes justifications for racism to appear?](secD9.html#secd93)
## [D.10 How does capitalism affect technology?](secD10.html)
+##
+
## [D.11 Can politics and economics be separated from each
other?](secD11.html)
-### [D.11.1 What does Chile tell us about the right and its vision of
+> ### [D.11.1 What does Chile tell us about the right and its vision of
liberty?](secD11.html#secd111)
-[D.11.2 But surely Chile proves that "economic freedom" creates political
+> [D.11.2 But surely Chile proves that "economic freedom" creates political
freedom?](secD11.html#secd112)
+ * [D.0 Section D Introduction](/afaq/secDint.html)
+ * [D.1 Why does state intervention occur?](/afaq/secD1.html)
+ * [D.2 What influence does wealth have over politics?](/afaq/secD2.html)
+ * [D.3 How does wealth influence the mass media?](/afaq/secD3.html)
+ * [D.4 What is the relationship between capitalism and the ecological crisis?](/afaq/secD4.html)
+ * [D.5 What causes imperialism?](/afaq/secD5.html)
+ * [D.6 Are anarchists against Nationalism?](/afaq/secD6.html)
+ * [D.7 Are anarchists opposed to National Liberation struggles?](/afaq/secD7.html)
+ * [D.8 What causes militarism and what are its effects?](/afaq/secD8.html)
+ * [D.9 Why does political power become concentrated under capitalism?](/afaq/secD9.html)
+ * [D.10 How does capitalism affect technology?](/afaq/secD10.html)
+ * [D.11 Can politics and economics be separated from each other?](/afaq/secD11.html)
+
+[‹ C.12 Doesn't Hong Kong show the potentials of "free market"
+capitalism?](/afaq/secC12.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/index.html
+"Go to parent page" ) [D.0 Section D Introduction ›](/afaq/secDint.html "Go to
+next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secDint.md b/markdown/secDint.md
index 50b9707d7817e2a3fca964afa51a4de7d32c7010..0edf74cd5f75ceac3eea72b944113c92aa7c969e 100644
--- a/markdown/secDint.md
+++ b/markdown/secDint.md
@@ -17,9 +17,9 @@ out how (and why) statism and capitalism affect society as a whole outwith the
narrow bounds of politics and economics.
So here we sketch some of the impact concentrations of political and economic
-power have upon society. While many people attack the *results* of these
+power have upon society. While many people attack the **results** of these
processes (like specific forms of state intervention, ecological destruction,
-imperialism, etc.) they usually ignore their *causes.* This means that the
+imperialism, etc.) they usually ignore their **causes**. This means that the
struggle against social evils will be never-ending, like a doctor fighting the
symptoms of a disease without treating the disease itself or the conditions
which create it in the first place. We have indicated the roots of the
@@ -121,3 +121,8 @@ enough detail for further investigation as well as an understanding of how
anarchists analyse the current system based on our anti-authoritarian
principles and how the political and economic aspects of capitalism interact.
+[‹ Section D - How do statism and capitalism affect
+society?](/afaq/secDcon.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secDcon.html
+"Go to parent page" ) [D.1 Why does state intervention occur?
+›](/afaq/secD1.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secE1.md b/markdown/secE1.md
index c8601356f14de270218c37c749f480020f92b1c5..62f0d389f6864161e241f5441e25e459a1054924 100644
--- a/markdown/secE1.md
+++ b/markdown/secE1.md
@@ -302,7 +302,7 @@ are unconvinced and agree with Bookchin when he noted that "cries against
'technology' and 'industrial society' [are] two very safe, socially natural
targets against which even the bourgeoisie can inveigh in Earth Day
celebrations, as long as minimal attention is paid to the social relations in
-which the mechanisation of society is rooted."_ Instead, ecology needs _"a
+which the mechanisation of society is rooted." Instead, ecology needs _"a
confrontational stance toward capitalism and hierarchical society"_ in order
to be effective and fix the root causes of our problems. [**The Ecology of
Freedom**, p. 54]
@@ -580,3 +580,7 @@ knowledge, and innate creativity for its own benefit and for that of the
natural world, all ecological problems will have their roots in social
problems."_ [Bookchin, **Remaking Society**, p. 39]
+[‹ E.0 Section E Introduction](/afaq/secEint.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/secEcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [E.2 What do eco-anarchists
+propose instead of capitalism? ›](/afaq/secE2.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secE2.md b/markdown/secE2.md
index 227c6a814f28b9fb094832f0b6de6d7bdea326de..2a5dc2f4c094577d3c6651367ec35ea112a60428 100644
--- a/markdown/secE2.md
+++ b/markdown/secE2.md
@@ -62,11 +62,12 @@ unprecedented in any prior epoch of human development. Capitalist society, by
recycling the organise world into an increasingly inanimate, inorganic
assemblage of commodities, was destined to simplify the biosphere, thereby
cutting across the grain of natural evolution with its ages-long thrust
-towards differentiation and diversity.
+towards differentiation and diversity.
+> _
>
-> "To reverse this trend, capitalism had to be replaced by an ecological
+> _"To reverse this trend, capitalism had to be replaced by an ecological
society based on non-hierarchical relationships, decentralised communities,
eco-technologies like solar power, organic agriculture, and humanly scaled
industries -- in short, by face-to-face democratic forms of settlement
@@ -165,19 +166,21 @@ socialist David Schweickart:
> _ "To the extent that emissions affect the workers directly on the job (as
they often do), we can expect a self-managed firm to pollute less. Workers
-will control the technology; it will not be imposed on them from without.
+will control the technology; it will not be imposed on them from without.
+> _
>
-> "To the extent that emissions affect the local community, they are likely to
-be less severe, for two reasons. Firstly, workers (unlike capitalist owners)
-will necessarily live nearby, and so the decision-makers will bear more of the
-environmental costs directly. Second . . . a self-managed firm will not be
-able to avoid local regulation by running away (or threatening to do so). The
-great stick that a capitalist firm holds over the head of a local community
-will be absent. Hence absent will be the macrophenomenon of various regions of
-the country trying to compete for firms by offering a 'better business
-climate' (i.e. fewer environmental restrictions)."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 145]
+> _"To the extent that emissions affect the local community, they are likely
+to be less severe, for two reasons. Firstly, workers (unlike capitalist
+owners) will necessarily live nearby, and so the decision-makers will bear
+more of the environmental costs directly. Second . . . a self-managed firm
+will not be able to avoid local regulation by running away (or threatening to
+do so). The great stick that a capitalist firm holds over the head of a local
+community will be absent. Hence absent will be the macrophenomenon of various
+regions of the country trying to compete for firms by offering a 'better
+business climate' (i.e. fewer environmental restrictions)."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p.
+145]
For an ecological society to work, it requires the active participation of
those doing productive activity. They are often the first to be affected by
@@ -288,7 +291,7 @@ interaction with others and nature.
That is not all. The communal framework would also impact on how industry
would develop. It would allow eco-technologies to be prioritised in terms of
-R&D; and subsidised in terms of consumption. No more would green
+R&D and subsidised in terms of consumption. No more would green
alternatives and eco-technologies be left unused simply because most people
cannot afford to buy them nor would their development be under-funded simply
because a capitalist sees little profit form it or a politician cannot see any
@@ -399,11 +402,12 @@ urban entities, the stratification and bureaucratisation of life, the divorce
of town from country, the objectification of nature and human beings. In my
view, this sweeping reversal means that we must begin to decentralise our
cities and establish entirely new eco-communities that are artistically
-moulded to the ecosystems in which they are located . . .
+moulded to the ecosystems in which they are located . . .
+> _
>
-> "Such an eco-community . . . would heal the split between town and country,
+> _"Such an eco-community . . . would heal the split between town and country,
indeed, between mind and body by fusing intellectual with physical work,
industry with agriculture in a rotation or diversification of vocational
tasks. An eco-community would be supported by a new kind of technology -- or
@@ -452,3 +456,8 @@ For more discussion of how an anarchist society would work, see [section
I](secIcon.html). We will discuss the limitations of various proposed
solutions to the environmental crisis in the following sections.
+[‹ E.1 What are the root causes of our ecological problems?](/afaq/secE1.html
+"Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secEcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [E.3 Can
+private property rights protect the environment? ›](/afaq/secE3.html "Go to
+next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secE3.md b/markdown/secE3.md
index 33bdef3317c14963f07e0295667473e5c192b595..bb2c83e6b0c045bb04b3dc1e992458357d030aa6 100644
--- a/markdown/secE3.md
+++ b/markdown/secE3.md
@@ -508,11 +508,12 @@ wealthy few:
> _ "In other words, the environment is assumed to be something that can be
'valued,' in a similar way that everything else is assigned a value within the
-market economy.
+market economy.
+> _
>
-> "However, apart from the fact that there is no way to put an 'objective'
+> _"However, apart from the fact that there is no way to put an 'objective'
value on most of the elements that constitute the environment (since they
affect a subjective par excellence factor, i.e. the quality of life), the
solution suggested . . . implies the extension of the marketisation process to
@@ -522,7 +523,7 @@ value to the environment . . . so that the effects of growth onto it are
environment will either be put under the control of the economic elites that
control the market economy (in case an actual market value be assigned to it)
or the state (in case an imputed value is only possible). In either case, not
-only the arrest of the ecological damage is \-- at least -- doubtful, but the
+only the arrest of the ecological damage is -- at least -- doubtful, but the
control over Nature by elites who aim to dominate it -- using 'green'
prescriptions this time -- is perpetuated."_ [Takis Fotopoulous, _"Development
or Democracy?"_, pp. 57-92, **Society and Nature**, No. 7, pp. 79-80]
@@ -561,7 +562,7 @@ the response was complete impotence and negligence."_ [**Against the
Megamachine**, p. 57] As such, it cannot be stressed too much that the only
reason companies act any different (if and when they do) is because outside
agitators -- people who understand and cared about the planet and people more
-than they did about company profits \-- eventually forced them to.
+than they did about company profits -- eventually forced them to.
So given all this, it is clear that privatising nature is no guarantee that
environmental problems will be reduced. In fact, it is more likely to have the
@@ -865,7 +866,7 @@ leaflet called _"What's Wrong with McDonald's"_ and the company sent spies to
its meetings to identify people to sue. Two of the anarchists refused to be
intimidated and called McDonald's bluff. Representing themselves in court, the
two unemployed activists started the longest trial in UK history. After three
-years and a cost of around 10 million, the trial judge found that some of the
+years and a cost of around £10 million, the trial judge found that some of the
claims were untrue (significantly, McDonald's had successfully petitioned the
judge not to have a jury for the case, arguing that the issues were too
complex for the public to understand). While the case was a public relations
@@ -1111,7 +1112,7 @@ of humanity by propaganda and dis-information.
Having substantial resources available means that the media can be used to
further an anti-green agenda and dominate the debate (at least for a while).
-Take, as an example, **The Skeptical Environmentalist**, a book by Bjrn
+Take, as an example, **The Skeptical Environmentalist**, a book by Bjørn
Lomborg (a political scientist and professor of statistics at the University
of Aarhus in Denmark). When it was published in 2001, it caused a sensation
with its claims that scientists and environmental organisations were making,
@@ -1228,7 +1229,7 @@ invest in developing risky new technologies. This is because basic research
which may take years, if not decades, to develop and most companies are
unwilling to take on that burden. Unsurprisingly, most advanced capitalist
countries see such work funded by the state (as we noted in [section
-D.8](secD8.html), over 50% of total R&D; funding has been provided by the
+D.8](secD8.html), over 50% of total R&D funding has been provided by the
federal state in the USA). Moreover, the state has provided markets for such
products until such time as markets have appeared for them in the commercial
sector. Thus capitalism, by itself, will tend to under-invest in long term
@@ -1361,3 +1362,8 @@ major players have already retired from the game. Of course when the last of
these hustlers cash in their chips, there won't be any place left to retire
to."_ [David Watson, **Op. Cit.**, p. 57]
+[‹ E.2 What do eco-anarchists propose instead of capitalism?](/afaq/secE2.html
+"Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secEcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [E.4 Can
+laissez-faire capitalism protect the environment? ›](/afaq/secE4.html "Go to
+next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secE4.md b/markdown/secE4.md
index 7932f5fa914869eaeda0d1bbf2eb534f6f7d45a6..7bb95a52222d6910eaf2dbbb7d949bc2933998f0 100644
--- a/markdown/secE4.md
+++ b/markdown/secE4.md
@@ -124,11 +124,12 @@ power:
victims of pollution as to the owner of the factory. Yet it is not unlikely
that the owner's resources will far exceed those of his victims. Given this
disparity, it is not at all clear that persons who suffer the costs of
-pollution will be able to bear the price of relief.
+pollution will be able to bear the price of relief.
+> _
>
-> "Rothbard's proposal ignores a critical variable: power. This is not
+> _"Rothbard's proposal ignores a critical variable: power. This is not
surprising. Libertarians [sic!] are inclined to view 'power' and 'market' as
antithetical terms . . . In Rothbard's discussion, the factor owner has no
power over those who live near the factory. If we define power as comparative
@@ -396,7 +397,7 @@ liability."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 76 and p. 75]
This ignores the fact that externalities are imposed on others in order to
maximise the profits of the corporation. The stockholders directly benefit
from the "tortious behaviour" of their wage slaves. For example, if a manager
-decides to save 1,000,000 by letting toxic waste damage to occur to then the
+decides to save £1,000,000 by letting toxic waste damage to occur to then the
owners benefit by a higher return on their investment. To state that is the
manager who must pay for any damage means that the owners of a corporation or
business are absolved for any responsibility for the actions of those hired to
@@ -526,7 +527,7 @@ becomes property in Rothbard's theory. And, of course, fencing in areas of
rainforest disrupts the local eco-system -- animals cannot freely travel, for
example -- which, again, is what ecologists desire to stop. Would Rothbard
have accepted a piece of paper as "transforming" land? We doubt it (after all,
-in his example the wilderness owner **did** legally own it) \-- and so most
+in his example the wilderness owner **did** legally own it) -- and so most
ecologists will have a hard time in pure capitalism (wilderness is just not an
option).
@@ -653,7 +654,7 @@ As an aside, we must note that Rothbard fails to realise -- and this comes
from his worship of capitalism and his "Austrian economics" -- is that people
value many things which do not, indeed cannot, appear on the market. He claims
that wilderness is _"valueless unused natural objects"_ for it people valued
-them, they would use -- i.e. transform \-- them. But unused things may be of
+them, they would use -- i.e. transform -- them. But unused things may be of
**considerable** value to people, wilderness being a classic example. And if
something **cannot** be transformed into private property, does that mean
people do not value it? For example, people value community, stress-free
@@ -775,7 +776,7 @@ consistent Lockean as his work is _"riddled with contradictions and
inconsistencies"_ and have been _"expanded and purified"_ by his followers.
[**The Ethics of Liberty**, p. 22]).
-Rothbard is aware of what is involved in accepting the Lockean Proviso \--
+Rothbard is aware of what is involved in accepting the Lockean Proviso --
namely the existence of private property (_"Locke's proviso may lead to the
outlawry of **all** private property of land, since one can always say that
the reduction of available land leaves everyone else . . . worse off"_ [**Op.
@@ -812,14 +813,15 @@ appropriation. Likewise the land is indispensable to our existence, --
consequently a common thing, consequently unsusceptible of appropriation; but
land is much scarcer than the other elements, therefore its use must be
regulated, not for the profit of a few, but in the interest and for the
-security of all.
+security of all.
+> _
>
-> "In a word, equality of rights is proved by equality of needs. Now, equality
-of rights, in the case of a commodity which is limited in amount, can be
-realised only by equality of possession . . . From whatever point we view this
-question of property -- provided we go to the bottom of it -- we reach
+> _"In a word, equality of rights is proved by equality of needs. Now,
+equality of rights, in the case of a commodity which is limited in amount, can
+be realised only by equality of possession . . . From whatever point we view
+this question of property -- provided we go to the bottom of it -- we reach
equality."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 107]
To conclude, it would be unfair to simply quote Keynes evaluation of one work
@@ -834,3 +836,8 @@ incoherence. As we discuss in [section F](secFcon.html), Rothbard's claims to
being an "anarchist" are as baseless as his claim that capitalism will protect
the environment.
+[‹ E.3 Can private property rights protect the environment?](/afaq/secE3.html
+"Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secEcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [E.5 Can
+ethical consumerism stop the ecological crisis? ›](/afaq/secE5.html "Go to
+next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secE5.md b/markdown/secE5.md
index 6eba13ba4b4166f2b81187ffac9afceb5c9ccfb3..d4a54286e919d0e0e242a793f65a2d1ff79d88fb 100644
--- a/markdown/secE5.md
+++ b/markdown/secE5.md
@@ -324,11 +324,12 @@ and appeals for a new sensibility undertake public activities to stop
ecological degradation. Each surely does his or her part. But it will require
a much greater effort -- and organised, clearly conscious, and forward-looking
political **movement** \-- to meet the basic challenges posed by our
-aggressively **anti**-ecological society.
+aggressively **anti**-ecological society.
+> _
>
-> "Yes, we as individuals should change our lifestyles as much as possible,
+> _"Yes, we as individuals should change our lifestyles as much as possible,
but it is the utmost short-sightedness to believe that that is all or even
primarily what we have to do. We need to restructure the entire society, even
as we engage in lifestyle changes and single-issue struggles against
@@ -351,3 +352,7 @@ which cannot combat the cancerous growth principle of the capitalist economy.
As such, ethical consumerism does not break from the logic of capitalism and
so is doomed to failure.
+[‹ E.4 Can laissez-faire capitalism protect the environment?](/afaq/secE4.html
+"Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secEcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [E.6
+What is the population myth? ›](/afaq/secE6.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secE6.md b/markdown/secE6.md
index cf613e033dd826f9525072ea791126c7d8bda283..9e205dad8531b747d61825e445a70cb3945599df 100644
--- a/markdown/secE6.md
+++ b/markdown/secE6.md
@@ -423,3 +423,8 @@ will obviously find favour with ruling elites, and this -- as opposed to any
basis for the myth in scientific fact -- will ensure its continual re-
appearance in the media and education.
+[‹ E.5 Can ethical consumerism stop the ecological crisis?](/afaq/secE5.html
+"Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secEcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [Section
+F - Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism? ›](/afaq/secFcon.html "Go to
+next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secEcon.md b/markdown/secEcon.md
index f38c05cace453ff3ea8dba8502895a280a5a5c9e..f20a9fa654a56baeb49d49487a3e45b529e3efae 100644
--- a/markdown/secEcon.md
+++ b/markdown/secEcon.md
@@ -1,32 +1,55 @@
# Section E - What do anarchists think causes ecological problems?
+##
+
## [Introduction](secEint.html)
+##
+
## [E.1 What are the root causes of our ecological problems?](secE1.html)
-### [E.1.1 Is industrythe cause of environmental
+> ### [E.1.1 Is industrythe cause of environmental
problems?](secE1.html#sece11)
-[E.1.2 What is the difference between environmentalism and
+> [E.1.2 What is the difference between environmentalism and
ecology?](secE1.html#sece12)
## [E.2 What do eco-anarchists propose instead of capitalism?](secE2.html)
+##
+
## [E.3 Can private property rights protect the environment?](secE3.html)
-### [E.3.1 Will privatising nature save it?](secE3.html#sece31)
-[E.3.2 How does economic power contribute to the ecological
+> ### [E.3.1 Will privatising nature save it?](secE3.html#sece31)
+> [E.3.2 How does economic power contribute to the ecological
crisis?](secE3.html#sece32)
-[E.3.3 Can capitalism's focus on short-term profitability deal with the
+> [E.3.3 Can capitalism's focus on short-term profitability deal with the
ecological crisis?](secE3.html#sece33)
## [E.4 Can laissez-faire capitalism protect the environment?](secE4.html)
-### [E.4.1 Will laissez-faire capitalism actually end
+> ### [E.4.1 Will laissez-faire capitalism actually end
pollution?](secE4.html#sece41)
-[E.4.2 Can laissez-faire wilderness survive under
+> [E.4.2 Can laissez-faire wilderness survive under
capitalism?](secE4.html#sece42)
## [E.5 Can ethical consumerism stop the ecological crisis?](secE5.html)
+##
+
## [E.6 What is the population myth?](secE6.html)
+
+
+ * [E.0 Section E Introduction](/afaq/secEint.html)
+ * [E.1 What are the root causes of our ecological problems?](/afaq/secE1.html)
+ * [E.2 What do eco-anarchists propose instead of capitalism?](/afaq/secE2.html)
+ * [E.3 Can private property rights protect the environment?](/afaq/secE3.html)
+ * [E.4 Can laissez-faire capitalism protect the environment?](/afaq/secE4.html)
+ * [E.5 Can ethical consumerism stop the ecological crisis?](/afaq/secE5.html)
+ * [E.6 What is the population myth?](/afaq/secE6.html)
+
+[‹ D.11 Can politics and economics be separated from each
+other?](/afaq/secD11.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/index.html "Go to
+parent page" ) [E.0 Section E Introduction ›](/afaq/secEint.html "Go to next
+page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secEint.md b/markdown/secEint.md
index 67a6857d7f3b8b271a668c5da844a09a4742ab39..6e1413bc0e1f75a739172c8d36e99be4cf2a1b61 100644
--- a/markdown/secEint.md
+++ b/markdown/secEint.md
@@ -82,11 +82,12 @@ it, to proceed with mathematical precision in exploiting each new conquered
domain and then mark his possession with vulgar constructions and perfectly
straight boundaries? If this continues to occur, the harmonious contrasts that
are one of the beauties of the earth will soon give way to depressing
-uniformity . . .
+uniformity . . .
+> _
>
-> "The question of knowing which of the works of man serves to beautify and
+> _"The question of knowing which of the works of man serves to beautify and
which contributes to the degradation of external nature can seem pointless to
so-called practical minds; nevertheless, it is a matter of the greatest
importance. Humanity's development is most intimately connected with the
@@ -260,3 +261,8 @@ excellent summaries of such anarchists as Proudhon, Kropotkin and Bookchin (as
well as libertarian socialist William Morris and his ecologically balanced
utopia **News from Nowhere**).
+[‹ Section E - What do anarchists think causes ecological
+problems?](/afaq/secEcon.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secEcon.html
+"Go to parent page" ) [E.1 What are the root causes of our ecological
+problems? ›](/afaq/secE1.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secF1.md b/markdown/secF1.md
index c39bb325e6e580aca23a5a01864900724e6ae7e1..8dca52705e4dc53da0c5d402f3226abea5f2a689 100644
--- a/markdown/secF1.md
+++ b/markdown/secF1.md
@@ -422,7 +422,7 @@ point:
> _ "The emphasis [right-wing] libertarians place on the opposition of liberty
and political power tends to obscure the role of authority in their worldview
-. . . the authority exercised in private relationships, however \-- in the
+. . . the authority exercised in private relationships, however -- in the
relationship between employer and employee, for instance -- meets with no
objection. . . . [This] reveals a curious insensitivity to the use of private
authority as a means of social control. Comparing public and private
@@ -536,3 +536,7 @@ concern for economic equality and social justice."_ As such,
best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists."_ [**Demanding
the Impossible**, p. 565]
+[‹ F.0 Section F Introduction](/afaq/secFint.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/secFcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [F.2 What do
+"anarcho"-capitalists mean by freedom? ›](/afaq/secF2.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secF2.md b/markdown/secF2.md
index 2d36e94eb712c5a56bb621e5581a06f95b859b59..392aac3326963dfb2f68b5be33536891ba01e025 100644
--- a/markdown/secF2.md
+++ b/markdown/secF2.md
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ is weak.
Another important implication of this "liberty as property" concept is that it
produces a strangely alienated concept of freedom. Liberty, as we noted, is no
-longer considered absolute, but a derivative of property \-- which has the
+longer considered absolute, but a derivative of property -- which has the
important consequence that you can "sell" your liberty and still be considered
free by the ideology. This concept of liberty is usually termed "self-
ownership." But, to state the obvious, I do not "own" myself, as if were an
@@ -113,21 +113,22 @@ relationships of domination and subjection this situation creates. That people
> _ "The law says your employer does not steal anything from you, because it
is done with your consent. You have agreed to work for your boss for certain
-pay, he to have all that you produce . . .
+pay, he to have all that you produce . . .
+> _
>
-> "But did you really consent?
+> _"But did you really consent? _
>
-> "When the highway man holds his gun to your head, you turn your valuables
+> _"When the highway man holds his gun to your head, you turn your valuables
over to him. You 'consent' all right, but you do so because you cannot help
-yourself, because you are **compelled** by his gun.
+yourself, because you are **compelled** by his gun. _
>
-> "Are you not **compelled** to work for an employer? Your need compels you
+> _"Are you not **compelled** to work for an employer? Your need compels you
just as the highwayman's gun. You must live . . . You can't work for yourself
. . . The factories, machinery, and tools belong to the employing class, so
you **must** hire yourself out to that class in order to work and live.
@@ -775,7 +776,7 @@ Pateman, **Op. Cit.**, p. 149] Hence Proudhon's support for self-management
and opposition to capitalism -- any relationship that resembles slavery is
illegitimate and no contract that creates a relationship of subordination is
valid. Thus in a truly anarchistic society, slave contracts would be
-unenforceable \-- people in a truly free (i.e. non-capitalist) society would
+unenforceable -- people in a truly free (i.e. non-capitalist) society would
**never** tolerate such a horrible institution or consider it a valid
agreement. If someone was silly enough to sign such a contract, they would
simply have to say they now rejected it in order to be free -- such contracts
@@ -789,3 +790,8 @@ Their theoretical support for permanent and temporary voluntary slavery and
autocracy indicates a deeper authoritarianism which negates their claims to be
libertarians.
+[‹ F.1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?](/afaq/secF1.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secFcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [F.3 Why do
+anarcho"-capitalists place little or no value on equality? ›](/afaq/secF3.html
+"Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secF3.md b/markdown/secF3.md
index d882764c2760cf85f4ef81226a6ae72886fa7868..16f9caba8b1cc96a8742c1bc004a1a0fa230e734 100644
--- a/markdown/secF3.md
+++ b/markdown/secF3.md
@@ -399,21 +399,22 @@ personally, all goods and services needed, not only food, clothing and shelter
but also education, medicine, sanitation, justice, police, all forms of
security and insurance, even permission to use the streets (for these also
would be privately owned), as one reads about all this a curious feature
-emerges: everybody always has enough money to buy all these things.
+emerges: everybody always has enough money to buy all these things.
+> _
>
-> "There are no public casualty wards or hospitals or hospices, but neither is
-there anybody dying in the streets. There is no public educational system but
-no uneducated children, no public police service but nobody unable to buy the
-services of an efficient security firm, no public law but nobody unable to buy
-the use of a private legal system. Neither is there anybody able to buy much
-more than anybody else; no person or group possesses economic power over
-others.
+> _"There are no public casualty wards or hospitals or hospices, but neither
+is there anybody dying in the streets. There is no public educational system
+but no uneducated children, no public police service but nobody unable to buy
+the services of an efficient security firm, no public law but nobody unable to
+buy the use of a private legal system. Neither is there anybody able to buy
+much more than anybody else; no person or group possesses economic power over
+others. _
>
-> "No explanation is offered. The anarcho-capitalists simply take it for
+> _"No explanation is offered. The anarcho-capitalists simply take it for
granted that in their favoured society, although it possesses no machinery for
restraining competition (for this would need to exercise authority over the
competitors and it is an **anarcho**\- capitalist society) competition would
@@ -431,7 +432,7 @@ against the elements and so forth. It does **not** invoke the idea of
transnational corporations employing tens of thousands of people or a
population without land, resources and selling their labour to others.
Rothbard as noted argued that economic power does not exist (at least under
-capitalism, as we saw in [section F.1](secF1.html) he does make \-- highly
+capitalism, as we saw in [section F.1](secF1.html) he does make -- highly
illogical -- exceptions). Similarly, David Friedman's example of a pro-death
penalty and anti-death penalty "defence" firm coming to an agreement (see
[section F.6.3](secF6.html#secf63)) implicitly assumes that the firms have
@@ -540,25 +541,25 @@ Ayn Rand, _"[u]nder capitalism . . . politics (state) and economics
(capitalism) are separated . . . This, of course, is pure ideology, for Rand's
justification of the state is that it 'protects' private property, that is, it
supports and upholds the economic power of capitalists by coercive means."_
-[**Ecology & Anarchism**, p. 189] The same can be said of "anarcho"-capitalism
-and its "protection agencies" and _"general libertarian law code."_ If within
-a society a few own all the resources and the majority are dispossessed, then
-any law code which protects private property **automatically** empowers the
-owning class. Workers will **always** be initiating force if they rebel
-against their bosses or act against the code and so equality before the law"
-reflects and reinforces inequality of power and wealth. This means that a
-system of property rights protects the liberties of some people in a way which
-gives them an unacceptable degree of power over others. And this critique
-cannot be met merely by reaffirming the rights in question, we have to assess
-the relative importance of the various kinds of liberty and other values we
-hold dear.
+[**Ecology & Anarchism**, p. 189] The same can be said of
+"anarcho"-capitalism and its "protection agencies" and _"general libertarian
+law code."_ If within a society a few own all the resources and the majority
+are dispossessed, then any law code which protects private property
+**automatically** empowers the owning class. Workers will **always** be
+initiating force if they rebel against their bosses or act against the code
+and so equality before the law" reflects and reinforces inequality of power
+and wealth. This means that a system of property rights protects the liberties
+of some people in a way which gives them an unacceptable degree of power over
+others. And this critique cannot be met merely by reaffirming the rights in
+question, we have to assess the relative importance of the various kinds of
+liberty and other values we hold dear.
Therefore right-"libertarian" disregard for equality is important because it
allows "anarcho"-capitalism to ignore many important restrictions of freedom
in society. In addition, it allows them to brush over the negative effects of
their system by painting an unreal picture of a capitalist society without
vast extremes of wealth and power (indeed, they often construe capitalist
-society in terms of an ideal -- namely artisan production \-- that is
+society in terms of an ideal -- namely artisan production -- that is
**pre**-capitalist and whose social basis has been eroded by capitalist
development). Inequality shapes the decisions we have available and what ones
we make:
@@ -606,7 +607,7 @@ Marshall, **Op. Cit.**, p. 653]
Like the right-liberalism it is derived from, "anarcho"-capitalism is based on
the concept of _"harmony of interests"_ which was advanced by the likes of
-Frdric Bastiat in the 19th century and Rothbard's mentor Ludwig von Mises in
+Frédéric Bastiat in the 19th century and Rothbard's mentor Ludwig von Mises in
the 20th. For Rothbard, _"all classes live in harmony through the voluntary
exchange of goods and services that mutually benefits them all."_ This meant
that capitalists and workers have no antagonistic class interests [**Classical
@@ -651,11 +652,12 @@ Berkman's analysis:
why they are afraid of a real labour union. They know very well that a strong,
fighting union can compel higher wages and better conditions, which means less
profit for the plutocrats. That is why they do everything in their power to
-stop labour from organising . . .
+stop labour from organising . . .
+> _
>
-> "The masters have found a very effective way to paralyse the strength of
+> _ "The masters have found a very effective way to paralyse the strength of
organised labour. They have persuaded the workers that they have the same
interests as the employers . . . and what is good for the employer is also
good for his employees . . . If your interests are the same as those of your
@@ -667,11 +669,11 @@ with them . . . If you listen to your exploiters and their mouthpieces you
will be 'good' and consider only the interests of your masters . . . but no
one cares about **your** interests . . . 'Don't be selfish,' they admonish
you, while the boss is getting rich by your being good and unselfish. And they
-laugh in their sleeves and thank the Lord that you are such an idiot.
+laugh in their sleeves and thank the Lord that you are such an idiot. _
>
-> "But . . . the interests of capital and labour are not the same. No greater
+> _"But . . . the interests of capital and labour are not the same. No greater
lie was ever invented than the so-called 'identity of interests' . . . It is
clear that . . . they are entirely opposite, in fact antagonistic to each
other."_ [**What is Anarchism?**, pp. 74-5]
@@ -800,7 +802,7 @@ capitalism is filled with the capitalist class using the state to enforce the
kind of _"harmony of interests"_ which masters have always sought --
obedience. This statist intervention has continued to this day as, in
practice, the capitalist class has never totally relied on economic power to
-enforce its rule due to the instability of the capitalist market \-- see
+enforce its rule due to the instability of the capitalist market -- see
[section C.7](secC7.html) \-- as well as the destructive effects of market
forces on society and the desire to bolster its position in the economy at the
expense of the working class -- see [section D.1](secD1.html). That the
@@ -923,11 +925,11 @@ cruellest master. A convenient ideology indeed for the masters! . . . All the
subjects must do, in short, was to surrender their natural born gift of
freedom and independence, to subject themselves completely to the whims and
commands of others, who could then be blindly trusted to 'take care' of them
-permanently . . .
+permanently . . . _
>
-> "Despite the myths of ideology and the threats of the whip, servants and
+> _"Despite the myths of ideology and the threats of the whip, servants and
slaves found many ways of protest and rebellion. Masters were continually
denouncing servants for being disobedient, sullen, and lazy."_ [**Conceived in
Liberty**, vol. 2, pp. 18-19]
@@ -1019,3 +1021,8 @@ So, to conclude. Both the history and current practice of capitalism shows
that there can be no harmony of interests in an unequal society. Anyone who
claims otherwise has not been paying attention.
+[‹ F.2 What do "anarcho"-capitalists mean by freedom?](/afaq/secF2.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secFcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [F.4 What is
+the right-"libertarian" position on private property? ›](/afaq/secF4.html "Go
+to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secF4.md b/markdown/secF4.md
index 031468613fcc24e8dd1060288c22e4973d7df01f..9c4709bf540ce867916e9d6303a7af3002030c95 100644
--- a/markdown/secF4.md
+++ b/markdown/secF4.md
@@ -56,32 +56,34 @@ nature of private property and its impact on individual liberty when he wrote:
**respect** your property. 'Respect for property!' . . . The position of
affairs is different in the egoistic sense. I do not step shyly back from your
property, but look upon it always as **my** property, in which I respect
-nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!
+nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!
+> _
>
-> "With this view we shall most easily come to an understanding with each
-other.
+> _"With this view we shall most easily come to an understanding with each
+other. _
>
-> "The political liberals are anxious that . . . every one be free lord on his
-ground, even if this ground has only so much area as can have its requirements
-adequately filled by the manure of one person . . . Be it ever so little, if
-one only has somewhat of his own -- to wit, a **respected** property: The more
-such owners . . . the more 'free people and good patriots' has the State.
+> _"The political liberals are anxious that . . . every one be free lord on
+his ground, even if this ground has only so much area as can have its
+requirements adequately filled by the manure of one person . . . Be it ever so
+little, if one only has somewhat of his own -- to wit, a **respected**
+property: The more such owners . . . the more 'free people and good patriots'
+has the State. _
>
-> "Political liberalism, like everything religious, counts on **respect,**
+> _"Political liberalism, like everything religious, counts on **respect,**
humaneness, the virtues of love. Therefore does it live in incessant vexation.
For in practice people respect nothing, and everyday the small possessions are
bought up again by greater proprietors, and the 'free people' change into day
-labourers.
+labourers. _
>
-> "If, on the contrary, the 'small proprietors' had reflected that the great
+> _"If, on the contrary, the 'small proprietors' had reflected that the great
property was also theirs, they would not have respectively shut themselves out
from it, and would not have been shut out . . . Instead of owning the world,
as he might, he does not even own even the paltry point on which he turns
@@ -185,21 +187,22 @@ It is worth quoting Noam Chomsky at length on this subject:
justice' . . . [a]ccording to this theory, a person has a right to whatever he
has acquired by means that are just. If, by luck or labour or ingenuity, a
person acquires such and such, then he is entitled to keep it and dispose of
-it as he wills, and a just society will not infringe on this right.
+it as he wills, and a just society will not infringe on this right.
+> _
>
-> "One can easily determine where such a principle might lead. It is entirely
+> _"One can easily determine where such a principle might lead. It is entirely
possible that by legitimate means -- say, luck supplemented by contractual
arrangements 'freely undertaken' under pressure of need -- one person might
gain control of the necessities of life. Others are then free to sell
themselves to this person as slaves, if he is willing to accept them.
Otherwise, they are free to perish. Without extra question-begging conditions,
-the society is just.
+the society is just. _
>
-> "The argument has all the merits of a proof that 2 + 2 = 5 . . . Suppose
+> _"The argument has all the merits of a proof that 2 + 2 = 5 . . . Suppose
that some concept of a 'just society' is advanced that fails to characterise
the situation just described as unjust. . . Then one of two conclusions is in
order. We may conclude that the concept is simply unimportant and of no
@@ -212,11 +215,11 @@ the sort described as grossly unjust, then the sole interest of a
demonstration that this outcome might be 'just' under a given 'theory of
justice' lies in the inference by **reductio ad absurdum** to the conclusion
that the theory is hopelessly inadequate. While it may capture some partial
-intuition regarding justice, it evidently neglects others.
+intuition regarding justice, it evidently neglects others. _
>
-> "The real question to be raised about theories that fail so completely to
+> _"The real question to be raised about theories that fail so completely to
capture the concept of justice in its significant and intuitive sense is why
they arouse such interest. Why are they not simply dismissed out of hand on
the grounds of this failure, which is striking in clear cases? Perhaps the
@@ -226,11 +229,11 @@ and conceptual shortcomings, he observes that such work 'plays an important
function in the process of . . . 'blaming the victim,' and of protecting
property against egalitarian onslaughts by various non-propertied groups.' An
ideological defence of privileges, exploitation, and private power will be
-welcomed, regardless of its merits.
+welcomed, regardless of its merits. _
>
-> "These matters are of no small importance to poor and oppressed people here
+> _"These matters are of no small importance to poor and oppressed people here
and elsewhere."_ [**The Chomsky Reader**, pp. 187-188]
The glorification of property rights has always been most strongly advocated
@@ -505,3 +508,8 @@ rights theory (and the theory of freedom Rothbard derives from it). All it
does is to end up justifying capitalist and landlord domination (which is what
it was intended to do).
+[‹ F.3 Why do anarcho"-capitalists place little or no value on
+equality?](/afaq/secF3.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secFcon.html
+"Go to parent page" ) [F.5 Will privatising "the commons" increase liberty?
+›](/afaq/secF5.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secF5.md b/markdown/secF5.md
index 23adcb0014b6e53e5be950de95f1b6b1aa22795b..31d8bda88b0d32f43d06f5303de74104a0ca1113 100644
--- a/markdown/secF5.md
+++ b/markdown/secF5.md
@@ -220,3 +220,8 @@ leased, and sold like private property -- what remains for the proletaire? Of
what advantage is it to him that society has left the state of war to enter
the regime of police?"_ [**System of Economic Contradictions**, p. 371]
+[‹ F.4 What is the right-"libertarian" position on private
+property?](/afaq/secF4.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secFcon.html
+"Go to parent page" ) [F.6 Is "anarcho"-capitalism against the state?
+›](/afaq/secF6.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secF6.md b/markdown/secF6.md
index f29c9d4c4a3871cb6bfaaca7b5f1befed6b4517e..2d3a90ec40b51f8c7981454064f0f3ee6ad1c4d9 100644
--- a/markdown/secF6.md
+++ b/markdown/secF6.md
@@ -14,9 +14,10 @@ a state in the anarchist sense.
According to Murray Rothbard [**Society Without A State**, p. 192], a state
must have one or both of the following characteristics:
-1) The ability to tax those who live within it.
+ 1) The ability to tax those who live within it.
+
2) It asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of
-defence over a given area.
+defence over a given area.
He makes the same point elsewhere. [**The Ethics of Liberty**, p. 171]
Significantly, he stresses that _"our definition of anarchism"_ is a system
@@ -369,15 +370,16 @@ forces (although, as suggested above, this could indeed be a problem):
> _"There is something more serious than the 'Mafia danger', and this other
problem concerns the role of such 'defence' institutions in a given social and
-economic context.
+economic context.
+> _
>
-> "[The] context . . . is one of a free-market economy with no restraints upon
-accumulation of property. Now, we had an American experience, roughly from the
-end of the Civil War to the 1930's, in what were in effect private courts,
-private police, indeed private governments. We had the experience of the
-(private) Pinkerton police which, by its spies, by its **agents
+> _"[The] context . . . is one of a free-market economy with no restraints
+upon accumulation of property. Now, we had an American experience, roughly
+from the end of the Civil War to the 1930's, in what were in effect private
+courts, private police, indeed private governments. We had the experience of
+the (private) Pinkerton police which, by its spies, by its **agents
provocateurs,** and by methods that included violence and kidnapping, was one
of the most powerful tools of large corporations and an instrument of
oppression of working people. We had the experience as well of the police
@@ -761,7 +763,7 @@ those who reject judgements) will go out of business because of the higher
costs associated with conflict and not arbitration. Yet these higher costs are
ensured because the firms in question do not co-operate with others. If other
agencies boycott a firm but co-operate with all the others, then the boycotted
-firm will be at the same disadvantage \-- regardless of whether it is a cartel
+firm will be at the same disadvantage -- regardless of whether it is a cartel
buster or a renegade. So the "anarcho"-capitalist is trying to have it both
ways. If the punishment of non-conforming firms cannot occur, then
"anarcho"-capitalism will turn into a war of all against all or, at the very
@@ -869,13 +871,12 @@ land. The _"general libertarian law code"_ is a monopoly and property owners
determine the rules that apply on their property. Moreover, if the rules that
property owners enforce are subject to rules contained in the monopolistic
_"general libertarian law code"_ (for example, that they cannot ban the sale
-and purchase of certain products \-- such as defence -- on their own
-territory) then "anarcho"-capitalism **definitely** meets the Weberian
-definition of the state (as described by Ayn Rand as an institution _"that
-holds the exclusive power to **enforce** certain rules of conduct in a given
-geographical area"_ [**Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal**, p. 239]) as its "law
-code" overrides the desires of property owners to do what they like on their
-own property.
+and purchase of certain products -- such as defence -- on their own territory)
+then "anarcho"-capitalism **definitely** meets the Weberian definition of the
+state (as described by Ayn Rand as an institution _"that holds the exclusive
+power to **enforce** certain rules of conduct in a given geographical area"_
+[**Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal**, p. 239]) as its "law code" overrides the
+desires of property owners to do what they like on their own property.
Therefore, no matter how you look at it, "anarcho"-capitalism and its
"defence" market promotes a _"monopoly of ultimate decision making power"_
@@ -931,3 +932,8 @@ by calling it something else . . . They don't denounce what the state does,
they just object to who's doing it."_ [_"The Libertarian As Conservative"_,
**The Abolition of Work and Other Essays**, p. 144]
+[‹ F.5 Will privatising "the commons" increase liberty?](/afaq/secF5.html "Go
+to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secFcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [F.7 How
+does the history of "anarcho"-capitalism show that it is not anarchist?
+›](/afaq/secF7.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secF7.md b/markdown/secF7.md
index 6168651e1bddd9fd0dea63396517f0122d47ed15..a363bf179a4e97e3a33112d96804d16fd47e1291 100644
--- a/markdown/secF7.md
+++ b/markdown/secF7.md
@@ -889,3 +889,8 @@ that laissez-faire capitalism meant _"the victory of the strong over the weak,
of those who own property over those who own nothing."_ [quoted by Peter
Marshall, **Demanding the Impossible**, p. 259]
+[‹ F.6 Is "anarcho"-capitalism against the state?](/afaq/secF6.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secFcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [F.8 What role
+did the state take in the creation of capitalism? ›](/afaq/secF8.html "Go to
+next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secF8.md b/markdown/secF8.md
index bffaf9e39ceba809a2b62aa27009e4e0b69b3780..daabf68650ad74a8b53f27bb78fda8e556b62fe2 100644
--- a/markdown/secF8.md
+++ b/markdown/secF8.md
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ The same can be said of all countries. As such, when supporters of
"libertarian" capitalism say they are against the "initiation of force," they
mean only **new** initiations of force: for the system they support was born
from numerous initiations of force in the past (moreover, it also requires
-state intervention to keep it going \-- [section D.1](secD1.html) addresses
+state intervention to keep it going -- [section D.1](secD1.html) addresses
this point in some detail). Indeed, many thinkers have argued that it was
precisely this state support and coercion (particularly the separation of
people from the land) that played the **key** role in allowing capitalism to
@@ -840,8 +840,7 @@ against enclosure:
_ They hang the man, and flog the woman,
That steals the goose from off the common;
But let the greater villain loose,
-That steals the common from the goose.
-_
+That steals the common from the goose. _
It should be remembered that the process of enclosure was not limited to just
the period of the industrial revolution. As Colin Ward notes, _"in Tudor
@@ -884,8 +883,7 @@ _ A college economist planned
To live without access to land
He would have succeeded
But found that he needed
-Food, shelter and somewhere to stand.
-_
+Food, shelter and somewhere to stand. _
Thus anarchists concern over the _"land monopoly"_ of which the Enclosure Acts
were but one part. The land monopoly, to use Tucker's words, _"consists in the
@@ -1434,7 +1432,7 @@ basis of freedom in early America. For example, he notes in passing that _"the
abundance of fertile virgin land in a vast territory enabled individualism to
come to full flower in many areas."_ [**Conceived in Liberty**, vol. 2, p.
186] Yet he did not ponder the transformation in social relationships which
-would result when that land was gone. In fact, he was blas about it. _"If
+would result when that land was gone. In fact, he was blasé about it. _"If
latecomers are worse off,"_ he opined, _"well then that is their proper
assumption of risk in this free and uncertain world. There is no longer a vast
frontier in the United States, and there is no point crying over the fact."_
@@ -1970,3 +1968,8 @@ under capitalism. Anarchism will continue as long as these feelings and hopes
still exist and they will remain until such time as we organise and abolish
capitalism and the state.
+[‹ F.7 How does the history of "anarcho"-capitalism show that it is not
+anarchist?](/afaq/secF7.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secFcon.html
+"Go to parent page" ) [Section G - Is individualist anarchism capitalistic?
+›](/afaq/secGcon.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secFcon.md b/markdown/secFcon.md
index 062a399456cf1d22d7aecd278c85142100c184e7..1b9c3e9da04538cc972cc077910aac6a3e9ea48b 100644
--- a/markdown/secFcon.md
+++ b/markdown/secFcon.md
@@ -1,79 +1,84 @@
# Section F - Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?
-## [Introduction](secFint.html)
-
-[
-
-## F.1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?](secF1.html)
-[
-## F.2 What do "anarcho"-capitalists mean by freedom?
-
-](secF2.html)
+## [Introduction](secFint.html)
-### [F.2.1 How does private property affect freedom?](secF2.html#secf21)
-[F.2.2 Do "libertarian"-capitalists support slavery?](secF2.html#secf22)
-[
-## F.3 Why do "anarcho"-capitalists generally place no value on equality?
+## [F.1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?](secF1.html)
-### [F.3.1 Why is this disregard for equality important?](secF3.html#secf31)
-[F.3.2 Can there be harmony of interests in an unequal
-society?](secF3.html#secf32)
-[
-## F.4 What is the right-"libertarian" position on private property?
+## [F.2 What do "anarcho"-capitalists mean by freedom?](secF2.html)
-](secF4.html)
+> ### [F.2.1 How does private property affect freedom?](secF2.html#secf21)
-### [F.4.1 What is wrong with a "homesteading" theory of
-property?](secF4.html#secf41)
+>
-[
+> ### [F.2.2 Do "libertarian"-capitalists support slavery?](secF2.html#secf22)
-## F.5 Will privatising "the commons" increase liberty?
+## [F.3 Why do "anarcho"-capitalists generally place no value on
+equality?](secF3.html)
-](secF5.html) [
+> ### [F.3.1 Why is this disregard for equality important?](secF3.html#secf31)
+> [F.3.2 Can there be harmony of interests in an unequal
+society?](secF3.html#secf32)
-## F.6 Is "anarcho" capitalism against the state?
+## [F.4 What is the right-"libertarian" position on private
+property?](secF4.html)
-](secF6.html)
+> ### [F.4.1 What is wrong with a "homesteading" theory of
+property?](secF4.html#secf41)
-### [F.6.1 What's wrong with this "free market" justice?](secF6.html#secf61)
-[F.6.2 What are the social consequences of such a system?](secF6.html#secf62)
-[F.6.3 But surely Market Forces will stop abuse by the
-rich?](secF6.html#secf63)
-[F.6.4 Why are these "defence associations" states?](secF6.html#secf64)
+## [F.5 Will privatising "the commons" increase liberty?](secF5.html)
-[
-## F.7 How does the history of "anarcho"-capitalism show that it is not
-anarchist?
-](secF7.html)
+## [F.6 Is "anarcho" capitalism against the state?](secF6.html)
-### [F.7.1 Are competing governments anarchism?](secF7.html#secf71)
-[F.7.2 Is government compatible with anarchism?](secF7.html#secf72)
-[F.7.3 Can there be a "right-wing" anarchism?](secF7.html#secf73)
+> ### [F.6.1 What's wrong with this "free market" justice?](secF6.html#secf61)
+> [F.6.2 What are the social consequences of such a
+system?](secF6.html#secf62)
+> [F.6.3 But surely Market Forces will stop abuse by the
+rich?](secF6.html#secf63)
+> [F.6.4 Why are these "defence associations" states?](secF6.html#secf64)
-[
+## [F.7 How does the history of "anarcho"-capitalism show that it is not
+anarchist?](secF7.html)
-## F.8 What role did the state take in the creation of capitalism?
+> ### [F.7.1 Are competing governments anarchism?](secF7.html#secf71)
+> [F.7.2 Is government compatible with anarchism?](secF7.html#secf72)
+> [F.7.3 Can there be a "right-wing" anarchism?](secF7.html#secf73)
-](secF8.html)
+## [F.8 What role did the state take in the creation of
+capitalism?](secF8.html)
-### [F.8.1 What social forces lay behind the rise of
+> ### [F.8.1 What social forces lay behind the rise of
capitalism?](secF8.html#secf81)
-[F.8.2 What was the social context of the statement "laissez-
+> [F.8.2 What was the social context of the statement "laissez-
faire"?](secF8.html#secf82)
-[F.8.3 What other forms did state intervention in creating capitalism
+> [F.8.3 What other forms did state intervention in creating capitalism
take?](secF8.html#secf83)
-[F.8.4 Aren't the enclosures a socialist myth?](secF8.html#secf84)
-[F.8.5 What about the lack of enclosures in the Americas?](secF8.html#secf85)
-[F.8.6 How did working people view the rise of capitalism?](secF8.html#secf86)
-
-###
+> [F.8.4 Aren't the enclosures a socialist myth?](secF8.html#secf84)
+> [F.8.5 What about the lack of enclosures in the
+Americas?](secF8.html#secf85)
+> [F.8.6 How did working people view the rise of
+capitalism?](secF8.html#secf86)
+
+
+
+ * [F.0 Section F Introduction](/afaq/secFint.html)
+ * [F.1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?](/afaq/secF1.html)
+ * [F.2 What do "anarcho"-capitalists mean by freedom?](/afaq/secF2.html)
+ * [F.3 Why do anarcho"-capitalists place little or no value on equality?](/afaq/secF3.html)
+ * [F.4 What is the right-"libertarian" position on private property?](/afaq/secF4.html)
+ * [F.5 Will privatising "the commons" increase liberty?](/afaq/secF5.html)
+ * [F.6 Is "anarcho"-capitalism against the state?](/afaq/secF6.html)
+ * [F.7 How does the history of "anarcho"-capitalism show that it is not anarchist?](/afaq/secF7.html)
+ * [F.8 What role did the state take in the creation of capitalism?](/afaq/secF8.html)
+
+[‹ E.6 What is the population myth?](/afaq/secE6.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/index.html "Go to parent page" ) [F.0 Section F Introduction
+›](/afaq/secFint.html "Go to next page" )
diff --git a/markdown/secFint.md b/markdown/secFint.md
index ae9e808a382f400c0c6635dfc4a09487e9f366f0..6a540924fd71e2959b291307c691d8126c732fc3 100644
--- a/markdown/secFint.md
+++ b/markdown/secFint.md
@@ -312,3 +312,8 @@ hired assassins of capitalism.
For more discussion on this issue, see the appendix ["Anarchism and
'Anarcho'-capitalism"](append1.html)
+[‹ Section F - Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of
+anarchism?](/afaq/secFcon.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secFcon.html
+"Go to parent page" ) [F.1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?
+›](/afaq/secF1.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secG1.md b/markdown/secG1.md
index 074ce23489d9e964fbb80f0a1aee17f36c39524b..17b9d6b2d02ea60175c47fb691e80ac75265bdce 100644
--- a/markdown/secG1.md
+++ b/markdown/secG1.md
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ movement and, in fact, they followed Proudhon in this as he both proclaimed
himself a socialist while also attacking it. The apparent contradiction is
easily explained by noting there are two schools of socialism, state and
libertarian. Thus it is possible to be both a (libertarian) socialist and
-condemn (state) socialist in the harshest terms.
+condemn (state) socialism in the harshest terms.
So what, then, is socialism? Tucker stated that _"the bottom claim of
Socialism"_ was _"that labour should be put in possession of its own,"_ that
@@ -109,11 +109,11 @@ So, why are the individualist anarchists anti-capitalists? There are two main
reasons.
Firstly, the Individualist Anarchists opposed profits, interest and rent as
-forms of exploitation (they termed these non-labour incomes _**"usury"**_, but
+forms of exploitation (they termed these non-labour incomes **_"usury"_**, but
as Tucker stressed usury was _"but another name for the exploitation of
labour."_ [**Liberty**, no. 122, p. 4]). To use the words of Ezra Heywood, the
Individualist Anarchists thought _"Interest is theft, Rent Robbery, and Profit
-Only Another Name for Plunder."_ [quoted by Martin Blatt, _"Ezra Heywood &
+Only Another Name for Plunder."_ [quoted by Martin Blatt, _"Ezra Heywood &
Benjamin Tucker,"_, pp. 28-43, **Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of
Liberty**, Coughlin, Hamilton and Sullivan (eds.), p. 29] Non-labour incomes
are merely _"different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital."_
@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ their production and distribution on the cost principle."_ [**The
Individualist Anarchists**, p. 276]
Secondly, the Individualist Anarchists favoured a new system of land ownership
-based on _**"occupancy and use."**_ So, as well as this opposition to
+based on **_"occupancy and use."_** So, as well as this opposition to
capitalist usury, the individualist anarchists also expressed opposition to
capitalist ideas on property (particularly property in land). J.K. Ingalls,
for example, considered that _"the private domination of the land"_ originated
@@ -174,16 +174,16 @@ property ownership in land were created by _"forceful and fraudulent taking"_
of land, which _"could give no justification to the system."_ [quoted by
Martin, **Op. Cit.**, p. 149]
-The capitalist system of land ownership was usually termed the _**"land
-monopoly"**_, which consisted of _"the enforcement by government of land
+The capitalist system of land ownership was usually termed the **_"land
+monopoly"_**, which consisted of _"the enforcement by government of land
titles which do not rest upon personal occupancy and cultivation."_ Under
anarchism, individuals would _"no longer be protected by their fellows in
anything but personal occupancy and cultivation of land"_ and so _"ground rent
would disappear."_ [Tucker, **The Individualist Anarchists**, p. 85] This
applied to what was on the land as well, such as housing:
-> _ "If a man exerts himself by erecting a building on land which afterward,
-by the operation of the principle of occupancy and use, rightfully becomes
+> _"If a man exerts himself by erecting a building on land which afterward, by
+the operation of the principle of occupancy and use, rightfully becomes
another's, he must, upon demand of the subsequent occupant, remove from this
land the results of his self-exertion, or, failing so to do, sacrifice his
property therein."_ [**Liberty**, no. 331, p. 4]
@@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ nationalisation of industry and the assumption of political power by working
people."_ However, he was at pains to argue that this analysis was first
expounded by Proudhon, _"that the tendency and consequences of capitalistic
production . . . were demonstrated to the world time and time again during the
-twenty years preceding the publication of 'Das Kapital'" _ by the French
+twenty years preceding the publication of 'Das Kapital'" _by the French
anarchist. This included _"the historical persistence of class struggles in
successive manifestations"_ as well as _"the theory that labour is the source
and measure of value."_ _"Call Marx, then, the father of State socialism, if
@@ -308,8 +308,8 @@ labour). This _"will probably remain with us always. Complete liberty will
very much lessen it; of that I have no doubt . . . At the worst, it will be a
small matter, no more worth consideration in comparison with the liberty than
the slight disparity that will always exist in consequence of inequalities of
-skill."_ [_"Why I am an Anarchist"_, pp. 132-6, **Man!**, M. Graham (ed.), pp.
-135-6] Another individualist anarchist, John Beverley Robinson, agreed:
+skill."_ [**Why I am an Anarchist**, pp. 135-6] Another individualist
+anarchist, John Beverley Robinson, agreed:
> _"When privilege is abolished, and the worker retains all that he produces,
then will come the powerful trend toward equality of material reward for
@@ -319,7 +319,7 @@ the mere political equality that now exists."_ [**Patterns of Anarchy**, pp.
As did Lysander Spooner, who pointed out that the _"wheel of fortune, in the
present state of things, is of such enormous diameter"_ and _"those on its top
-are on so showy a height"_ wjile _"those underneath it are in such a pit of
+are on so showy a height"_ while _"those underneath it are in such a pit of
debt, oppression, and despair."_ He argued that under his system _"fortunes
could hardly be represented by a wheel; for it would present no such height,
no such depth, no such irregularity of motion as now. It should rather be
@@ -327,14 +327,14 @@ represented by an extended surface, varied somewhat by inequalities, but still
exhibiting a general level, affording a safe position for all, and creating no
necessity, for either force or fraud, on the part of anyone to secure his
standing."_ Thus Individualist anarchism would create a condition _"neither of
-poverty, nor riches; but of moderate competency \-- such as will neither
+poverty, nor riches; but of moderate competency -- such as will neither
enervate him by luxury, nor disable him by destitution; but which will at once
give him and opportunity to labour, (both mentally and physically) and
stimulate him by offering him all the fruits of his labours."_ [quoted by
Stephan L. Newman, **Liberalism at Wit's End**, p. 72 and p. 73]
As one commentator on individualist anarchism, Wm. Gary Kline, correctly
-tsummarised:
+summarised:
> _"Their proposals were designed to establish true equality of opportunity .
. . and they expected this to result in a society without great wealth or
@@ -485,7 +485,7 @@ in the exploitation of labour and the prevailing system of property rights.
So why is Individualist Anarchism and Proudhon's mutualism socialist? Simply
because they opposed the exploitation of labour by capital and proposed a
means of ending it. The big debate between social and individualist anarchists
-is revolves around whether the other school can **really** achieve this common
+revolves around whether the other school can **really** achieve this common
goal and whether its proposed solution would, in fact, secure meaningful
individual liberty for all.
@@ -510,9 +510,9 @@ discover right-"libertarian" guru von Mises claiming that the _"essence of
socialism is the entire elimination of the market."_ [**Human Action**, p.
702] This would have come as something of a surprise to, say, Proudhon, who
argued that _"[t]o suppress competition is to suppress liberty itself."_
-[**The General Idea of the Revolution**, p. 50] Similarly, it would have
-surprised Tucker, who called himself a socialist while supporting a freer
-market than von Mises ever dreamt of. As Tucker put it:
+[**General Idea of the Revolution**, p. 50] Similarly, it would have surprised
+Tucker, who called himself a socialist while supporting a freer market than
+von Mises ever dreamt of. As Tucker put it:
> _"**Liberty** has always insisted that Individualism and Socialism are not
antithetical terms; that, on the contrary, the most perfect Socialism is
@@ -556,18 +556,18 @@ talked about Proudhon's _"socialism, based on individual and collective
liberty and upon the spontaneous action of free associations."_ He considered
his own ideas as _"Proudhonism widely developed and pushed right to these, its
final consequences"_ [**Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings**, p. 100 and p.
-198] For Kropotkin, while Godwin was _"first theoriser of Socialism without
-government -- that is to say, of Anarchism"_ Proudhon was the second as he,
-_"without knowing Godwin's work, laid anew the foundations of Anarchism."_ He
-lamented that _"many modern Socialists"_ supported _"centralisation and the
-cult of authority"_ and so _"have not yet reached the level of their two
-predecessors, Godwin and Proudhon."_ [**Evolution and Environment**, pp. 26-7]
-These renown socialists did not consider Proudhon's position to be in any way
-anti-socialist (although, of course, being critical of whether it would work
-and its desirability if it did). Tucker, it should be noted, called Proudhon
-_"the father of the Anarchistic school of Socialism."_ [**Instead of a Book**,
-p. 381] Little wonder, then, that the likes of Tucker considered themselves
-socialists and stated numerous times that they were.
+198] For Kropotkin, while Godwin was the _"first theoriser of Socialism
+without government -- that is to say, of Anarchism"_ Proudhon was the second
+as he, _"without knowing Godwin's work, laid anew the foundations of
+Anarchism."_ He lamented that _"many modern Socialists"_ supported
+_"centralisation and the cult of authority"_ and so _"have not yet reached the
+level of their two predecessors, Godwin and Proudhon."_ [**Evolution and
+Environment**, pp. 26-7] These renowned socialists did not consider Proudhon's
+position to be in any way anti-socialist (although, of course, being critical
+of whether it would work and its desirability if it did). Tucker, it should be
+noted, called Proudhon _"the father of the Anarchistic school of Socialism."_
+[**Instead of a Book**, p. 381] Little wonder, then, that the likes of Tucker
+considered themselves socialists and stated numerous times that they were.
Looking at Tucker and the Individualist anarchists we discover that other
socialists considered them socialists. Rudolf Rocker stated that _"it is not
@@ -655,14 +655,14 @@ goals as if all socialists were Stalinists (or, at best, social democrats). In
fact, "socialist anarchism" has included (and continues to include) advocates
of truly free markets as well as advocates of a non-market socialism which has
absolutely nothing in common with the state capitalist tyranny of Stalinism.
-Similarly, they accept a completely ahistorical definition of "capitalism," so
-ignoring the massive state violence and support by which that system was
-created and is maintained.
+Similarly, "anarcho"-capitalists accept a completely ahistorical definition of
+"capitalism," so ignoring the massive state violence and support by which that
+system was created and is maintained.
The same with terms like "property" and the "free market," by which the
"anarcho"-capitalist assumes the individualist anarchist means the same thing
as they do. We can take land as an example. The individualist anarchists
-argued for an _**"occupancy and use"**_ system of "property" (see [next
+argued for an **_"occupancy and use"_** system of "property" (see [next
section](secG1.html#secg12) for details). Thus in their "free market," land
would not be a commodity as it is under capitalism and so under individualist
anarchism absentee landlords would be considered as aggressors (for under
@@ -764,11 +764,10 @@ justified in calling many things "free" that anarchists would not accept, and
seeing "constraint" in what the anarchists simply thought of as "consistency."
This explains both his criticism of capitalism **and** state socialism:
-> _ "The complaint of the Archist Socialists that the Anarchists are bourgeois
+> _"The complaint of the Archist Socialists that the Anarchists are bourgeois
is true to this extent and no further -- that, great as is their detestation
for a bourgeois society, they prefer its partial liberty to the complete
-slavery of State Socialism."_ [_"Why I am an Anarchist"_, pp. 132-6, **Man!**,
-M. Graham (ed.), p. 136]
+slavery of State Socialism."_ [**Why I am an Anarchist**, p. 136]
It should be clear that a "free market" will look somewhat different depending
on your economic presuppositions. Ironically, this is something
@@ -897,7 +896,7 @@ would not be considered so by right-wing "libertarians" due to the substantial
differences in the rights on which it would be based (with no right to
capitalist private property being the most important).
-All this means that to go on and on about individualist anarchism and it
+All this means that to go on and on about individualist anarchism and its
support for a free market simply misses the point. No one denies that
individualist anarchists were (and are) in favour of a "free market" but this
did not mean they were not socialists nor that they wanted the same kind of
@@ -912,7 +911,7 @@ this issue which social anarchists disagree with individualist anarchism
The notion that because the Individualist Anarchists supported "private
property" they supported capitalism is distinctly wrong. This is for two
reasons. Firstly, private property is not the distinctive aspect of capitalism
--- exploitation of wage labour is. Secondly, and more importantly, what the
+-- exploitation of wage labour is. Secondly and more importantly, what the
Individualist Anarchists meant by "private property" (or "property") was
distinctly different than what is meant by theorists on the
"libertarian"-right or what is commonly accepted as "private property" under
@@ -926,16 +925,12 @@ kinds of private property. If quoting Karl Marx is not **too** out of place:
private property, one of which rests on the labour of the producer himself,
and the other on the exploitation of the labour of others. It forgets that the
latter is not only the direct antithesis of the former, but grows on the
-former's tomb and nowhere else.
+former's tomb and nowhere else. _
->
+> _"In Western Europe, the homeland of political economy, the process of
+primitive accumulation is more or less accomplished . . . _
-> "In Western Europe, the homeland of political economy, the process of
-primitive accumulation is more of less accomplished . . .
-
->
-
-> "It is otherwise in the colonies. There the capitalist regime constantly
+> _"It is otherwise in the colonies. There the capitalist regime constantly
comes up against the obstacle presented by the producer, who, as owner of his
own conditions of labour, employs that labour to enrich himself instead of the
capitalist. The contradiction of these two diametrically opposed economic
@@ -955,7 +950,7 @@ wage-labour, for Marx, is the necessary pre-condition for capitalism, **not**
they remain the property of the immediate producer, are not capital. They only
become capital under circumstances in which they serve at the same time as
means of exploitation of, and domination over, the worker."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p.
-730, p. 264 and p. 938]
+730, p. 264 and p. 933]
For Engels, _"[b]efore capitalistic production"_ industry was _"based upon the
private property of the labourers in their means of production"_, i.e., _"the
@@ -968,7 +963,7 @@ Manifesto**, stating that _"the distinguishing feature of Communism is not the
abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property."_
Artisan and peasant property is _"a form that preceded the bourgeois form"_
which there _"is no need to abolish"_ as _"the development of industry has to
-a great extent already destroyed it."_ This means that communism _"derives no
+a great extent already destroyed it."_ This means that communism _"deprives no
man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is
to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such
appropriation."_ [Marx and Engels, **Selected Works**, p. 412, p. 413, p. 414,
@@ -983,7 +978,7 @@ common critique of capitalism were radically different in the case of
Proudhon). This is, it must be stressed, simply Proudhon's distinction between
property and possession (see [section B.3.1](secB3.html#secb31)). The former
is theft and despotism, the latter is liberty. In other words, for genuine
-anarchists, "property" is a _**social relation**_ and that a key element of
+anarchists, "property" is a **_social relation_** and that a key element of
anarchist thinking (both social and individualist) was the need to redefine
that relation in accord with standards of liberty and justice.
@@ -1026,8 +1021,8 @@ The individualist anarchists inherited this perspective on property and sought
means of ending the transformation of American society from one where labour-
property predominated into one where capitalist private property (and so
exploitation) predominated. Thus their opposition to state interference in the
-economy as the capitalists were using the state to advance this process (see [
-section F.8.5](secF8.html#secf85)).
+economy as the capitalists were using the state to advance this process (see
+[section F.8.5](secF8.html#secf85)).
So artisan and co-operative property is not capitalist. It does not generate
relationships of exploitation and domination as the worker owns and controls
@@ -1169,22 +1164,23 @@ labour's individual possession of his product or of his proportional share of
the joint product of himself and others, [it] holds that property is
liberty."_ [**Liberty**, no. 122, p. 4]
-If, as it is sometimes suggested, the difference between a right "libertarian"
-is that they despise the state because it hinders the freedom of property
-while left libertarians condemn it because it is a bastion of property, it is
-worthwhile to note two important facts. Firstly, that individualist anarchism
-condemns the state because it protects the land monopoly, i.e., capitalist
-property rights in land and what is on it, rather than a system of "occupancy
-and use." Secondly, that all schools of anarchist oppose capitalism because it
-is based on the exploitation of labour, an exploitation which the state
-protects. Hence de Cleyre: _"I wish a sharp distinction made between the legal
-institution of property, and property in the sense that what a man definitely
-produces by his own labour is his own."_ The inequality and oppressions of
-capitalism are _"the inevitable result of the whole politico-economic lie that
-man can be free and the institution of property continue to exist."_
-[**Exquisite Rebel**, p. 297] Given this, given these bastions of property
-against which the both the individualist and social anarchists turn their
-fire, it is obvious that both schools are left libertarians.
+If, as it is sometimes suggested, the difference between right "libertarians"
+and left libertarians is that the former despise the state because it hinders
+the freedom of property while the latter condemn it because it is a bastion of
+property, it is worthwhile to note two important facts. Firstly, that
+individualist anarchism condemns the state because it protects the land
+monopoly, i.e., capitalist property rights in land and what is on it, rather
+than a system of "occupancy and use." Secondly, that all schools of anarchist
+oppose capitalism because it is based on the exploitation of labour, an
+exploitation which the state protects. Hence de Cleyre: _"I wish a sharp
+distinction made between the legal institution of property, and property in
+the sense that what a man definitely produces by his own labour is his own."_
+The inequality and oppressions of capitalism are _"the inevitable result of
+the whole politico-economic lie that man can be free and the institution of
+property continue to exist."_ [**Exquisite Rebel**, p. 297] Given this, given
+these bastions of property against which the both the individualist and social
+anarchists turn their fire, it is obvious that both schools are left
+libertarians.
For these reasons it is clear that just because the Individualist Anarchists
supported (a form of) "property" does not mean they are capitalists. After
@@ -1207,9 +1203,9 @@ As Malatesta noted, recognising the _"the right of workers to the products of
their own labour,"_ demanding _"the abolition of interest"_ and _"the division
of land and the instruments of labour among those who wish to use them"_ would
be _"a socialist school different from [communist-anarchism], but it is still
-socialism."_ It would be a _"mutualist"_ socialism. [**At the Caf**, p. 54 and
-p. 56] In other words, property need not be incompatible with socialism. It
-all depends on the type of property being advocated.
+socialism."_ It would be a _"mutualist"_ socialism. [**At the Café**, p. 54
+and p. 56] In other words, property need not be incompatible with socialism.
+It all depends on the type of property being advocated.
## G.1.3 What about their support for wage labour?
@@ -1245,20 +1241,20 @@ were that property in land would be modified so that it could be _"held by
individuals or companies for such time and in such allotments as they use
only"_ and that _"wages would rise to the full measure of the individual
production, and forever remain there"_ as _"bosses would be hunting for men
-rather than men bosses."_ In other words, land would no longer owned as under
-capitalism and workers would no longer be exploited as profit, interest and
-rent could not exist and the worker would get the full product of his or her
-labour in wages. In contrast, mutualist anarchism _"is a modification of the
-program of Individualism, laying more emphasis upon organisation, co-operation
-and free federation of the workers. To these the trade union is the nucleus of
-the free co-operative group, which will obviate the necessity of an employer .
-. . The mutualist position on the land question is identical with that of the
-Individualists."_ The _"material factor which accounts for such differences as
-there are between Individualists and Mutualists"_ was due to the former being
-intellectual workers and so _"never know[ing] directly the oppressions of the
-large factory, nor mingled with workers' associations. The Mutualists had;
-consequently their leaning towards a greater Communism."_ [_"Anarchism"_,
-**Exquisite Rebel**, p. 77 and p. 78]
+rather than men bosses."_ In other words, land would no longer be owned as
+under capitalism and workers would no longer be exploited as profit, interest
+and rent could not exist and the worker would get the full product of his or
+her labour in wages. In contrast, mutualist anarchism _"is a modification of
+the program of Individualism, laying more emphasis upon organisation, co-
+operation and free federation of the workers. To these the trade union is the
+nucleus of the free co-operative group, which will obviate the necessity of an
+employer . . . The mutualist position on the land question is identical with
+that of the Individualists."_ The _"material factor which accounts for such
+differences as there are between Individualists and Mutualists"_ was due to
+the former being intellectual workers and so _"never know[ing] directly the
+oppressions of the large factory, nor mingled with workers' associations. The
+Mutualists had; consequently their leaning towards a greater Communism."_
+[_"Anarchism"_, **Exquisite Rebel**, p. 77 and p. 78]
Next, we must clarify what is meant by **_"wage labour"_** and the related
term **_"wages system."_** They are not identical. Marx, for example,
@@ -1269,9 +1265,9 @@ Engels, **Selected Works**, p. 324 and p. 226] The difference lies in whether
there is communism (distribution according to need) or socialism (distribution
according to work done), as in Marx's (in)famous difference between a lower
and higher phase of communism. It is the difference between a distribution of
-goods based on deeds and one based on needs and Kropotkin famous polemic _"The
-collectivist Wages System"_ rests on it. He argued that the wages system was
-based on _"renumeration to each according to the time spent in producing,
+goods based on deeds and one based on needs and Kropotkin's famous polemic
+_"The collectivist Wages System"_ rests on it. He argued that the wages system
+was based on _"renumeration to each according to the time spent in producing,
while taking into account the productivity of his labour"_. In other words:
_"To each according to his deeds."_ [**The Conquest of Bread**, p. 162 and p.
167] Such a wages system could exist in different forms. Most obviously, and
@@ -1296,9 +1292,9 @@ under capitalism (anarchist opposition to wage labour includes this but also
extends it to include its denial of freedom to those subject to workplace
hierarchy).
-So for the purposes of this discussion _**"wage labour"**_ refers to
-hierarchical social relationships **within** production while _**"wages
-system"**_ refers to how goods are distributed once they are produced. Thus
+So for the purposes of this discussion **_"wage labour"_** refers to
+hierarchical social relationships **within** production while **_"wages
+system"_** refers to how goods are distributed once they are produced. Thus
you can have a wages system without wage labour but not wage labour without a
wages system. Communist-anarchists aim for the abolition of both wage labour
and the wages system while mutualist-anarchists only aim to get rid of the
@@ -1312,18 +1308,17 @@ wages system"_ to refer to the aim of replacing capitalism with a market
system based on producer co-operatives. This is reflected in certain
translations of Proudhon. Discussing the _"workmen's associations"_ founded in
France during the 1848 revolution, Proudhon noted that _"the workmen, in order
-to dispense with middlemen . . . , capitalists, etc., . . . have had to work a
-little more, and get along with less wages."_ So he considered workers
-associations as paying "wages" and so, obviously, meant by "wages" labour
-income, **not** wage labour. The term "wage labour" was translated as "wages
-system," so we find Proudhon arguing that the _"workmen's associations"_ are
-_"a protest against the wage system"_ and a _"denial of the rule of
-capitalists."_ Proudhon's aim was _"Capitalistic and proprietary exploitation,
-stopped everywhere, the wage system abolished, equal and just exchange
-guaranteed."_ [**The General Idea of the Revolution**, pp. 89-90, p. 98 and p.
-281] This has been translated as _"Capitalist and landlord exploitation halted
-everywhere, wage-labour abolished."_ [quoted by John Ehrenberg, **Proudhon and
-his Age**, p. 116]
+to dispense with . . . capitalists . . . have had to work a little more, and
+get along with less wages."_ So he considered workers associations as paying
+"wages" and so, obviously, meant by "wages" labour income, **not** wage
+labour. The French word "salariat" was translated as "wages system," so we
+find Proudhon arguing that the _"workmen's associations"_ are _"a protest
+against the wage system"_ and a _"denial of the rule of capitalists."_ His aim
+was _"Capitalistic and proprietary exploitation, stopped everywhere, the wage
+system abolished, equal and just exchange guaranteed."_ [**General Idea of the
+Revolution**, pp. 89-90, p. 98 and p. 281] This can also be translated as
+_"Capitalist and landlord exploitation halted everywhere, wage-labour
+abolished."_ [quoted by John Ehrenberg, **Proudhon and his Age**, p. 116]
We are sorry to belabour this point, but it is essential for understanding the
anarchist position on wage labour and the differences between different
@@ -1368,7 +1363,7 @@ he recognised that joint productive activity resulted in an output greater
than that possible by the same number of people working in isolation, an
output monopolised by those who owned the workplace or land in question:
-> _ "That the operation of any wealth increasing enterprise is co-operative
+> _"That the operation of any wealth increasing enterprise is co-operative
needs only stating . . . and its logic in division of the product of the
conjoint labour, can only be frustrated by the fiction that the worker has
contracted away his share of the increase by accepting wages. But, being
@@ -1393,7 +1388,7 @@ would unfold a grand and universal cooperative movement, seems so clear to
me."_ [_"The Wage Question"_, **The American Socialist**, Vol. 2, No. 38, p.
298] This would result in a boost to economic activity:
-> _ "No one, say they, will do anything but for profits. But the man who works
+> _"No one, say they, will do anything but for profits. But the man who works
for wages has no profits; and is not only destitute of this stimulus, but his
labour product is minus the profits of the capitalist, landlord, and
forestaller. A rational economy would seem to require, that if any one
@@ -1411,7 +1406,7 @@ Economics and Sociology**, Vol. 39, No. 4, p. 387] Without access to land,
people would have no option to sell their liberty to others and, as such, the
abolition of slavery and wage labour were related:
-> _ "The right to life involves the right to land to live and labour upon.
+> _"The right to life involves the right to land to live and labour upon.
Commercial ownership of land which enables one to exclude another from it, and
thus enforces involuntary idleness, is as destructive of human freedom as
ownership of the person, enforcing involuntary service . . . Liberation of the
@@ -1448,11 +1443,11 @@ Ingalls, likewise, _"considered the only 'intelligent' strike [by workers as]
one which would be directed against wage work altogether."_ For Lysander
Spooner, liberty meant that the worker was entitled to _"all the fruits of his
own labour"_ and argued that this _"might be feasible"_ only when _"every man
-[was] own employer or work for himself in a direct way, since working for
-another resulted in a portion being diverted to the employer."_ [Martin, **Op.
-Cit.**, p. 153 and p. 172] To quote Spooner:
+[was] his own employer or work[s] for himself in a direct way, since working
+for another resulted in a portion being diverted to the employer."_ [Martin,
+**Op. Cit.**, p. 153 and p. 172] To quote Spooner:
-> _ "When a man knows that he is to have **all** the fruits of his labour, he
+> _"When a man knows that he is to have **all** the fruits of his labour, he
labours with more zeal, skill, and physical energy, than when he knows -- as
in the case of one labouring for wages -- that a portion of the fruits of his
labour are going to another. . . In order that each man may have the fruits of
@@ -1470,7 +1465,7 @@ thought, and the free utterance of thought, are, to a great degree, suppressed
. . . by their dependence upon the will and favour of others, for that
employment by which they must obtain their daily bread. They dare not
investigate, or if they investigate, dare not freely avow and advocate those
-moral, social, religious, political, and economical truths, which alone calm
+moral, social, religious, political, and economical truths, which alone can
rescue them from their degradation, lest they should thereby sacrifice their
bread by stirring the jealousy of those out whom they are dependent, and who
derive their power, wealth, and consequence from the ignorance and servitude
@@ -1479,7 +1474,7 @@ B.1](secB1.html), all forms of hierarchy (including wage labour) distorts the
personality and harms the individual psychologically.
Spooner argued that it was state restrictions on credit and money (the _"money
-monopoly"_ based on banks requiring specie to operate) as the reason why
+monopoly"_ based on banks requiring gold/silver to operate) as the reason why
people sell themselves to others on the labour market. As he put it, _"a
monopoly of money . . . . put[s] it wholly out of the power of the great body
of wealth-producers to hire the capital needed for their industries; and thus
@@ -1556,7 +1551,7 @@ labourers) within capitalism that also marks social anarchist thought. As
Rocker notes, Greene _"emphasised more strongly the **principle of
association** than did Josiah Warren and more so than Spooner had done."_ He
had a _"strong sympathy for the **principle of association.** In fact, the
-theory of Mutualism is nothing less that co-operative labour based on the cost
+theory of Mutualism is nothing less than co-operative labour based on the cost
principle."_ He also _"rejected . . . the designation of labour as a
**commodity**"_ and _"constantly endeavoured to introduce his ideas into the
youthful labour movement . . . so as to prevent the social problem being
@@ -1589,17 +1584,15 @@ pp. 57-83, **Labor History**, vol. 34, No. 1, p. 63 and p. 67] Like the
communist-anarchists of the IWPA, for Lum trade unions were both the means of
fighting capitalism and the way to abolish wage labour:
-> _ "Anarchists in Chicago tended to be much more sympathetic to class
+> _"Anarchists in Chicago tended to be much more sympathetic to class
organisation, specifically unions, because they had many contacts to local
unions and the Knights of Labor. The issue was not resolved at the founding
conference of the IWPA, but the Chicago anarchists did manage to get a
resolution passed stating that 'we view in trades unions based upon
-progressive principles \-- the abolition of the wages-system -- the corner-
-stone of a better society structure than the present one.'
-
->
+progressive principles -- the abolition of the wages-system -- the corner-
+stone of a better society structure than the present one.' _
-> "Lum agreed wholeheartedly with this resolution, particularly the phrase
+> _"Lum agreed wholeheartedly with this resolution, particularly the phrase
'abolition of the wages-system.' This phrase not only confirmed the
ideological link between anarchism and labour reform, but also paralleled
similar language in the declaration of principles of the Knights of Labor. By
@@ -1654,13 +1647,13 @@ operative labour (as in Proudhon's vision). In other words, a
as the workers' own and control the means of production they use. Like social
anarchists, they opposed capitalist exploitation, wage slavery and property
rights. However, not all individualist anarchists held this position, a
-notable exception being Benjamin Tucker and many of his fellow contributors of
+notable exception being Benjamin Tucker and many of his fellow contributors to
**Liberty**. Tucker asserted against the common labour movement and social
anarchist equation of capitalism with wage slavery that _"[w]ages is not
slavery. Wages is a form of voluntary exchange, and voluntary exchange is a
form of Liberty."_ [**Liberty**, no. 3, p. 1]
-The question how is, does this support of wage labour equate to support for
+The question now is, does this support of wage labour equate to support for
capitalism? The answer to that depends on whether you see such a system as
resulting in the exploitation of labour. If socialism is, to requote
Kropotkin, _"understood in its wide, generic, and true sense"_ as _"an effort
@@ -1683,20 +1676,21 @@ on co-operative rather than supply and demand principles."_ [J.W. Baker,
_"Native American Anarchism,"_ pp. 43-62, **The Raven**, vol. 10, no. 1, p.
51]
-So should not be implied that the term socialist is restricted simply to those
-who oppose wage labour. It should be noted that for many socialists, wage
-labour is perfectly acceptable -- as long as the state is the boss. As Tucker
-noted, State Socialism's _"principle plank"_ is _"the confiscation of **all**
-capital by the State"_, so stopping _"the liberty of those non-aggressive
-individuals who are thus prevented from carrying on business for themselves or
-assuming relations between themselves as employer and employee if they prefer,
-and who are obliged to become employees of the State against their will."_
-[**Instead of a Book**, p. 378] Of course, such a position is not a very good
-form of socialism which is why anarchists have tended to call such schemes
-state-capitalism (an analysis which was confirmed once the Soviet Union was
-created, incidentally). If state bureaucrats own and control the means of
-production, it would not come as too great a surprise if they, like private
-bosses, did so to maximise their incomes and minimise that of their employees.
+So it should not be implied that the term socialist is restricted simply to
+those who oppose wage labour. It should be noted that for many socialists,
+wage labour is perfectly acceptable -- as long as the state is the boss. As
+Tucker noted, State Socialism's _"principle plank"_ is _"the confiscation of
+**all** capital by the State"_, so stopping _"the liberty of those non-
+aggressive individuals who are thus prevented from carrying on business for
+themselves or assuming relations between themselves as employer and employee
+if they prefer, and who are obliged to become employees of the State against
+their will."_ [**Instead of a Book**, p. 378] Of course, such a position is
+not a very good form of socialism which is why anarchists have tended to call
+such schemes state-capitalism (an analysis which was confirmed once the Soviet
+Union was created, incidentally). If state bureaucrats own and control the
+means of production, it would not come as too great a surprise if they, like
+private bosses, did so to maximise their incomes and minimise that of their
+employees.
Which explains why the vast majority of anarchists do not agree with Tucker's
position. Individualist anarchists like Tucker considered it as a truism that
@@ -1731,7 +1725,7 @@ G.4.1](secG4.html#secg41), where we also indicate how social anarchists
consider Tucker's position to be in a basic contradiction to anarchist
principles. Not only that, as well as being unlikely to ensure that labour
received its full product, it also contradicts his own principle of
-_**"occupancy and use"**_. As such, while his support for non-exploitative
+**_"occupancy and use"_**. As such, while his support for non-exploitative
wage labour does not exclude him from the socialist (and so anarchist)
movement, it does suggest an inconsistent anarchism, one which can
(fortunately) be easily made consistent by bringing it fully in line with its
@@ -1789,7 +1783,7 @@ beginning of the 19th century, around 80% of the working (non-slave) male
population were self-employed. The great majority of Americans during this
time were farmers working their own land, primarily for their own needs. Most
of the rest were self-employed artisans, merchants, traders, and
-professionals. Other classes \-- employees (wage workers) and employers
+professionals. Other classes -- employees (wage workers) and employers
(capitalists) in the North, slaves and planters in the South -- were
relatively small. The great majority of Americans were independent and free
from anybody's command -- they owned and controlled their means of production.
@@ -1907,11 +1901,9 @@ transpired in Europe and other locations. An organised anarchist movement
imbued with a revolutionary collectivist, then communist, orientation came to
fruition in the late 1870s. At that time, Chicago was a primary centre of
anarchist activity within the USA, due in part to its large immigrant
-population. . .
+population. . . _
->
-
-> "The Proudhonist anarchy that Tucker represented was largely superseded in
+> _"The Proudhonist anarchy that Tucker represented was largely superseded in
Europe by revolutionary collectivism and anarcho-communism. The same
changeover occurred in the US, although mainly among subgroups of working
class immigrants who were settling in urban areas. For these recent immigrants
@@ -1982,7 +1974,7 @@ groups -- in Europe as well as in America -- had socio-economic independence,
and through their desire to maintain and improve their relatively free
positions, had also the incentive to oppose the growing encroachments of the
capitalist State."_ [Morgan Edwards, _"Neither Bombs Nor Ballots: **Liberty**
-& the Strategy of Anarchism"_, pp. 65-91, **Benjamin R. Tucker and the
+& the Strategy of Anarchism"_, pp. 65-91, **Benjamin R. Tucker and the
Champions of Liberty**, Coughlin, Hamilton and Sullivan (eds.), p. 85]
Individualist anarchism is obviously an aspect of a struggle between the
@@ -1995,8 +1987,8 @@ _"primitive accumulation"_ in the Americas and elsewhere presented in chapter
which Individualist Anarchism protested against, the use of the state to
favour the rising capitalist class. So the social context the individualist
anarchists lived in must be remembered. America at the times was a
-predominantly rural society and industry was not as developed as it is now
-wage labour would have been minimised. As Wm. Gary Kline argues:
+predominantly rural society and industry was not as developed as it is now.
+Wage labour would have been minimised. As Wm. Gary Kline argues:
> _"Committed as they were to equality in the pursuit of property, the
objective for the anarchist became the construction of a society providing
@@ -2005,7 +1997,7 @@ anarchists who extolled mutualism and the abolition of all monopolies was,
then, a society where everyone willing to work would have the tools and raw
materials necessary for production in a non-exploitative system . . . the
dominant vision of the future society . . . [was] underpinned by individual,
-self-employed workers."__ [**The Individualist Anarchists: A Critique of
+self-employed workers."_ [**The Individualist Anarchists: A Critique of
Liberalism**, p. 95]
This social context helps explain why some of the individualist anarchists
@@ -2032,7 +2024,7 @@ Therefore Rocker was correct when he argued that Individualist Anarchism was
_"above all . . . rooted in the peculiar social conditions of America which
differed fundamentally from those of Europe."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 155] As these
conditions changed, the viability of Individualist Anarchism's solution to the
-social problem decreased (as acknowledged by Tucker in 1911, for example \--
+social problem decreased (as acknowledged by Tucker in 1911, for example --
see [section G.1.1](secG1.html#secg11)). Individualist Anarchism, argued
Morgan Edwards, _"appears to have dwindled into political insignificance
largely because of the erosion of its political-economic base, rather than
@@ -2060,5 +2052,9 @@ means to distort their ideas and ideals. Moreover, to apply those ideas in a
non-artisan economy without the intention of radically transforming the socio-
economic nature of that society towards one based on artisan production one
would mean to create a society distinctly different than one they envisioned
-(see [ section G.3](secG3.html) for further discussion).
+(see [section G.3](secG3.html) for further discussion).
+
+[‹ G.0 Section G Introduction](/afaq/secGint.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/secGcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [G.2 Why do individualist
+anarchists reject social anarchism? ›](/afaq/secG2.html "Go to next page" )
diff --git a/markdown/secG2.md b/markdown/secG2.md
index ae590283ed6919723705c54e88b7af8352c183d5..6bac478fa9b6037f3ef41e54e390be440d1b34dc 100644
--- a/markdown/secG2.md
+++ b/markdown/secG2.md
@@ -1,16 +1,16 @@
# G.2 Why do individualist anarchists reject social anarchism?
-As noted in the [last section](secG1.html), the individualist anarchists
-considered themselves as anti-capitalists and many called themselves
-mutualists and socialists. It may be objected that they opposed the more
-obviously socialist types of anarchism like communist-anarchism and, as a
-consequence, should be considered as supporters of capitalism. This is not the
-case as can be seen from **why** they rejected communist-anarchism. The key
-thing to remember is that capitalism does not equal the market. So while the
-individualist anarchists advocated a market economy, it _"is evident from
-their writings that they rejected both capitalism and communism -- as did
-Proudhon."_ [Brian Morris, _"Global Anti-Capitalism"_, pp. 170-6, **Anarchist
-Studies**, vol. 14, no. 2, p. 175]
+As noted in [section G.1](secG1.html), the individualist anarchists considered
+themselves as anti-capitalists and many called themselves mutualists and
+socialists. It may be objected that they opposed the more obviously socialist
+types of anarchism like communist-anarchism and, as a consequence, should be
+considered as supporters of capitalism. This is not the case as can be seen
+from **why** they rejected communist-anarchism. The key thing to remember is
+that capitalism does not equal the market. So while the individualist
+anarchists advocated a market economy, it _"is evident from their writings
+that they rejected both capitalism and communism -- as did Proudhon."_ [Brian
+Morris, _"Global Anti-Capitalism"_, pp. 170-6, **Anarchist Studies**, vol. 14,
+no. 2, p. 175]
It should noted that while Tucker came to excommunicate non-individualist
forms of anarchism from the movement, his initial comments on the likes of
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ summation of communist-anarchism leaves a lot to be desired. However, even
after the break between individualist and communist anarchism in America,
Tucker saw that both had things in common as both were socialists:
-> _ "To be sure, there is a certain and very sincere comradeship that must
+> _"To be sure, there is a certain and very sincere comradeship that must
exist between all honest antagonists of the exploitation of labour, but the
word comrade cannot gloss over the vital difference between so-called
Communist-Anarchism and Anarchism proper."_ [**Liberty**, no. 172, p. 1]
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ succeed. Fourthly, that the communist-anarchists are determining how a free
society would be organised which is authoritarian. Needless to say, communist-
anarchists rejected these claims as being false and while we have already
sketched these arguments, objections and replies in [section A.3.1
-](secA3.html#seca31) it is worthwhile to repeat (and expand on) them here as
+](secA3.html#seca31)it is worthwhile to repeat (and expand on) them here as
these disagreements are sometimes highlighted by those who fail to stress what
both schools have in common and, consequently, distort the debates and issues
involved.
@@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ Which, incidentally, was **exactly** the same position as Tucker (see [section
G.1.2](secG1.html#secg12)) and so Kropotkin's analysis of the land monopoly
was identical:
-> _ "when we see a peasant who is in possession of just the amount of land he
+> _"when we see a peasant who is in possession of just the amount of land he
can cultivate, we do not think it reasonable to turn him off his little farm.
He exploits nobody, and nobody would have the right to interfere with his
work. But if he possesses under the capitalist law more than he can cultivate
@@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ comment that _"some poor fellow"_ who _"has contrived to buy a house just
large enough to hold his family"_ would not be expropriated by the commune
(_"by all means let him stay there"_) while also asserting _"[w]ho, then, can
appropriate for himself the tiniest plot of ground in such a city, without
-committing a flagrant injustice?"_ [**Conquest of Bread**, p. 90]
+committing a flagrant injustice?"_ [**Conquest of Bread**, pp. 95-6 and p. 90]
Kropotkin's opposition to private appropriation of land can only be understood
in context, namely from his discussion on the _"abolition of rent"_ and the
@@ -220,17 +220,20 @@ For the French anarchist, the land _"is limited in amount"_ and so _"it ought
not to be appropriated"_ (_"let any living man dare change his right of
territorial possession into the right of property, and I will declare war upon
him, and wage it to the death!"_). This meant that _"the land is indispensable
-to our existence, \-- consequently a common thing, consequently insusceptible
+to our existence, -- consequently a common thing, consequently insusceptible
of appropriation."_ Overall, _"labour has no inherent power to appropriate
-natural wealth."_ [**What is Property?**, p. 106, p. 107 and p. 116] Proudhon,
-it is well known, supported the use of land (and other resources) for personal
-use. How, then, can he argue that the _"land cannot be appropriated"_? Is
-Proudhon subject to the same contradiction as Kropotkin? Of course not, once
-we take into account the fundamental difference between private property and
-possession, appropriation and use which underlies both individualist **and**
-communist anarchism. As Malatesta argued:
-
-> _ "Communism is a free agreement: who doesn't accept it or maintain it
+natural wealth."_ [**Property is Theft!**, p. 105 and p. 109] As we discuss in
+[section G.4.2](secG4.html#secg42), Proudhon extended this to workplaces as
+well.
+
+Proudhon, it is well known, supported the use of land (and other resources)
+for personal use. How, then, can he argue that the _"land cannot be
+appropriated"_? Is Proudhon subject to the same contradiction as Kropotkin? Of
+course not, once we take into account the fundamental difference between
+private property and possession, appropriation and use which underlies both
+individualist **and** communist anarchism. As Malatesta argued:
+
+> _"Communism is a free agreement: who doesn't accept it or maintain it
remains outside of it . . . Everyone has **the right to land, to the
instruments of production** and all the advantages that human beings can enjoy
in the state of civilisation that humanity has reached. If someone does not
@@ -239,7 +242,7 @@ their business. They and those of a like mind will come to an agreement . . .
[They] will have **the same rights as the communists** over the natural wealth
and accumulated products of previous generations . . . I have always spoken of
free agreement, of free communism. How can there be liberty without a possible
-alternative?"_ [our emphasis, **At the caf**, pp. 69-70]
+alternative?"_ [our emphasis, **At the café**, pp. 69-70]
Compare this to individualist anarchist Stephen Byington's comment that
_"[t]hose who wish to unite in the communistic enjoyment of their labour will
@@ -267,7 +270,7 @@ the future outlook in this way."_ [**Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific
Basis**, p. 97, p. 99, p. 96 ,p. 174 and pp. 174-5] This did not exclude
mutualism or individualist anarchism:
-> _ "Many expedients will be tried by which a just return may be awarded the
+> _"Many expedients will be tried by which a just return may be awarded the
worker for his exertions. The time check or labour certificate, which will be
honoured at the store-houses hour for hour, will no doubt have its day. But
the elaborate and complicated system of book-keeping this would necessitate,
@@ -289,17 +292,17 @@ _"occupancy and use"_: _"The workshops will drop into the hands of the
workers, the mines will fall to the miners, and the land and all other things
will be controlled by those who posses and use them. There will be, there can
then be no title to anything aside from its possession and use."_ The likes of
-Parsons supported communism was not because of an opposition between
-"communism" and "occupancy and use" but rather, like Kropotkin, because of
-_"the utter impossibility of awarding to each an exact return for the amount
-of labour performed will render absolute communism a necessity sooner or
-later."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 105 and p. 176] So while capitalism _"expropriates
-the masses for the benefit of the privileged class . . . socialism teaches how
-all may possess property . . . [and] establish a universal system of co-
-operation, and to render accessible to each and every member of the human
-family the achievements and benefits of civilisation which, under capitalism,
-are being monopolised by a privileged class."_ [August Spies, contained in
-Parsons, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 63-4]
+Parsons supported communism not because of an opposition between "communism"
+and "occupancy and use" but rather, like Kropotkin, because of _"the utter
+impossibility of awarding to each an exact return for the amount of labour
+performed will render absolute communism a necessity sooner or later."_ [**Op.
+Cit.**, p. 105 and p. 176] So while capitalism _"expropriates the masses for
+the benefit of the privileged class . . . socialism teaches how all may
+possess property . . . [and] establish a universal system of co-operation, and
+to render accessible to each and every member of the human family the
+achievements and benefits of civilisation which, under capitalism, are being
+monopolised by a privileged class."_ [August Spies, contained in Parsons,
+**Op. Cit.**, pp. 63-4]
All of which indicates that Tucker did not really understand communist-
anarchism when he argued that communism is _"the force which compels the
@@ -329,10 +332,10 @@ Kropotkin always explicitly denied, since the basis of his theory was the
voluntary principle)."_ [Woodcock and Avakumovic, **Op. Cit.**, p. 280] To
quote Kropotkin himself:
-> _ "when we see a Sheffield cutler, or a Leeds clothier working with their
-own tools or handloom, we see no use in taking the tools or the handloom to
-give to another worker. The clothier or cutler exploit nobody. But when we see
-a factory whose owners claim to keep to themselves the instruments of labour
+> _"when we see a Sheffield cutler, or a Leeds clothier working with their own
+tools or handloom, we see no use in taking the tools or the handloom to give
+to another worker. The clothier or cutler exploit nobody. But when we see a
+factory whose owners claim to keep to themselves the instruments of labour
used by 1,400 girls, and consequently exact from the labour of these girls . .
. profit . . . we consider that the people . . . are fully entitled to take
possession of that factory and to let the girls produce . . . for themselves
@@ -361,7 +364,7 @@ oppose private property but support possession (we return to this issue in
## G.2.2 Is communist-anarchism violent?
-Having shown that communist-anarchist is a valid form of anarchism even in
+Having shown that communist-anarchism is a valid form of anarchism even in
terms of individualist anarchism in the [last section](secG2.html#secg22), it
is now necessary to discuss the issue of methods, i.e., the question of
revolution and violence. This is related to the first objection, with Tucker
@@ -396,7 +399,7 @@ the future and fuelled the hatreds and passions without which the Haymarket
tragedy would not have occurred."_ [Paul Avrich, **The Haymarket Tragedy**, p.
33 and p. 35]
-Given this general infatuation with dynamite and violence which this state and
+Given the general infatuation with dynamite and violence which this state and
employer violence provoked, the possibility for misunderstanding was more than
likely (as well as giving the enemies of anarchism ample evidence to demonise
it while allowing the violence of the system they support to be downplayed).
@@ -461,14 +464,12 @@ refuse to acknowledge it and its privileges (_"There is only one law for the
poor, to wit: Obey the rich."_ [Parsons, **Op. Cit.**, p. 97]). Thus Adolph
Fischer, one of the Haymarket Martyrs:
-> _ "Would a peaceful solution of the social question be possible, the
-anarchists would be the first ones to rejoice over it.
+> _"Would a peaceful solution of the social question be possible, the
+anarchists would be the first ones to rejoice over it. _
->
-
-> "But is it not a fact that on occasion of almost every strike the minions of
-the institutions of private property -- militia, police, deputy sheriffs; yes,
-even federal troops -- are being called to the scenes of conflict between
+> _"But is it not a fact that on occasion of almost every strike the minions
+of the institutions of private property -- militia, police, deputy sheriffs;
+yes, even federal troops -- are being called to the scenes of conflict between
capital and labour, in order to protect the interests of capital? . . . What
peaceful means should the toilers employ? There is, for example, the strike?
If the ruling classes want to enforce the 'law' they can have every striker
@@ -535,7 +536,7 @@ willing to turn to death squads and fascism to resist it. To suggest that
squatting land would provoke less capitalist violence than, say, expropriating
workplaces simply cannot be supported in the light of 20th century history.
The choice, then, is simply to allow the landlords and capitalists to keep
-their property and try to but it back from them or use political or
+their property and try to buy it back from them or use political or
revolutionary means to expropriate them. Communist-anarchists thought that the
mutual banks would not work and so supported expropriation by means of a mass
revolt, a social revolution.
@@ -546,7 +547,7 @@ class will freely see their power, property and privileges taken from them.
They reject the mutualist and individualist anarchist suggestion that mutual
banks could provide enough credit to compete capitalism away and, even if it
could, the state would simply outlaw it. This perspective does **not** imply,
-as many enemies of anarchist suggest, that social anarchists always seek to
+as many enemies of anarchism suggest, that social anarchists always seek to
use violence but rather that we are aware that the state and capitalists will
use violence against any effective protest. So, the methods social anarchists
urge -- strikes, occupations, protests, and so forth -- are all inherently
@@ -557,7 +558,7 @@ use violence and force to maintain its position _"is demonstrated in every
strike which threatens their power; by every lock-out, by every discharge; by
every black-list."_ [Parsons, **Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific
Basis**, p. 105] Ultimately, the workings of capitalism itself provokes
-resistance to it. Even if no anarchist participated in, or help organise,
+resistance to it. Even if no anarchist participated in, or helped organise,
strikes and protests they would occur anyway and the state would inevitably
intervene to defend "law and order" and "private property" -- as the history
of every class system proves. So communist-anarchism does not produce the
@@ -580,7 +581,7 @@ anarchist support for unions and strikes, for example, as a means of creating
more awareness of anarchism and its solutions to the social question (see
[section J.1](secJ1.html)). This means that communist-anarchists do not see
revolution as imposing anarchism, but rather as an act of self-liberation by a
-people sick of being ruled by others and act to free themselves of tyranny.
+people sick of being ruled by others and acting to free themselves of tyranny.
So, in summary, in terms of tactics there is significant overlap between the
strategies advocated by both social and individualist anarchists. The key
@@ -646,11 +647,11 @@ It should also go without saying that no communist-anarchist sought a system
by which individuals would have their personality destroyed. As Kropotkin
stressed:
-> _ "Anarchist Communism maintains that most valuable of all conquests --
+> _"Anarchist Communism maintains that most valuable of all conquests --
individual liberty -- and moreover extends it and gives it a solid basis --
economic liberty -- without which political liberty is delusive; it does not
ask the individual who has rejected god, god the king, and god the parliament,
-to give himself unto himself a god more terrible than any of the preceding \--
+to give himself unto himself a god more terrible than any of the preceding --
god the Community, or to abdicate upon its alter his independence, his will,
his tastes, and to renew the vow of asceticism which he formally made before
the crucified god. It says to him, on the contrary, 'No society is free so
@@ -701,8 +702,8 @@ anarchists**, are opposed to making or treating people as if they were
identical. In fact, the goal of communist-anarchism has always been to ensure
and protect the natural diversity of individuals by creating social conditions
in which individuality can flourish. The fundamental principle of communism is
-the maxim _**"from each according to their abilities, to each according to
-their needs."**_ There is nothing there about _"levelling"_ or (which amounts
+the maxim **_"from each according to their abilities, to each according to
+their needs."_** There is nothing there about _"levelling"_ or (which amounts
to the same thing), _"equality of outcome."_ To make an obvious point: _"If
one person need medical treatment and another is more fortunate, they are not
to be granted an equal amount of medical care, and the same is true of other
@@ -712,7 +713,7 @@ personal goals"_ and seek a society which allows that diversity to fully
flourish. [**The Chomsky Reader**, p. 191 and p. 192] In the words of Rudolf
Rocker:
-> _ "a far greater degree of economic equality . . . would . . . be no
+> _"a far greater degree of economic equality . . . would . . . be no
guarantee against political and social oppression. Economic equality alone is
not social liberation. It is just this which Marxism and all the other schools
of authoritarian Socialism have never understood. Even in prison, in the
@@ -757,7 +758,7 @@ So, communist-anarchists would actually agree with individualist anarchists
like Simpson and oppose any notion of _"levelling"_ (artificial or otherwise).
The aim of libertarian communism is to increase diversity and individuality,
**not** to end it by imposing an abstract equality of outcome or of
-consumption that would utter ignore individual tastes or preferences. Given
+consumption that would utterly ignore individual tastes or preferences. Given
that communist-anarchists like Kropotkin and Malatesta continually stressed
this aspect of their ideas, Simpson was simply confusing libertarian and
authoritarian forms of communism for polemical effect rather than presenting a
@@ -815,16 +816,16 @@ sufficient detail exactly how their vision would work.
Communist-anarchists reply in four main ways. Firstly, the individualist
anarchists themselves predicted roughly how they thought a free society would
-look and function, namely one on individual ownership of production based
-around mutual banks. Secondly, communist-anarchists presented any vision as
-one which was consistent with libertarian principles, i.e., their suggestions
-for a free society was based on thinking about the implication of anarchist
-principles in real life. There seemed little point in advocating anarchism if
-any future society would be marked by authority. To not discuss how a free
-society could work would result in authoritarian solutions being imposed (see
-[section I.2.1](secI2.html#seci21)). Thirdly, they were at pains to link the
-institutions of a free society to those already being generated within
-capitalism but in opposition to its hierarchical nature (see [section
+look and function, namely one based on individual ownership of production
+based around mutual banks. Secondly, communist-anarchists presented any vision
+as one which was consistent with libertarian principles, i.e., their
+suggestions for a free society was based on thinking about the implication of
+anarchist principles in real life. There seemed little point in advocating
+anarchism if any future society would be marked by authority. To not discuss
+how a free society could work would result in authoritarian solutions being
+imposed (see [section I.2.1](secI2.html#seci21)). Thirdly, they were at pains
+to link the institutions of a free society to those already being generated
+within capitalism but in opposition to its hierarchical nature (see [section
I.2.3](secI2.html#seci23)). Fourthly, presenting more than a sketch would be
authoritarian as it is up to a free people to create their own society and
solve their problems themselves (see [section I.2](secI2.html)).
@@ -832,7 +833,7 @@ solve their problems themselves (see [section I.2](secI2.html)).
Clearly, A. H. Simpson was wrong when he asserted that communist-anarchists
argued thusly: _"Abolish private property by instituting compulsory Communism,
and the State will go."_ No communist-anarchist has ever argued for compulsory
-communism. Somewhat ironically, Simpson went on to argue that _"difference
+communism. Somewhat ironically, Simpson went on to argue that the _"difference
between Communism and Anarchy is plainly observable in their methods. Abolish
the State . . . that bulwark of the robber system . . . says the Anarchist.
Abolish private property, the source of all evil and injustice, parent of the
@@ -890,32 +891,26 @@ was efficiently done and meet the consumers requirements. Secondly, he
considered communism as being potentially authoritarian in that society would
determine what an individual should contribute and consume. As he put it:
-> _ "Who then shall determine the capacity? who shall be the judge of the
-needs?
-
->
+> _"Who then shall determine the capacity? who shall be the judge of the
+needs? _
-> "You say that my capacity is 100: I maintain that it is only 90. You add
+> _"You say that my capacity is 100: I maintain that it is only 90. You add
that my needs are 90: I affirm that they are 100. There is a difference
between us of twenty upon needs and capacity. It is, in other words, the well-
known debate between **demand** and **supply**. Who shall judge between the
-society and me?
-
->
+society and me? _
-> "If the society persists, despite my protests, I resign from it, and that is
-all there is to it. The society comes to an end from lack of associates.
+> _"If the society persists, despite my protests, I resign from it, and that
+is all there is to it. The society comes to an end from lack of associates. _
->
-
-> "If, having recourse to force, the society undertakes to compel me; if it
+> _"If, having recourse to force, the society undertakes to compel me; if it
demands from me sacrifice and devotion, I say to it: Hypocrite! you promised
to deliver me from being plundered by capital and power; and now, in the name
of equality and fraternity, in your turn, you plunder me. Formerly, in order
to rob me, they exaggerated my capacity and minimised my needs. They said that
products cost me so little, that I needed so little to live! You are doing the
same thing. What difference is there then between fraternity and the wage
-system?"_ [**The General Idea of the Revolution**, pp. 96-7]
+system?"_ [**General Idea of the Revolution**, pp. 96-7]
Yet even here Proudhon shows the libertarian communist solution to this
possible problem, namely free association. If there were a conflict between
@@ -925,7 +920,7 @@ is free to expel an individual). Said individuals can seek another communist
commune and join it or, conversely, work for themselves in their present
location. Ultimately, free association means the freedom **not** to associate
and libertarian communism is rooted in that truism. Thus, communist-anarchists
-would agree with the French anarchism when he _"conclude[d] that a single
+would agree with the French anarchist when he _"conclude[d] that a single
association can never include all the workmen in one industry, nor all
industrial corporations, nor, **a fortiori**, a nation of 36 millions of men;
therefore that the principle of association does not offer the required
@@ -941,7 +936,7 @@ largest possible scale of the principles of mutualism"_ and _"economic
solidarity."_ [**The Principle of Federation**, p. 70 and p. 71]
The key difference, of course, between Proudhon's mutualism and Kropotkin's
-communism was (as latter stressed) that the former supported payment for
+communism was (as the latter stressed) that the former supported payment for
labour in terms of money or labour-cheques while the latter argued that this
would be a modification of the wages system rather than its total abolition.
Yet by divorcing payment for labour from its consumption, Proudhon argued that
@@ -950,11 +945,11 @@ involved in producing goods. The French anarchist argued that there was no way
of knowing the real cost of anything produced outside the market. This could
be seen from monopolies within capitalism:
-> _ "How much does the tobacco sold by the administration cost? How much is it
+> _"How much does the tobacco sold by the administration cost? How much is it
worth? You can answer the first of these questions: you need only call at the
first tobacco shop you see. But you can tell me nothing about the second,
because you have no standard of comparison and are forbidden to verify by
-experiment the items of cost of administration. Therefore the tobacco
+experiment the items of cost of administration…. Therefore the tobacco
business, made into a monopoly, necessarily costs society more than it brings
in; it is an industry which, instead of subsisting by its own product, lives
by subsidies."_ [**System of Economical Contradictions**, pp. 232-3]
@@ -996,12 +991,12 @@ operatives and pay themselves a share of the income they collectively
produced. As Robert Graham put it, _"[t]hat both Tucker and Bakunin could
claim Proudhon as their own illustrates the inherent ambiguity and elusiveness
of his thought . . . With his death, that synthesis broke down into its
-conflicting parts."_ [_"Introduction"_, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, **The General
-idea of the Revolution**, p. xxxi] Social anarchism emphasised the self-
-management, associational and federalist aspects of Proudhon's ideas along
-with his critique of private property while individualist anarchism tended to
-stress his support for possession, "wages" (i.e., labour income), competition
-and markets.
+conflicting parts."_ [_"Introduction"_, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, **General idea
+of the Revolution**, p. xxxi] Social anarchism emphasised the self-management,
+associational and federalist aspects of Proudhon's ideas along with his
+critique of private property while individualist anarchism tended to stress
+his support for possession, "wages" (i.e., labour income), competition and
+markets.
## G.2.5 Do most anarchists agree with the individualists on communist-
anarchism?
@@ -1055,7 +1050,7 @@ While some of its admirers stress that **Liberty** was the longest lasting
American anarchist paper, in fact a social anarchist paper has that claim to
fame. **Fraye Arbeter Shtime** (**The Free Voice of Labour**) was a Yiddish
language anarchist periodical which was first published in 1890 and lasted
-until 1977\. This was followed by the Italian anarchist paper **L'Adunata dei
+until 1977. This was followed by the Italian anarchist paper **L'Adunata dei
Refrattari** which was published between 1922 and 1971. So when James Martin
stated that **Liberty** was _"the longest-lived of any radical periodical of
economic or political nature in the nation's history"_ in 1953 he was wrong.
@@ -1076,14 +1071,14 @@ the bulk of it).
In summary, then, while individualist anarchism opposed communist-anarchism
much of this opposition was rooted in misunderstandings and, at times,
outright distortion. Once these are corrected, it becomes clear that both
-schools of anarchism share significant ideas in common. This is
-unsurprisingly, given the impact of Proudhon on both of them as well as their
-common concerns on the social question and participation in the labour and
-other popular movements. As both are (libertarian) socialists inspired by many
-of the same intellectual and social influences, this should come as no
-surprise. That a few individualist and communist anarchists tried to deny
-those common influences should not blind us to them or the fact that both
-schools of anarchism are compatible.
+schools of anarchism share significant ideas in common. This is unsurprising,
+given the impact of Proudhon on both of them as well as their common concerns
+on the social question and participation in the labour and other popular
+movements. As both are (libertarian) socialists inspired by many of the same
+intellectual and social influences, this should come as no surprise. That a
+few individualist and communist anarchists tried to deny those common
+influences should not blind us to them or the fact that both schools of
+anarchism are compatible.
Ultimately, though, anarchism should be wide enough and generous enough to
include both communist and individualist anarchism. Attempts to excommunicate
@@ -1093,3 +1088,8 @@ perspectives on possession, capitalist property rights and voluntary
association. Once the differences in terminology are understood, the
differences are not impossible to reconcile.
+[‹ G.1 Are individualist anarchists anti-capitalist?](/afaq/secG1.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secGcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [G.3 Is
+"anarcho"-capitalism a new form of individualist anarchism?
+›](/afaq/secG3.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secG3.md b/markdown/secG3.md
index 732aa218b6ae5385dd7c17e0a00ca796cbc85922..07023193292cdac33740006a02a0c8ac488bad3a 100644
--- a/markdown/secG3.md
+++ b/markdown/secG3.md
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ remains is shrill anti-statism conjoined to a vacuous freedom in hackneyed
defence of capitalism. In sum, the 'anarchy' of Libertarianism reduces to a
liberal fraud."_ [**Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy**]
-As class struggle anarchist Benjamin Franks notes individualist anarchism
+As class struggle anarchist Benjamin Franks notes, individualist anarchism
_"has similarities with, but is not identical to, anarcho-capitalism."_
[**Rebel Alliances**, p. 44] For Colin Ward, while the _"mainstream"_ of
anarchist propaganda _"has been **anarchist-communism**"_ there are _"several
@@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ interest and rent). Removing this social and economic basis would result in
**substantially** different political regimes. In other words, politics is not
isolated from economics. As anarchist David Wieck put it, Rothbard _"writes of
society as though some part of it (government) can be extracted and replaced
-by another arrangement while other things go on before, and he constructs a
+by another arrangement while other things go on as before, and he constructs a
system of police and judicial power without any consideration of the influence
of historical and economic context."_ [**Anarchist Justice**, p. 227]
@@ -116,12 +116,12 @@ circumstances and, as a consequence, public opinion on specific events and
rights. Tucker's position is fundamentally **democratic** and evolutionary
while Rothbard's is autocratic and fossilised.
-This is particularly the case if you are proposing an economic system which is
+This is particularly the case if you are proposing an economic system that is
based on inequalities of wealth, power and influence and the means of
accumulating more. As we note in [section G.3.3](secG3.html#secg33), one of
-individualist anarchists that remained pointed this out and opposed Rothbard's
-arguments. As such, while Rothbard may have subscribed to a system of
-competing defence companies like Tucker, he expected them to operate in a
+the few individualist anarchists that remained pointed this out and opposed
+Rothbard's arguments. As such, while Rothbard may have subscribed to a system
+of competing defence companies like Tucker, he expected them to operate in a
substantially different legal system, enforcing different (capitalist)
property rights and within a radically different socio-economic system. These
differences are hardly _"minor"_. As such, to claim that "anarcho"-capitalism
@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ by reducing the numbers forced onto the labour market (which, as we note in
the land monopoly in the first place). He bemoans that landlords cannot charge
rent on their _"justly-acquired private property"_ without noticing that is
begging the question as anarchists deny that this is _"justly-acquired"_ land
-in the first place. Unsurprising, Rothbard considered _"the proper theory of
+in the first place. Unsurprisingly, Rothbard considered _"the proper theory of
justice in landed property can be found in John Locke"_, ignoring the awkward
fact that the first self-proclaimed anarchist book was written **precisely**
to refute that kind of theory and expose its anti-libertarian implications.
@@ -174,11 +174,11 @@ would get rich). Rather than a _"minor"_ difference, the question of land use
fundamentally changes the nature of the society built upon it and whether it
counts as genuinely libertarian or not.
-Tucke was well aware of the implications of such differences. Supporting a
+Tucker was well aware of the implications of such differences. Supporting a
scheme like Rothbard's meant _"departing from Anarchistic ground,"_ it was
_"Archism"_ and, as he stressed in reply to one supporter of such property
rights, it opened the door to other authoritarian positions: _"Archism in one
-point is taking him to Archism is another. Soon, if he is logical, he will be
+point is taking him to Archism in another. Soon, if he is logical, he will be
an Archist in all respects."_ It was a _"fundamentally foolish"_ position,
because it _"starts with a basic proposition that must be looked upon by all
consistent Anarchists as obvious nonsense."_ _"What follows from this?"_ asked
@@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ So given the central place that "occupancy and use" lies in individualist
anarchism, it was extremely patronising for Rothbard to assert that _"it seems
. . . a complete violation of the Spooner-Tucker 'law of equal liberty' to
prevent the legitimate owner from selling his land to someone else."_ [_"The
-Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View"_, **Op. Cit.**, p. 9]
+Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View", _**Op. Cit.**, p. 9]
Particularly as Tucker had explicitly addressed this issue and indicated the
logical and common sense basis for this so-called "violation" of their
principles. Thus "occupancy and use" was _"the libertarian principle to the
@@ -257,8 +257,8 @@ Yarros' critique of those who praised capitalism but ignored the state imposed
restrictions that limited choice within it seems as applicable to Rothbard as
it did Herbert Spencer:
-> _ "A system is voluntary when it is voluntary all round . . . not when
-certain transactions, regarded from certain points of view, appear Voluntary.
+> _"A system is voluntary when it is voluntary all round . . . not when
+certain transactions, regarded from certain points of view, appear voluntary.
Are the circumstances which compel the labourer to accept unfair terms law-
created, artificial, and subversive of equal liberty? That is the question,
and an affirmative answer to it is tantamount to an admission that the present
@@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ system is not voluntary in the true sense."_ [**Liberty**, no. 184, p. 2]
So while "anarcho"-capitalists like Walter Block speculate on how starving
families renting their children to wealthy paedophiles is acceptable _"on
libertarian grounds"_ it is doubtful that any individualist anarchist would be
-so blas about such an evil. [_"Libertarianism vs. Objectivism: A Response to
+so blasé about such an evil. [_"Libertarianism vs. Objectivism: A Response to
Peter Schwartz,"_ pp. 39-62, **Reason Papers**, Vol. 26, Summer 2003, p. 20]
Tucker, for example, was well aware that liberty without equality was little
more than a bad joke. _"If,"_ he argued, _"after the achievement of all
@@ -324,20 +324,20 @@ ideology, namely "Austrian" economics, which has lead its proponents to reject
key aspects of the indigenous American anarchist tradition.
For example, "anarcho"-capitalist Wendy McElroy does this in a short essay
-provoked by the Seattle protests in 1999. While Canadian, her rampant American
+provoked by the Seattle protests in 1999. After property destruction in
+Seattle placed American anarchists back in the media, she stated that social
+anarchism _"is not American anarchism. Individualist anarchism, the indigenous
+form of the political philosophy, stands in rigorous opposition to attacking
+the person or property of individuals."_ While Canadian, her rampant American
nationalism is at odds with the internationalism of the individualist
-anarchists, stating that after property destruction in Seattle which placed
-American anarchists back in the media social anarchism _"is not American
-anarchism. Individualist anarchism, the indigenous form of the political
-philosophy, stands in rigorous opposition to attacking the person or property
-of individuals."_ Like an ideological protectionist, she argued that _"Left
-[sic!] anarchism (socialist and communist) are foreign imports that flooded
-the country like cheap goods during the 19th century."_ [**Anarchism: Two
-Kinds**] Apparently Albert and Lucy Parsons were un-Americans, as was
-Voltairine de Cleyre who turned from individualist to communist anarchism. And
-best not mention the social conditions in America which quickly made
-communist-anarchism predominant in the movement or that individualist
-anarchists like Tucker proudly proclaimed their ideas socialist!
+anarchists and like an ideological protectionist she argued that _"Left [sic!]
+anarchism (socialist and communist) are foreign imports that flooded the
+country like cheap goods during the 19th century."_ [**Anarchism: Two Kinds**]
+Apparently Albert and Lucy Parsons were un-Americans, as was Voltairine de
+Cleyre who turned from individualist to communist anarchism. And best not
+mention the social conditions in America which quickly made communist-
+anarchism predominant in the movement or that individualist anarchists like
+Tucker proudly proclaimed their ideas socialist!
She argued that _"[m]any of these anarchists (especially those escaping
Russia) introduced lamentable traits into American radicalism"_ such as
@@ -355,31 +355,31 @@ Shay's rebellion. So _"attacking the person or property of individuals"_ was
hardly alien to American radicalism and so was definitely **not** imported by
_"foreign"_ anarchists.
-Of course, anarchism in American became associated with terrorism (or
+Of course, anarchism in America became associated with terrorism (or
_"propaganda by the deed"_) due to the Haymarket events of 1886 and Berkman's
assassination attempt against Frick during the Homestead strike.
Significantly, McElroy makes no mention of the substantial state and employer
violence which provoked many anarchists to advocate violence in self-defence.
-For example, the great strike of 1877 saw the police opened fire on strikers
-on July 25th, killing five and injuring many more. _"For several days,
-meetings of workmen were broken up by the police, who again and again
-interfered with the rights of free speech and assembly."_ The **Chicago
-Times** called for the use of hand grenades against strikers and state troops
-were called in, killing a dozen strikers. _"In two days of fighting, between
-25 and 50 civilians had been killed, some 200 seriously injured, and between
-300 and 400 arrested. Not a single policeman or soldier had lost his life."_
-This context explains why many workers, including those in reformist trade
-unions as well as anarchist groups like the IWPA, turned to armed self-defence
-("violence"). The Haymarket meeting itself was organised in response to the
-police firing on strikers and killing at least two. The Haymarket bomb was
-thrown after the police tried to break-up a peaceful meeting by force: _"It is
-clear then that . . . it was the police and not the anarchists who were the
-perpetrators of the violence at the Haymarket."_ All but one of the deaths and
-most of the injuries were caused by the police firing indiscriminately in the
-panic after the explosion. [Paul Avrich, **The Maymarket Tragedy**, pp. 32-4,
-p. 189, p. 210, and pp. 208-9] As for Berkman's assassination attempt, this
-was provoked by the employer's Pinkerton police opening fire on strikers,
-killing and wounding many. [Emma Goldman, **Living My Life**, vol. 1, p. 86]
+For example, the great strike of 1877 saw the police open fire on strikers on
+July 25th, killing five and injuring many more. _"For several days, meetings
+of workmen were broken up by the police, who again and again interfered with
+the rights of free speech and assembly."_ The **Chicago Times** called for the
+use of hand grenades against strikers and state troops were called in, killing
+a dozen strikers. _"In two days of fighting, between 25 and 50 civilians had
+been killed, some 200 seriously injured, and between 300 and 400 arrested. Not
+a single policeman or soldier had lost his life."_ This context explains why
+many workers, including those in reformist trade unions as well as anarchist
+groups like the IWPA, turned to armed self-defence ("violence"). The Haymarket
+meeting itself was organised in response to the police firing on strikers and
+killing at least two. The Haymarket bomb was thrown after the police tried to
+break-up a peaceful meeting by force: _"It is clear then that . . . it was the
+police and not the anarchists who were the perpetrators of the violence at the
+Haymarket."_ All but one of the deaths and most of the injuries were caused by
+the police firing indiscriminately in the panic after the explosion. [Paul
+Avrich, **The Haymarket Tragedy**, pp. 32-4, p. 189, p. 210, and pp. 208-9] As
+for Berkman's assassination attempt, this was provoked by the employer's
+Pinkerton police opening fire on strikers, killing and wounding many. [Emma
+Goldman, **Living My Life**, vol. 1, p. 86]
In other words, it was **not** foreign anarchists or alien ideas which
associated anarchism with violence but, rather, the reality of American
@@ -395,8 +395,7 @@ violence; labour activists were also subject to brutal attacks, threats of
lynching, and many other forms of physical assault and intimidation . . . the
question of how to respond to such violence became a critical issue in the
1870s, with the upswelling of labour agitation and attempts to suppress it
-violently."_ [**Voltairine de Cleyre and the Revolution of the Mind**, pp.
-51-2]
+violently."_ [**Gates of Freedom**, pp. 51-2]
Joseph Labadie, it should be noted, thought the _"Beastly police"_ got what
they deserved at Haymarket as they had attempted to break up a peaceful public
@@ -408,11 +407,11 @@ involved in, the **Labor Leaf**, had previously argued that _"should trouble
come, the capitalists will use the regular army and militia to shoot down
those who are not satisfied. It won't be so if the people are equally ready."_
Even reformist unions were arming themselves to protect themselves, with many
-workers applauding their attempts to organise union militias. As worker put
-it, _"[w]ith union men well armed and accustomed to military tactics, we could
-keep Pinkerton's men at a distance . . . Employers would think twice, too,
-before they attempted to use troops against us . . . Every union ought to have
-its company of sharpshooters."_ [quoted by Richard Jules Oestreicher,
+workers applauding their attempts to organise union militias. As one worker
+put it: _"With union men well armed and accustomed to military tactics, we
+could keep Pinkerton's men at a distance . . . Employers would think twice,
+too, before they attempted to use troops against us . . . Every union ought to
+have its company of sharpshooters."_ [quoted by Richard Jules Oestreicher,
**Solidarity and Fragmentation**, p. 200 and p. 135]
While the violent rhetoric of the Chicago anarchists was used at their trial
@@ -424,9 +423,9 @@ of course, that while the **words** of the Martyrs are taken as evidence of
anarchism's violent nature, the actual violence (up to and including murder)
against strikers by state and private police apparently tells us nothing about
the nature of the state or capitalist system (Ward Churchill presents an
-excellent summary such activities in his article _"From the Pinkertons to the
-PATRIOT Act: The Trajectory of Political Policing in the United States, 1870
-to the Present"_ [**CR: The New Centennial Review**, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.
+excellent summary of such activities in his article _"From the Pinkertons to
+the PATRIOT Act: The Trajectory of Political Policing in the United States,
+1870 to the Present"_ [**CR: The New Centennial Review**, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.
1-72]).
So, as can be seen, McElroy distorts the context of anarchist violence by
@@ -442,16 +441,16 @@ and passive resistance."_ [James J. Martin, **Men Against the State**, p. 225]
For Tucker _"as long as freedom of speech and of the press is not struck down,
there should be no resort to physical force in the struggle against
oppression."_ [quoted by Morgan Edwards, _"Neither Bombs Nor Ballots: Liberty
-& the Strategy of Anarchism"_, pp. 65-91, **Benjamin R. Tucker and the
+& the Strategy of Anarchism"_, pp. 65-91, **Benjamin R. Tucker and the
Champions of Liberty**, Coughlin, Hamilton and Sullivan (eds.), p. 67] Nor
should we forget that Spooner's rhetoric could be as blood-thirsty as Johann
Most's at times and that American individualist anarchist Dyer Lum was an
advocate of insurrection.
-As far as class analysis does, which _"divided society into economic classes
-that were at war with each other"_, it can be seen that the "left" anarchists
-were simply acknowledging the reality of the situation -- as did, it must be
-stressed, the individualist anarchists. As we noted in [section
+As far as class analysis goes, which allegedly _"divided society into economic
+classes that were at war with each other"_, it can be seen that the "left"
+anarchists were simply acknowledging the reality of the situation -- as did,
+it must be stressed, the individualist anarchists. As we noted in [section
G.1](secG1.html), the individualist anarchists were well aware that there was
a class war going on, one in which the capitalist class used the state to
ensure its position (the individualist anarchist _"knows very well that the
@@ -464,7 +463,7 @@ free market for _"[i]f the man with labour to sell has not this free market,
then his liberty is violated and his property virtually taken from him. Now,
such a market has constantly been denied . . . to labourers of the entire
civilised world. And the men who have denied it are . . . Capitalists . . .
-[who] have placed and kept on the statue-books all sorts of prohibitions and
+[who] have placed and kept on the statute-books all sorts of prohibitions and
taxes designed to limit and effective in limiting the number of bidders for
the labour of those who have labour to sell."_ [**Instead of a Book**, p. 454]
For Joshua King Ingalls, _"[i]n any question as between the worker and the
@@ -593,7 +592,7 @@ the end of capitalism and its replacement with a new social system, one which
would end the exploitation of labour.
She herself admits, in a roundabout way, that "anarcho"-capitalism is
-significantly different that individualist anarchism. _"The schism between the
+significantly different from individualist anarchism. _"The schism between the
two forms of anarchism has deepened with time,"_ she asserts. This was
_"[l]argely due to the path breaking work of Murray Rothbard"_ and so, unlike
genuine individualist anarchism, the new _"individualist anarchism"_ (i.e.,
@@ -618,7 +617,7 @@ lawyer driven political system have been seen as anything other than rule by
the few rather than rule by none.
Ultimately, it is a case of influences and the kind of socio-political
-analysis and aims it inspires. Unsurprisingly, the main influences in
+analysis and aims they inspire. Unsurprisingly, the main influences in
individualist anarchism came from social movements and protests. Thus poverty-
stricken farmers and labour unions seeking monetary and land reform to ease
their position and subservience to capital all plainly played their part in
@@ -662,17 +661,17 @@ been approximated occasionally as in 19th century America). This means that
they totally reject the ideas of anarchists with regards to property and
economic analysis. For example, like all supporters of capitalists they
consider rent, profit and interest as valid incomes. In contrast, all
-Anarchists consider these as exploitation and agree with the Tucker when he
-argued that _"**[w]hoever** contributes to production is alone entitled.
-**What** has no rights that **who** is bound to respect. **What** is a thing.
-**Who** is a person. Things have no claims; they exist only to be claimed. The
-possession of a right cannot be predicted of dead material, but only a living
-person."_ [quoted by Wm. Gary Kline, **The Individualist Anarchists**, p. 73]
+Anarchists consider these as exploitation and agree with Tucker when he argued
+that _"**[w]hoever** contributes to production is alone entitled. **What** has
+no rights that **who** is bound to respect. **What** is a thing. **Who** is a
+person. Things have no claims; they exist only to be claimed. The possession
+of a right cannot be predicted of dead material, but only a living person."_
+[quoted by Wm. Gary Kline, **The Individualist Anarchists**, p. 73]
This, we must note, is the fundamental critique of the capitalist theory that
capital is productive. In and of themselves, fixed costs do not create value.
-Rather value is creation depends on how investments are developed and used
-once in place. Because of this the Individualist Anarchists, like other
+Rather, value is created depends on how investments are developed and used
+once in place and because of this the Individualist Anarchists, like other
anarchists, considered non-labour derived income as usury, unlike
"anarcho"-capitalists. Similarly, anarchists reject the notion of capitalist
property rights in favour of possession (including the full fruits of one's
@@ -706,15 +705,15 @@ capitalism does not make individualist anarchists Marxists, so apparent
similarities between individualist anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism does not
make the former a forerunner of the latter. For example, both schools support
the idea of "free markets." Yet the question of markets is fundamentally
-second to the issue of property rights for what is exchanged on the market is
+second to the issue of property rights, for what is exchanged on the market is
dependent on what is considered legitimate property. In this, as Rothbard
noted, individualist anarchists and "anarcho"-capitalists differ and different
property rights produce different market structures and dynamics. This means
that capitalism is not the only economy with markets and so support for
markets cannot be equated with support for capitalism. Equally, opposition to
markets is **not** the defining characteristic of socialism. As such, it
-**is** possible to be a market socialist (and many socialist are) as "markets"
-and "property" do not equate to capitalism as we proved in sections
+**is** possible to be a market socialist (and many socialists are) as
+"markets" and "property" do not equate to capitalism as we proved in sections
[G.1.1](secG1.html#secg11) and [G.1.2](secG1.html#secg12) respectively.
One apparent area of overlap between individualist anarchism and
@@ -741,7 +740,7 @@ anarchist society of self-employed workers would, in all likelihood, have been
created (at least at first, whether the market would increase inequalities is
a moot point between anarchists). Thus we find Tucker criticising Henry George
by noting that he was _"enough of an economist to be very well aware that,
-whether it has land or not, labour which can get no capital \-- that is, which
+whether it has land or not, labour which can get no capital -- that is, which
is oppressed by capital -- cannot, without accepting the alternative of
starvation, refuse to reproduce capital for the capitalists."_ Abolition of
the money monopoly will increase wages, so allowing workers to _"steadily lay
@@ -749,7 +748,7 @@ up money, with which he can buy tools to compete with his employer or to till
his bit of land with comfort and advantage. In short, he will be an
independent man, receiving what he produces or an equivalent thereof. How to
make this the lot of all men is the labour question. Free land will not solve
-it. Free money, supplemented by free land, will."_ [**Liberty**, no. 99 , p. 4
+it. Free money, supplemented by free land, will."_ [**Liberty**, no. 99, p. 4
and p. 5] Sadly, Rothbard failed to reach George's level of understanding (at
least as regards his beloved capitalism).
@@ -772,8 +771,8 @@ having on the economy were the source of much outrage in certain bourgeois
circles:
> _"Quite independently of these tendencies [of individualist anarchism] . . .
-the anti-state bourgeoisie (which is also anti-statist, being hostile to any
-social intervention on the part of the State to protect the victims of
+the anti-socialist bourgeoisie (which is also anti-statist, being hostile to
+any social intervention on the part of the State to protect the victims of
exploitation -- in the matter of working hours, hygienic working conditions
and so on), and the greed of unlimited exploitation, had stirred up in England
a certain agitation in favour of pseudo-individualism, an unrestrained
@@ -790,9 +789,9 @@ which claimed to benefit working class people but staying strangely silent on
the laws passed to benefit (usually indirectly) capital and the rich.
"Anarcho"-capitalism is part of that tradition, the tradition associated with
a capitalism which no longer needs obvious state intervention as enough wealth
-as been accumulated to keep workers under control by means of market power.
+has been accumulated to keep workers under control by means of market power.
-In other words, there is substantial differences between the victims of a
+In other words, there are substantial differences between the victims of a
thief trying to stop being robbed and be left alone to enjoy their property
and the successful thief doing the same! Individualist Anarchist's were aware
of this. For example, Victor Yarros stressed this key difference between
@@ -812,11 +811,9 @@ landlords, who notoriously have no equitable titles to their lands, but
individuals. . . . Almost all possessors of great wealth enjoy neither what
they nor their ancestors rightfully acquired (and if Mr. Herbert wishes to
challenge the correctness of this statement, we are ready to go with him into
-a full discussion of the subject). . . .
+a full discussion of the subject). . . _
->
-
-> "If he holds that the landlords are justly entitled to their lands, let him
+> _"If he holds that the landlords are justly entitled to their lands, let him
make a defence of the landlords or an attack on our unjust proposal."_ [quoted
by Carl Watner, _"The English Individualists As They Appear In Liberty,"_ pp.
191-211, **Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of Liberty**, Coughlin,
@@ -829,7 +826,7 @@ their feudal landlords). However, this position is, at best, a pale shadow of
the individualist anarchist position or, at worse, simply rhetoric. As leading
"anarcho"-capitalist Walter Block pointed out:
-> _ "While this aspect of libertarian theory sounds very radical, in practice
+> _"While this aspect of libertarian theory sounds very radical, in practice
it is less so. This is because the claimant always needs proof. Possession is
nine tenths of the law, and to overcome the presumption that property is now
in the hands of its rightful owners required that an evidentiary burden by
@@ -841,12 +838,12 @@ Somewhat ironically, Block appears to support land reform in Third World
countries in spite of the fact that the native peoples have no evidence to
show that they are the rightful owners of the land they work. Nor does he
bother himself to wonder about the wider social impact of such theft, namely
-in the capital that was funded using it. If the land was stolen, then so was
+in the capital that was funded using it. If the land was stolen, then so were
its products and so was any capital bought with the profits made from such
goods. But, as he says, this aspect of right-"libertarian" ideology _"sounds
very radical"_ but _"in practice it is less so."_ Apparently, theft **is**
property! Not to mention that nine tenths of property is currently possessed
-(i.e., used) not by its "rightful owners" but rather those who by economic
+(that is, used) not by its "rightful owners" but rather those who by economic
necessity have to work for them. This is a situation the law was designed to
protect, including (apparently) a so-called "libertarian" one.
@@ -861,7 +858,7 @@ capital accumulated. For Rothbard, unlike the individualist anarchists, the
land monopoly had limited impact and can be considered separately from the
rise of capitalism:
-> _ "the emergence of wage-labour was an enormous boon for many thousands of
+> _"the emergence of wage-labour was an enormous boon for many thousands of
poor workers and saved them from starvation. If there is no wage labour, as
there was not in most production before the Industrial Revolution, then each
worker must have enough money to purchase his own capital and tools. One of
@@ -871,19 +868,19 @@ could be left to the capitalists."_ [**Konkin on Libertarian Strategy**]
Except, of course, **before** the industrial revolution almost all workers
did, in fact, have their own capital and tools. The rise of capitalism was
-based on what the exclusion of working people from the land by means of the
-land monopoly. Farmers were barred, by the state, from utilising the land of
-the aristocracy while their access to the commons was stripped from them by
-the imposition of capitalist property rights by the state. Thus Rothbard is
-right, in a sense. The emergence of wage-labour was based on the fact that
-workers had to purchase access to the land from those who monopolised it by
-means of state action -- which was precisely what the individualist anarchists
-opposed. Wage labour, after all, first developed **on the land** not with the
-rise of the factory system. Even Rothbard, we hope, would not have been so
-crass as to say that landlordism was an enormous boon for those poor workers
-as it saved them from starvation for, after all, one of the great things about
-landlordism is that poor workers did not have to purchase their own land; that
-could be left to the landlords.
+based on the exclusion of working people from the land by means of the land
+monopoly. Farmers were barred, by the state, from utilising the land of the
+aristocracy while their access to the commons was stripped from them by the
+imposition of capitalist property rights by the state. Thus Rothbard is right,
+in a sense. The emergence of wage-labour was based on the fact that workers
+had to purchase access to the land from those who monopolised it by means of
+state action -- which was precisely what the individualist anarchists opposed.
+Wage labour, after all, first developed **on the land** not with the rise of
+the factory system. Even Rothbard, we hope, would not have been so crass as to
+say that landlordism was an enormous boon for those poor workers as it saved
+them from starvation for, after all, one of the great things about landlordism
+is that poor workers did not have to purchase their own land; that could be
+left to the landlords.
The landless workers, therefore, had little option but to seek work from those
who monopolised the land. Over time, increasing numbers found work in industry
@@ -907,7 +904,7 @@ boon, organised to defend their freedom and to resist exploitation -- and the
state complied with the wishes of the capitalists and broke that resistance.
Significantly, Tucker and other individualist anarchists saw state
-intervention has a result of capital manipulating legislation to gain an
+intervention as a result of capital manipulating legislation to gain an
advantage on the so-called free market which allowed them to exploit labour
and, as such, it benefited the **whole** capitalist class (_"If, then, the
capitalist, by abolishing the free market, compels other men to procure their
@@ -922,35 +919,35 @@ historic and dynamic system rooted in class rule and economic power is
important in evaluating "anarcho"-capitalist claims to anarchism.
Then there is the issue of strategy, with Rothbard insisting on _"political
-action,"_ namely voting for the Libertarian Party (or least non-"libertarian"
-party). _"I see no other conceivable strategy for the achievement of liberty
-than political action,"_ he stated. Like Marxists, voting was seen as the
-means of achieving the abolition of the state, as _"a militant and
-abolitionist [Libertarian Party] in control of Congress could wipe out all the
-[non-'libertarian'] laws overnight . . . No other strategy for liberty can
-work."_ [**Op. Cit.**] The individualist anarchists, like other anarchists,
-rejected such arguments as incompatible with genuine libertarian principles.
-As Tucker put it, voting could not be libertarian as it would make the voter
-_"an accomplice in aggression."_ [**The Individualist Anarchists**, p. 305]
+action,"_ namely voting for the Libertarian Party. _"I see no other
+conceivable strategy for the achievement of liberty than political action,"_
+he stated. Like Marxists, voting was seen as the means of achieving the
+abolition of the state, as _"a militant and abolitionist" _Libertarian Party_
+"in control of Congress could wipe out all the [non-'libertarian'] laws
+overnight . . . No other strategy for liberty can work."_ [**Op. Cit.**] The
+individualist anarchists, like other anarchists, rejected such arguments as
+incompatible with genuine libertarian principles. As Tucker put it, voting
+could not be libertarian as it would make the voter _"an accomplice in
+aggression."_ [**The Individualist Anarchists**, p. 305]
Rothbard's position indicates an interesting paradox. Rothbard wholeheartedly
supported _"political action"_ as the only means of achieving the end of the
state. Marxists (when not excommunicating anarchism from the socialist
movement) often argue that they agree with the anarchists on the ends
-(abolition of the state) but only differed on the means (i.e., political
-action over direct action). Obviously, no one calls Marx an anarchist and this
-is precisely because he aimed to use political action to achieve the abolition
-of the state. Yet, for some reason, Rothbard's **identical** position on
-tactics makes some call him an anarchist. So, given Rothbard's argument that
-the state must be seized first by a political party by means of _"political
-action"_ in order to achieve his end, the question must be raised why he is
-considered an anarchist at all. Marx and Engels, like Lenin, all made
-identical arguments against anarchism, namely that political action was
-essential so that the Socialist Party could seize state power and implement
-the necessary changes to ensure that the state withered away. No one has ever
-considered them anarchists in spite of the common aim of ending the state yet
-many consider Rothbard to be an anarchist despite advocating the same methods
-as the Marxists. As we noted in [section F.8](secF8.html), a better term for
+(abolition of the state) but only differ on the means (i.e., political action
+over direct action). Obviously, no one calls Marx an anarchist and this is
+precisely because he aimed to use political action to achieve the abolition of
+the state. Yet, for some reason, Rothbard's **identical** position on tactics
+makes some call him an anarchist. So, given Rothbard's argument that the state
+must be seized first by a political party by means of _"political action"_ in
+order to achieve his end, the question must be raised why he is considered an
+anarchist at all. Marx and Engels, like Lenin, all made identical arguments
+against anarchism, namely that political action was essential so that the
+Socialist Party could seize state power and implement the necessary changes to
+ensure that the state withered away. No one has ever considered them
+anarchists in spite of the common aim of ending the state yet many consider
+Rothbard to be an anarchist despite advocating the same methods as the
+Marxists. As we noted in [section F.8](secF8.html), a better term for
"anarcho"-capitalism could be "Marxist-capitalism" and Rothbard's argument for
"political action" confirms that suggestion.
@@ -990,13 +987,13 @@ Finally, it may be objected that "anarcho"-capitalism is a diverse, if small,
collection of individuals and some of them are closer to individualist
anarchism than others. Which is, of course, true (just as some Marxists are
closer to social anarchism than others). A few of them do reject the notion
-than hundreds of years of state-capitalist intervention has had little impact
+that hundreds of years of state-capitalist intervention has had little impact
on the evolution of the economy and argue that a genuinely free economy would
see the end of the current form of property rights and non-labour income as
-well as the self-employment and co-operatives becoming the dominant form of
+well as self-employment and co-operatives becoming the dominant form of
workplace organisation (the latter depends on the former, of course, for
without the necessary social preconditions a preference for self-employment
-will remain precisely that). As Individualist Anarchist Shawn Wilbur put,
+will remain precisely that). As Individualist Anarchist Shawn Wilbur put it,
there is a difference between those "anarcho"-capitalists who are ideologues
for capitalism first and foremost and the minority who are closer to
traditional anarchist aspirations. If the latter manage to jettison the
@@ -1015,7 +1012,7 @@ service, like any other service"_, and that such a service could and should be
provided by private agencies paid for like any other commodity on the market.
[**Liberty**, no. 104, p. 4] Therefore:
-> _ "Anarchism means no government, but it does not mean no laws and no
+> _"Anarchism means no government, but it does not mean no laws and no
coercion. This may seem paradoxical, but the paradox vanishes when the
Anarchist definition of government is kept in view. Anarchists oppose
government, not because they disbelieve in punishment of crime and resistance
@@ -1077,7 +1074,7 @@ within individualist anarchism even if they were voluntarily agreed to by the
parties involved and so would not be enforceable by the "defence
associations." As Tucker put it:
-> _ "A man cannot be allowed, merely by putting labour, to the limit of his
+> _"A man cannot be allowed, merely by putting labour, to the limit of his
capacity and beyond the limit of his personal use, into material of which
there is a limited supply and the use of which is essential to the existence
of other men, to withhold that material from other men's use; and any contract
@@ -1097,9 +1094,9 @@ perspective, "anarcho"-capitalism would be enforcing a key class monopoly by
force and so would simply be another kind of state. As Tucker put it in reply
to the proto-right-"libertarian" Auberon Herbert:
-> _ "It is true that Anarchists . . . do, in a sense, propose to get rid of
+> _"It is true that Anarchists . . . do, in a sense, propose to get rid of
ground-rent by force. That is to say, if landlords should try to evict
-occupants, the Anarchists advice the occupants to combine to maintain their
+occupants, the Anarchists advise the occupants to combine to maintain their
ground by force . . . But it is also true that the Individualists . . .
propose to get rid of theft by force . . . The Anarchists justify the use of
machinery (local juries, etc.) to adjust the property question involved in
@@ -1107,7 +1104,7 @@ rent just as the Individualists justify similar machinery to adjust the
property question involved in theft."_ [**Op. Cit.**, no. 172, p. 7]
It comes as no surprise to discover that Tucker translated Proudhon's **What
-is Property?** and subscribed to its conclusion that _"property is robbery"_!
+is Property?** and subscribed to its conclusion that _"property is theft"_!
This opposition to the _"land monopoly"_ was, like all the various economic
proposals made by the individualist anarchists, designed to eliminate the vast
@@ -1187,16 +1184,16 @@ under the private statism associated with "anarcho"-capitalism. Unlike a
wealthy judge, a jury made up mainly of fellow workers would be more inclined
to give verdicts in favour of workers struggling against bosses or of peasants
being forced off their land by immoral, but legal, means. As Lysander Spooner
-argued in 1852, _"[i]f a jury have not the right to judge between the
-government and those who disobey its laws, and resist its oppressions, the
-government is absolute, and the people, legally speaking, are slaves. Like
-many other slaves they may have sufficient courage and strength to keep their
-masters somewhat in check; but they are nevertheless known to the law only as
-slaves."_ [**Trial by Jury**] It is hardly surprising that Rothbard rejects
-this in favour of a legal system determined and interpreted by lawyers, judges
-and jurists. Indeed, as we noted in [section F.6.1](secF6.html#secf61),
-Rothbard explicitly rejected the idea that juries should be able to judge the
-law as well as the facts of a case under his system. Spooner would have had no
+argued in 1852: _"If a jury have not the right to judge between the government
+and those who disobey its laws, and resist its oppressions, the government is
+absolute, and the people, legally speaking, are slaves. Like many other slaves
+they may have sufficient courage and strength to keep their masters somewhat
+in check; but they are nevertheless known to the law only as slaves."_
+[**Trial by Jury**] It is hardly surprising that Rothbard rejects this in
+favour of a legal system determined and interpreted by lawyers, judges and
+jurists. Indeed, as we noted in [section F.6.1](secF6.html#secf61), Rothbard
+explicitly rejected the idea that juries should be able to judge the law as
+well as the facts of a case under his system. Spooner would have had no
problem recognising that replacing government imposed laws with those made by
judges, jurists and lawyers would hardly change the situation much. Nor would
he have been too surprised at the results of a free market in laws in a
@@ -1212,11 +1209,9 @@ since no case is exactly the same, a jury would have considerable say about
the heinousness of the offence in each case, realising that circumstances
alter cases, and prescribing penalty accordingly. This appeared to Spooner and
Tucker to be a more flexible and equitable administration of justice possible
-or feasible, human beings being what they are . . .
-
->
+or feasible, human beings being what they are . . . _
-> "But when Mr. Rothbard quibbles about the jurisprudential ideas of Spooner
+> _"But when Mr. Rothbard quibbles about the jurisprudential ideas of Spooner
and Tucker, and at the same time upholds **presumably in his courts** the very
economic evils which are at bottom the very reason for human contention and
conflict, he would seem to be a man who chokes at a gnat while swallowing a
@@ -1268,7 +1263,7 @@ like Carson"_ and labelled him _"a supposed anarchist"_ who on many issues
_"is out there, way, way out there in some sort of Marxist never-never land."_
[_"Kevin Carson as Dr. Jeryll and Mr. Hyde"_, pp. 35-46, **Journal of
Libertarian Studies**, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 40, p. 43 and p. 45] Another
-right-"libertarian", George Reisman, concurred stated that for the most part
+right-"libertarian", George Reisman, concurred stating that for the most part
_"Carson is a Marxist"_, while arguing that _"the 'individualist' anarchist
shows himself to be quite the collectivist, attributing to the average person
qualities of independent thought and judgement that are found only in
@@ -1276,7 +1271,7 @@ exceptional individuals."_ Carson's _"views on the nature of ownership give
full support to the conception of anarchy . . . as being nothing but chaos."_
Overall, _"Carson is essentially a Marxist and his book filled with ignorant
Marxist diatribes against capitalism."_ [_"Freedom is Slavery: Laissez-Faire
-capitalism is government intervention"_, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 47-86, p. 47, p.
+capitalism is government intervention"_, pp. 47-86, **Op. Cit.**, p. 47, p.
55, p. 61 and p. 84] Needless to say, all the issues which Block and Geisman
take umbridge at can be found in the works of individualist anarchists like
Tucker (Carson's excellent dissection of these remarkably ignorant diatribes
@@ -1294,7 +1289,7 @@ it defended tenants against attempts to extract rents from them or to evict
them from the land or buildings they used but did not own. As it is a judge-
run system, no jury would be able to judge the law as well as the crime, so
isolating the capitalist and landlord class from popular opposition. Thus the
-ironic situation arises that the _**"Benjamin Tucker defence association"**_
+ironic situation arises that the **_"Benjamin Tucker defence association"_**
would be declared an outlaw organisation under "anarcho"-capitalism and driven
out of business (i.e., destroyed) as it broke the land monopoly which the law
monopoly enforces. Even more ironically, such an organisation would survive in
@@ -1309,10 +1304,10 @@ violation of the _"general libertarian law code."_ That it was private police,
private courts and private prisons which were enforcing such a regime would
not have been considered that much of an improvement.
-Unsurprisingly, Victor Yarros explicitly distanced himself from those _"want
-liberty to still further crush and oppress the people; liberty to enjoy their
-plunder without fear of the State's interfering with them . . . liberty to
-summarily deal with impudent tenants who refuse to pay tribute for the
+Unsurprisingly, Victor Yarros explicitly distanced himself from those who
+_"want liberty to still further crush and oppress the people; liberty to enjoy
+their plunder without fear of the State's interfering with them . . . liberty
+to summarily deal with impudent tenants who refuse to pay tribute for the
privilege of living and working on the soil."_ [**Liberty**, no. 102, p. 4] He
would have had little problem recognising "anarcho"-capitalism as being a
supporter of _"that particular kind of freedom which the **bourgeoisie**
@@ -1346,22 +1341,22 @@ G.1.1](secG1.html#secg11)).
By removing the underlying commitment to abolish non-labour income, any
"anarchist" capitalist society would have vast differences in wealth and so
-power. Instead of a government imposed monopolies in land, money and so on,
-the economic power flowing from private property and capital would ensure that
-the majority remained in (to use Spooner's words) _"the condition of
-servants"_ (see sections [F.2](secF2.html) and [F.3.1](secF3.html#secf31) for
-more on this). The Individualist Anarchists were aware of this danger and so
-supported economic ideas that opposed usury (i.e. rent, profit and interest)
-and ensured the worker the full value of her labour. While not all of them
-called these ideas "socialist" it is clear that these ideas **are** socialist
-in nature and in aim (similarly, not all the Individualist Anarchists called
-themselves anarchists but their ideas are clearly anarchist in nature and in
-aim). This combination of the political and economic is essential as they
-mutually reinforce each other. Without the economic ideas, the political ideas
-would be meaningless as inequality would make a mockery of them. As Spooner
-argued, inequality lead to many social evils:
-
-> _ "Extremes of difference, in their pecuniary circumstances, divide society
+power. Instead of government imposed monopolies in land, money and so on, the
+economic power flowing from private property and capital would ensure that the
+majority remained in (to use Spooner's words) _"the condition of servants"_
+(see sections [F.2](secF2.html) and [F.3.1](secF3.html#secf31) for more on
+this). The Individualist Anarchists were aware of this danger and so supported
+economic ideas that opposed usury (i.e. rent, profit and interest) and ensured
+the worker the full value of her labour. While not all of them called these
+ideas "socialist" it is clear that these ideas **are** socialist in nature and
+in aim (similarly, not all the Individualist Anarchists called themselves
+anarchists but their ideas are clearly anarchist in nature and in aim). This
+combination of the political and economic is essential as they mutually
+reinforce each other. Without the economic ideas, the political ideas would be
+meaningless as inequality would make a mockery of them. As Spooner argued,
+inequality lead to many social evils:
+
+> _"Extremes of difference, in their pecuniary circumstances, divide society
into castes; set up barriers to personal acquaintance; prevent or suppress
sympathy; give to different individuals a widely different experience, and
thus become the fertile source of alienation, contempt, envy, hatred, and
@@ -1390,14 +1385,13 @@ wealth, usually doomed a labourer to a life of exploitation. This the
anarchists knew and they abhorred such a system."_ [**The Individualist
Anarchists: A critique of liberalism**, p. 102]
-And this desire for bargaining equality is reflected in their economic ideas
-and by removing these underlying economic ideas of the individualist
-anarchists, "anarcho"-capitalism makes a mockery of any ideas they do
-appropriate. Essentially, the Individualist Anarchists agreed with Rousseau
-that in order to prevent extreme inequality of fortunes you deprive people of
-the means to accumulate in the first place and **not** take away wealth from
-the rich. An important point which "anarcho"-capitalism fails to understand or
-appreciate.
+This desire for bargaining equality is reflected in their economic ideas and
+by removing these underlying economic ideas of the individualist anarchists,
+"anarcho"-capitalism makes a mockery of any ideas they do appropriate.
+Essentially, the Individualist Anarchists agreed with Rousseau that in order
+to prevent extreme inequality of fortunes you deprive people of the means to
+accumulate in the first place and **not** take away wealth from the rich. An
+important point which "anarcho"-capitalism fails to understand or appreciate.
The Individualist Anarchists assumed that exploitation of labour would be non-
existent in their system, so a general equality would prevail and so economic
@@ -1460,25 +1454,25 @@ little, if any, from that held by the ordinary economist."_ [**Op. Cit.**, no.
80, p. 4] So the likes of Tucker were well aware of the so-called marginalist
revolution and rejected it.
-Somewhat ironically, a key founders of "Austrian" economics was quoted
+Somewhat ironically, a key founder of "Austrian" economics was quoted
favourably in **Liberty** but only with regards to his devastating critique of
existing theories of interest and profit. Hugo Bilgram asked a defender of
-interest whether he had _"ever read Volume 1 of Bhm-Bawerk's 'Capital and
+interest whether he had _"ever read Volume 1 of Böhm-Bawerk's 'Capital and
Interest'"_ for in this volume _"the fructification theory is . . . completely
-refuted."_ Bilgram, needless to say, did not support Bhm-Bawerk's defence of
+refuted."_ Bilgram, needless to say, did not support Böhm-Bawerk's defence of
usury, instead arguing that restrictions in the amount of money forced people
to pay for its use and _"[t]his, and nothing else, [causes] the interest
accruing to capital, regarding which the modern economists are doing their
utmost to find a theory that will not expose the system of industrial piracy
-of today."_ He did not exclude Bhm-Bawerk's theory from his conclusion that
+of today."_ He did not exclude Böhm-Bawerk's theory from his conclusion that
_"since every one of these pet theories is based on some fallacy, [economists]
cannot agree upon any one."_ The abolition of the money monopoly will
_"abolish the power of capital to appropriate a net profit."_ [**Op. Cit.**,
-no. 282, p. 11] Tucker himself noted that Bhm-Bawerk _"has refuted all these
+no. 282, p. 11] Tucker himself noted that Böhm-Bawerk _"has refuted all these
ancient apologies for interest -- productivity of capital, abstinence, etc."_
[**Op. Cit.**, no. 287, p. 5] **Liberty** also published a synopsis of Francis
Tandy's **Voluntary Socialism**, whose chapter 6 was _"devoted to an analysis
-of value according to the marginal utility value of Bhm-Bawerk. It also deals
+of value according to the marginal utility value of Böhm-Bawerk. It also deals
with the Marxian theory of surplus value, showing that all our economic ills
are due to the existence of that surplus value."_ [**Op. Cit.**, no. 334, p.
5] Clearly, then, the individualist anarchists were aware of the "Austrian"
@@ -1490,12 +1484,12 @@ We have already critiqued the "time preference" justification for interest in
Rothbard argued that it _"should be remembered by radicals that, if they
wanted to, all workers could refuse to work for wages and instead form their
own producers' co-operatives and wait for years for their pay until the
-producers are sold to the consumers; the fact that they do not do so, shows
-the enormous advantage of the capital investment, wage-paying system as a
-means of allowing workers to earn money far in advance of the sale of their
-products."_ And how, Professor Rothbard, are these workers to live during the
-years they wait until their products are sold? The reason why workers do not
-work for themselves has nothing to do with "time preference" but their lack of
+products are sold to the consumers; the fact that they do not do so, shows the
+enormous advantage of the capital investment, wage-paying system as a means of
+allowing workers to earn money far in advance of the sale of their products."_
+And how, Professor Rothbard, are these workers to live during the years they
+wait until their products are sold? The reason why workers do not work for
+themselves has nothing to do with "time preference" but their lack of
resources, their **class** position. Showing how capitalist ideology clouds
the mind, Rothbard asserted that interest (_"in the shape of 'long-run'
profit"_) would still exist in a _"world in which everyone invested his own
@@ -1532,16 +1526,16 @@ slavery."_ [_"Labor, Wages, And Capital. Division Of Profits Scientifically
Considered,"_ **Brittan's Quarterly Journal**, I (1873), pp. 66-79]
What of the economic justification for that other great evil for individualist
-anarchists, rent? Rothbard attacked Adam Smith comment that landlords were
-monopolists who demanded rent for nature's produce and like to reap where they
+anarchists, rent? Rothbard attacked Adam Smith's comment that landlords were
+monopolists who demanded rent for nature's produce and liked to reap what they
never sowed. As he put it, Smith showed _"no hint of recognition here that the
landlord performs the vital function of allocating the land to its most
productive use."_ [**An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic
Thought**, vol. 1, p. 456] Yet, as Smith was well aware, it is the farmer who
has to feed himself and pay rent who decides how best to use the land, not the
landlord. All the landlord does is decide whether to throw the farmer off the
-land when a more profitable business opportunity arrives (as in, say, during
-the Highland clearances) or that it is more "productive" to export food while
+land when a more profitable business opportunity arrives (as in, say, the
+Highland clearances) or that it is more "productive" to export food while
local people starve (as in, say, the great Irish famine). It was precisely
this kind of arbitrary power which the individualist anarchists opposed. As
John Beverley Robinson put it, the _"land owner gives nothing whatever, but
@@ -1568,7 +1562,7 @@ Individualist: Land Reformer, Opponent of Henry George and Advocate of Land
Leasing, Now an Established Mode"_, pp. 383-96, **American Journal of
Economics and Sociology**, Vol. 39, No. 4, p. 394]
-Given Tucker's opposition to rent, interest and profit is should go without
+Given Tucker's opposition to rent, interest and profit it should go without
saying that he rejected the neo-classical and "Austrian" notion that a
workers' wages equalled the "marginal product," i.e. its contribution to the
production process (see [section C.2](secC2.html) for a critique of this
@@ -1593,9 +1587,9 @@ of that labour, considering _"the natural wage of labour is its product"_ and
_"that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income."_ [**Instead
of a Book**, p. 6]
-**Liberty** also favourably quoted a supporter of the silver coinage, General Francis A. Walker, and his arguments in favour of ending the gold standard. It praised his argument as _"far more sound and rational than that of the supercilios, narrow, bigoted monomentallists."_ Walker attacked those _"economists of the **a priori** school, who treat all things industrial as if they were in a state of flux, ready to be poured indifferently into any kind of mould or pattern."_ These economists _"are always on hand with the answer that industrial society will 'readjust' itself to the new conditions"_ and _"it would not matter if wages were at any time unduly depressed by combinations of employers, inasmuch as the excess of profits resulting would infallibly become capital, and as such, constitute an additional demand for labour . . . It has been the teaching of the economists of this sort which has so deeply discredited political economy with the labouring men on the one hand, and with practical business men on the other."_ The _"greatest part of the evil of a diminishing money supply is wrought through the discouragement of enterprise."_ [**Liberty**, no. 287, p. 11] Given that the "Austrian" school takes the **a priori** methodology to ridiculous extremes and is always on hand to defend _"excess of profits"_, _"combinations of employers"_ and the gold standard we can surmise Tucker's reaction to Rothbard's pet economic ideology.
+**Liberty** also favourably quoted a supporter of the silver coinage, General Francis A. Walker, and his arguments in favour of ending the gold standard. It praised his argument as _"far more sound and rational than that of the supercilious, narrow, bigoted monomentallists."_ Walker attacked those _"economists of the **a priori** school, who treat all things industrial as if they were in a state of flux, ready to be poured indifferently into any kind of mould or pattern."_ These economists _"are always on hand with the answer that industrial society will 'readjust' itself to the new conditions"_ and _"it would not matter if wages were at any time unduly depressed by combinations of employers, inasmuch as the excess of profits resulting would infallibly become capital, and as such, constitute an additional demand for labour . . . It has been the teaching of the economists of this sort which has so deeply discredited political economy with the labouring men on the one hand, and with practical business men on the other."_ The _"greatest part of the evil of a diminishing money supply is wrought through the discouragement of enterprise."_ [**Liberty**, no. 287, p. 11] Given that the "Austrian" school takes the **a priori** methodology to ridiculous extremes and is always on hand to defend _"excess of profits"_, _"combinations of employers"_ and the gold standard we can surmise Tucker's reaction to Rothbard's pet economic ideology.
-Somewhat ironically, give Rothbard's attempts to inflict bourgeois economics
+Somewhat ironically, given Rothbard's attempts to inflict bourgeois economics
along with lots of other capitalist ideology onto individualist anarchism,
Kropotkin noted that supporters of _"individualist anarchism . . . soon
realise that the individualisation they so highly praise is not attainable by
@@ -1607,17 +1601,17 @@ to co-opt the likes of Spooner and Tucker, this confusion only appears
persuasive by ignoring the bulk of their ideas as well as rewriting the
history of anarchism.
-So it can, we think, be save to assume that Tucker and other individualist
+So it can, we think, be safe to assume that Tucker and other individualist
anarchists would have little problem in refuting Rothbard's economic fallacies
-as well as his goldbug notions (which seem to be a form of the money monopoly
-in another form) and support for the land monopoly. Significantly, modern
-individualist anarchists like Kevin Carson have felt no need to embrace
-"Austrian" economics and retain their socialist analysis while, at the same
-time, making telling criticisms of Rothbard's favourite economic ideology and
-the apologetics for "actually existing" capitalism its supporters too often
-indulge in (Carson calls this _"vulgar libertarianism"_, wherein
-right-"libertarians" forget that the current economuy is far from their stated
-ideal when it is a case of defending corporations or the wealthy).
+as well as his goldbug notions (which seem to be the money monopoly in another
+form) and support for the land monopoly. Significantly, modern individualist
+anarchists like Kevin Carson have felt no need to embrace "Austrian" economics
+and retain their socialist analysis while, at the same time, making telling
+criticisms of Rothbard's favourite economic ideology and the apologetics for
+"actually existing" capitalism its supporters too often indulge in (Carson
+calls this _"vulgar libertarianism"_, wherein right-"libertarians" forget that
+the current economy is far from their stated ideal when it is a case of
+defending corporations or the wealthy).
## G.3.6 Would mutual banking simply cause inflation?
@@ -1638,7 +1632,7 @@ inflation. As more and more money was be pumped into the economy, it would
lead to more and more money chasing a given set of goods, so leading to price
rises and inflation. To prove this, Rothbard repeated Hume's argument that
_"if everybody magically woke up one morning with the quantity of money in his
-possession doubled"_ then prices would simply doubled. [_"The Spooner-Tucker
+possession doubled"_ then prices would simply double. [_"The Spooner-Tucker
Doctrine: An Economist's View"_, **Journal of Libertarian Studies**, vol. 20,
no. 1, p. 14 and p. 10]
@@ -1649,7 +1643,7 @@ money just "appears" by magic (perhaps by means of a laissez-fairy?). Milton
Friedman made the same mistake, although he used the more up to date example
of government helicopters dropping bank notes. As post-Keynesian economist
Nicholas Kaldor pointed out with regards to Friedman's position, the
-_"transmission mechanism from money to income remained a 'black box' \-- he
+_"transmission mechanism from money to income remained a 'black box' -- he
could not explain it, and he did not attempt to explain it either. When it
came to the question of **how** the authorities increase the supply of bank
notes in circulation he answered that they are scattered over populated areas
@@ -1674,9 +1668,9 @@ Firstly, the claim that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary
phenomena has been empirically refuted -- often using Friedman's own data and
attempts to apply his dogma in real life. As we noted in [section
C.8.3](secC8.html#secc83), the growth of the money supply and inflation have
-no fixed relationship, with money supply increasing while inflation falling.
-As such, _"the claim that inflation is always and everywhere caused by
-increases in the money supply, and that the rate of inflation bears a stable,
+no fixed relationship, with money supply increasing while inflation falls. As
+such, _"the claim that inflation is always and everywhere caused by increases
+in the money supply, and that the rate of inflation bears a stable,
predictable relationship to increases in the money supply is ridiculous."_
[Paul Ormerod, **The Death of Economics**, p. 96] This means that the
assumption that increasing the money supply by generating credit will always
@@ -1706,7 +1700,7 @@ As leading Post-Keynesian economist Paul Davidson argued, the notion that
_"inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon"_ (to use
Friedman's expression) is _"ultimately based on the old homily that inflation
is merely 'too many dollars chasing too few goods.'"_ Davidson notes that
-_"[t]his 'too many dollars clich is usually illustrated by employing a two-
+_"[t]his 'too many dollars cliché is usually illustrated by employing a two-
island parable. Imagine a hypothetical island where the only available goods
are 10 apples and the money supply consists of, say, 10 $1 bills. If all the
dollars are used to purchase the apples, the price per apple will be $1. For
@@ -1749,11 +1743,11 @@ restrictions [on money and credit], imagine the rapid growth of wealth, and
the equity in its distribution, that would result."_ [John Beverley Robinson,
**The Individualist Anarchists**, p. 144] Thus Tucker:
-> _ "A is a farmer owning a farm. He mortgages his farm to a bank for $1,000,
+> _"A is a farmer owning a farm. He mortgages his farm to a bank for $1,000,
giving the bank a mortgage note for that sum and receiving in exchange the
bank's notes for the same sum, which are secured by the mortgage. With the
-bank-notes A buys farming tools of B. The next day B uses the notes to buy of
-C the materials used in the manufacture of tools. The day after, C in turn
+bank-notes A buys farming tools off B. The next day B uses the notes to buy
+off C the materials used in the manufacture of tools. The day after, C in turn
pays them to D in exchange for something he needs. At the end of a year, after
a constant succession of exchanges, the notes are in the hands of Z, a dealer
in farm produce. He pays them to A, who gives in return $1,000 worth of farm
@@ -1791,19 +1785,19 @@ analysis is flawed as it cannot reasonably be asserted that all
make unwise decisions all the time, irrespective of the supply of credit. Thus
it is simply false to assert, as Rothbard did, that the _"process of
inflation, as carried out in the real [sic!] world"_ is based on _"new money"_
-entered the market by means of _"the loan market"_ but _"this fall is strictly
-temporary, and the market soon restores the rate to its proper level."_ A
-crash, according to Rothbard, is the process of restoring the rate of interest
-to its _"proper"_ level yet a crash can occur even if the interest rate is at
-that rate, assuming that the banks can discover this equilibrium rate and have
-an incentive to do so (as we discussed in [section C.8](secC8.html) both are
-unlikely). Ultimately, credit expansion fails under capitalism because it runs
-into the contradictions within the capitalist economy, the need for
-capitalists, financiers and landlords to make profits via exploiting labour.
-As interest rates increase, capitalists have to service their rising debts
-putting pressure on their profit margins and so raising the number of
-bankruptcies. In an economy without non-labour income, the individualist
-anarchists argued, this process is undercut if not eliminated.
+entering the market by means of _"the loan market"_ but _"this fall is
+strictly temporary, and the market soon restores the rate to its proper
+level."_ A crash, according to Rothbard, is the process of restoring the rate
+of interest to its _"proper"_ level yet a crash can occur even if the interest
+rate is at that rate, assuming that the banks can discover this equilibrium
+rate and have an incentive to do so (as we discussed in [section
+C.8](secC8.html) both are unlikely). Ultimately, credit expansion fails under
+capitalism because it runs into the contradictions within the capitalist
+economy, the need for capitalists, financiers and landlords to make profits
+via exploiting labour. As interest rates increase, capitalists have to service
+their rising debts putting pressure on their profit margins and so raising the
+number of bankruptcies. In an economy without non-labour income, the
+individualist anarchists argued, this process is undercut if not eliminated.
So expanding this from the world of fictional government helicopters and money
fairies, we can see why Rothbard is wrong. Mutual banks operate on the basis
@@ -1840,8 +1834,8 @@ better economic environment to ask for better wages and conditions. This was,
it should be stressed, a key reason why the individualist anarchists supported
mutual banking:
-> _ "people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously
-high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on
+> _"people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high
+rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on
business will find their difficulties removed . . . This facility of acquiring
capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create
an unprecedented demand for labour -- a demand which will always be in excess
@@ -1868,7 +1862,7 @@ efficient and humane allocation of resources.
By supplying working people with money which is used to create productive co-
operatives and demand for their products, mutual banks increase the amount of
-goods and services in circulation as it increases the money supply. Combined
+goods and services in circulation as they increase the money supply. Combined
with the elimination of profit, rent and interest, inflationary pressures are
effectively undercut (it makes much more sense to talk of a interest/rent
/profits-prices spiral rather than a wages-prices spiral when discussing
@@ -1897,13 +1891,13 @@ be impossible, the state would have to use interest rates. To reduce the
demand for money, interest rates would be raised higher and higher, causing a
deep recession as business cannot maintain their debt payments and go
bankrupt. This would cause unemployment to rise, weakening workers' bargaining
-power and skewing the economy back towards the bosses and profits \-- so
-making working people pay for capitalism's crisis. Which, essentially, is what
-the Thatcher and Reagan governments did in the early 1980s. Finding it
-impossible to control the money supply, they raised interest rates to dampen
-down the demand for credit, which provoked a deep recession. Faced with
-massive unemployment, workers' market power decreased and their bosses
-increased, causing a shift in power and income towards capital.
+power and skewing the economy back towards the bosses and profits -- so making
+working people pay for capitalism's crisis. Which, essentially, is what the
+Thatcher and Reagan governments did in the early 1980s. Finding it impossible
+to control the money supply, they raised interest rates to dampen down the
+demand for credit, which provoked a deep recession. Faced with massive
+unemployment, workers' market power decreased and their bosses increased,
+causing a shift in power and income towards capital.
So, obviously, in a capitalist economy the increasing of credit is a source of
instability. While not causing the business cycle, it does increase its
@@ -1986,7 +1980,7 @@ exactly the same conclusions as the Individualist Anarchists and Mutualists.
Needless to say, social anarchists do not agree that mutual banking can reform
capitalism away. As we discuss in [section G.4](secG4.html), this is due to
-many factors, including the nature barriers to competition capital
+many factors, including the natural barriers to competition capital
accumulation creates. However, this critique is based on the real economy and
does not reflect Rothbard's abstract theorising based on pre-scientific
methodology. While other anarchists may reject certain aspects of Tucker's
@@ -1998,3 +1992,8 @@ the labourers."_ [Don Werkheiser, _"Benjamin R. Tucker: Champion of Free
Money"_, pp. 212-221, **Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of Liberty**,
Coughlin, Hamilton and Sullivan (eds.), p. 212]
+[‹ G.2 Why do individualist anarchists reject social
+anarchism?](/afaq/secG2.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secGcon.html
+"Go to parent page" ) [G.4 Why do social anarchists reject individualist
+anarchism? ›](/afaq/secG4.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secG4.md b/markdown/secG4.md
index 224c7e309e00e50c7c67be0ad99c65f2aca66a55..43e7a77978bdbad3fece58ab3f155149f80c8b68 100644
--- a/markdown/secG4.md
+++ b/markdown/secG4.md
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ _"chronologically was a kindred but nearly unconnected phenomenon in America,
seeking the same ends through individualistic rather than collectivistic
dynamics."_ [**Men Against the State**, p. ix]
-When the two movements meet in American in the 1880s, the similarities and
+When the two movements meet in America in the 1880s, the similarities and
differences of both came into sharp relief. While both social and
individualist anarchists reject capitalism as well as the state and seek an
end to the exploitation of labour by capital (i.e. to usury in all its forms),
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ workers received the full product of their labour.
Thus their vision of a free society and the means to achieve it were somewhat
different (although, we stress, **not** mutually exclusive as communist
-anarchists supported artisan possession of the means of possession for those
+anarchists supported artisan possession of the means of production for those
who rejected communism and the Individualist Anarchists supported voluntary
communism). Tucker argued that a communist could not be an anarchist and the
communist-anarchists argued that Individualist Anarchism could not end the
@@ -34,20 +34,16 @@ why Individualist Anarchists reject social anarchism).
Malatesta summarises the essential points of difference as well as the source
of much of the misunderstandings:
-> _ "The individualists assume, or speak as if they assumed, that the
+> _"The individualists assume, or speak as if they assumed, that the
(anarchist) communists wish to impose communism, which of course would put
-them right outside the ranks of anarchism.
+them right outside the ranks of anarchism. _
->
-
-> "The communists assume, or speak as if they assumed, that the (anarchist)
+> _"The communists assume, or speak as if they assumed, that the (anarchist)
individualists reject every idea of association, want the struggle between
men, the domination of the strongest -- and this would put them not only
-outside the anarchist movement but outside humanity.
-
->
+outside the anarchist movement but outside humanity. _
-> "In reality those who are communists are such because they see in communism
+> _"In reality those who are communists are such because they see in communism
freely accepted the realisation of brotherhood, and the best guarantee for
individual freedom. And individualists, those who are really anarchists, are
anti-communist because they fear that communism would subject individuals
@@ -57,19 +53,15 @@ taking possession of the power to dispose of material things and thus of the
people who need them. Therefore they want each individual, or each group, to
be in a position to enjoy freely the product of their labour in conditions of
equality with other individuals and groups, with whom they would maintain
-relations of justice and equity.
-
->
+relations of justice and equity. _
-> "In which case it is clear that there is no basic difference between us.
+> _"In which case it is clear that there is no basic difference between us.
But, according to the communists, justice and equity are, under natural
conditions impossible of attainment in an individualistic society, and thus
-freedom too would not be attained.
+freedom too would not be attained. _
->
-
-> "If climatic conditions throughout the world were the same, if the land were
-everywhere equally fertile, if raw materials were evenly distributed and
+> _"If climatic conditions throughout the world were the same, if the land
+were everywhere equally fertile, if raw materials were evenly distributed and
within reach of all who needed them, if social development were the same
everywhere in the world . . . then one could conceive of everyone . . .
finding the land, tools and raw materials needed to work and produce
@@ -90,7 +82,7 @@ the issue of wage labour and anarchist principles in the [next
section](secG4.html#secg41) and argue in [section G.4.2](secG4.html#secg42)
that Tucker's support for wage-labour, like any authoritarian social
relationship, ensures that this is an inconsistent form of anarchism. Here we
-concentration on issues of inequality and markets.
+concentrate on issues of inequality and markets.
First, we must stress that individualist anarchism plays an important role in
reminding all socialists that capitalism does **not** equal the market.
@@ -127,8 +119,8 @@ So, two key issues between social and individualist anarchism are the related
subjects of property and competition. As Voltairine de Cleyre put it when she
was an individualist anarchist:
-> _ "She and I hold many differing views on both Economy and Morals . . . Miss
-Goldmann [sic!] is a communist; I am an individualist. She wishes to destroy
+> _"She and I hold many differing views on both Economy and Morals . . . Miss
+Goldmann [sic] is a communist; I am an individualist. She wishes to destroy
the right of property, I wish to assert it. I make my war upon privilege and
authority, whereby the right of property, the true right in that which is
proper to the individual, is annihilated. She believes that co-operation would
@@ -159,9 +151,9 @@ the wages system, i.e., payment according to work done. This meant that a
system of individualist distribution was forced upon a fundamentally co-
operative system of production and so was illogical and unjust (see
Kropotkin's _"The Collectivist Wage System"_ in **The Conquest of Bread**).
-Thus Daniel Gurin:
+Thus Daniel Guérin:
-> _ "This method of remuneration, derived from modified individualism, is in
+> _"This method of remuneration, derived from modified individualism, is in
contradiction to collective ownership of the means of production, and cannot
bring about a profound revolutionary change in man. It is incompatible with
anarchism; a new form of ownership requires a new form of remuneration.
@@ -179,39 +171,39 @@ product's price was the result of better land or more machinery, luck, the
willingness to externalise costs, and so on? Voltairine de Cleyre summarised
this problem and the obvious solution:
-> _ "I concluded that as to the question of exchange and money, it was so
+> _"I concluded that as to the question of exchange and money, it was so
exceedingly bewildering, so impossible of settlement among the professors
themselves, as to the nature of value, and the representation of value, and
the unit of value, and the numberless multiplications and divisions of the
subject, that the best thing ordinary workingmen or women could do was to
organise their industry so as to get rid of money altogether. I figured it
-this way: Im not any more a fool than the rest of ordinary humanity; Ive
+this way: I’m not any more a fool than the rest of ordinary humanity; I’ve
figured and figured away on this thing for years, and directly I thought
myself middling straight, there came another money reformer and showed me the
-hole in that scheme, till, at last , it appears that between 'bills of
-credit,' and 'labour notes' and 'time checks,' and 'mutual bank issues,' and
-'the invariable unit of value,' none of them have any sense. How many
-thousands of years is it going to get this sort of thing into peoples heads by
-mere preaching of theories. Let it be this way: Let there be an end of the
-special monopoly on securities for money issues. Let every community go ahead
-and try some member's money scheme if it wants; - let every individual try it
-if he pleases. But better for the working people let them all go. Let them
-produce together, co-operatively rather than as employer and employed; let
-them fraternise group by group, let each use what he needs of his own product,
-and deposit the rest in the storage-houses, and let those others who need
-goods have them as occasion arises."_ [**Exquisite Rebel**, p. 62]
+hole in that scheme, till, at last, it appears that between 'bills of credit,'
+and 'labour notes' and 'time checks,' and 'mutual bank issues,' and 'the
+invariable unit of value,' none of them have any sense. How many thousands of
+years is it going to get this sort of thing into people’s heads by mere
+preaching of theories. Let it be this way: Let there be an end of the special
+monopoly on securities for money issues. Let every community go ahead and try
+some member's money scheme if it wants; - let every individual try it if he
+pleases. But better for the working people let them all go. Let them produce
+together, co-operatively rather than as employer and employed; let them
+fraternise group by group, let each use what he needs of his own product, and
+deposit the rest in the storage-houses, and let those others who need goods
+have them as occasion arises."_ [**Exquisite Rebel**, p. 62]
And, obviously, it must be stressed that "property" in the sense of personal
possessions would still exist in communist-anarchism. As the co-founder of
**Freedom** put it:
-> _ "Does Anarchism, then, it may be asked, acknowledge no **Meum** or
+> _"Does Anarchism, then, it may be asked, acknowledge no **Meum** or
**Tuum**, no personal property? In a society in which every man is free to
take what he requires, it is hardly conceivable that personal necessaries and
conveniences will not be appropriated, and difficult to imagine why they
should not . . . When property is protected by no legal enactments, backed by
-armed force, and is unable to buy personal service, it resuscitation on such a
-scale as to be dangerous to society is little to be dreaded. The amount
+armed force, and is unable to buy personal service, its resuscitation on such
+a scale as to be dangerous to society is little to be dreaded. The amount
appropriated by each individual, and the manner of his appropriation, must be
left to his own conscience, and the pressure exercised upon him by the moral
sense and distinct interests of his neighbours."_ [Charlotte Wilson,
@@ -237,7 +229,7 @@ unless they agree to be their servants?
Which brings us to a key issue between certain forms of individualist
anarchism and social anarchism, namely the issue of wage labour. As capitalism
has progressed, the size of workplaces and firms have increased. This has lead
-to a situation were ownership and use has divorced, with property being used
+to a situation where ownership and use has divorced, with property being used
by a group of individuals distinct from the few who are legally proclaimed to
be its owners. The key problem arises in the case of workplaces and how do
non-possessors gain access to them. Under social anarchism, any new members of
@@ -248,11 +240,10 @@ individuals work tasks but rather it ensures that all individuals have free
access to the means of life. Under individualist anarchism, however, the
situation is not as clear with some (like Tucker) supporting wage labour. This
suggests that the holders of workplaces can exclude others from the means of
-life they possess and only allow them access only under conditions which
-create hierarchical social relationships between them. Thus we could have a
-situation in which the owners who actually manage their own workplaces are, in
-effect, working capitalists who hire others to do specific tasks in return for
-a wage.
+life they possess and only allow them access under conditions which create
+hierarchical social relationships between them. Thus we could have a situation
+in which the owners who actually manage their own workplaces are, in effect,
+working capitalists who hire others to do specific tasks in return for a wage.
The problem is highlighted in Tucker's description of what would replace the
current system of statism (and note he calls it _"scientific socialism"_ thus
@@ -293,9 +284,9 @@ the situation. [**The Individualist Anarchists**, p. 25 and p. 162]
Kropotkin saw the danger, arguing that such an idea _"runs against the
feelings of equality of most of us"_ and _"brings the would-be
'Individualists' dangerously near to those who imagine themselves to represent
-a 'superior breed' \-- those to whom we owe the State . . . and all other
-forms of oppression."_ [**Evolution and Environment**, p. 84] As we discuss in
-the [next section](secG4.html#secg41), it is clear that wage labour (like any
+a 'superior breed' -- those to whom we owe the State . . . and all other forms
+of oppression."_ [**Evolution and Environment**, p. 84] As we discuss in the
+[next section](secG4.html#secg41), it is clear that wage labour (like any
hierarchical organisation) is not consistent with general anarchist principles
and, furthermore, in direct contradiction to individualist anarchist
principles of "occupancy and use." Only if "occupancy and use" is consistently
@@ -319,15 +310,14 @@ entry. This process can be seen under capitalism when co-operatives hire wage
workers and not include them as members of the association (i.e. they exercise
their ownership rights to exclude others). As Proudhon argued:
-> _"I have shown the contractor, at the birth of industry, negotiating on
-equal terms with his comrades, who have since become his workmen. It is plain,
+> _"I have shown the entrepreneur, at the birth of industry, negotiating on
+equal terms with his comrades, who have since become his workers. It is plain,
in fact, that this original equality was bound to disappear through the
-advantageous position of the master and the dependent position of the wage-
-workers. In vain does the law assure the right of each to enterprise . . .
-When an establishment has had leisure to develop itself, enlarge its
-foundations, ballast itself with capital, and assure itself a body of patrons,
-what can a workman do against a power so superior?"_ [**System of Economical
-Contradictions**, p. 202]
+advantageous position of the master and the dependence of the wage-workers. In
+vain does the law assure the right of each to enterprise . . . When an
+establishment has had leisure to develop itself, enlarge its foundations,
+ballast itself with capital, and assure itself a body of patrons, what can a
+workman do against a power so superior?"_ [**Property is Theft!**, p. 192]
Voltairine de Cleyre also came to this conclusion. Discussing the limitations
of the Single Tax land reform, she noted that _"the stubborn fact always came
@@ -352,11 +342,11 @@ socialist and so not anarchist. Moreover, the successful business person would
seek to secure his or her property and power and so employ police to do so.
_"I confess that I am not in love with all these little states,"_ proclaimed
de Cleyre, _"and it is . . . the thought of the anarchist policeman that has
-driven me out of the individualist's camp, wherein I for some time resided." _
-[quoted by Eugenia C. Delamotte, **Gates of Freedom**, p. 25] This outcome can
-only be avoided by consistently applying "occupancy and use" in such as way as
-to eliminate wage labour totally. Only this can achieve a society based on
-freedom **of** association as well as freedom **within** association.
+driven me out of the individualist's camp, wherein I for some time resided."
+_[quoted by Eugenia C. Delamotte, **Gates of Freedom**, p. 25] This outcome
+can only be avoided by consistently applying "occupancy and use" in such as
+way as to eliminate wage labour totally. Only this can achieve a society based
+on freedom **of** association as well as freedom **within** association.
As we noted in [section G.2](secG2.html), one of the worries of individualist
anarchists is that social anarchism would subject individuals to group
@@ -406,31 +396,30 @@ impossible to specify or supply group or public goods. In addition, occupancy
and use would, on the face of it, preclude such amenities which are utilised
by members of a community such as parks, roads or bridges -- anything which is
used but not occupied continually. In terms of roads and bridges, who actually
-occupies and uses them? The drivers? Those who maintain it? The occupiers of
-the houses which it passes? Those who funded it construction? If the last,
-then why does this not apply to housing and other buildings left on land? And
-how are the owners to collect a return on their investment unless by employing
-police to bar access to non-payers? And would such absentee owners not also
-seek to extend their appropriations to other forms of property? Would it not
-be far easier to simply communalise such forms of commonly used "property"
-rather than seek to burden individuals and society with the costs of policing
-and restricting access to them?
+occupies and uses them? The drivers? Those who maintain them? The occupiers of
+the houses which the road passes? Those who funded its construction? If the
+last, then why does this not apply to housing and other buildings left on
+land? And how are the owners to collect a return on their investment unless by
+employing police to bar access to non-payers? And would such absentee owners
+not also seek to extend their appropriations to other forms of property? Would
+it not be far easier to simply communalise such forms of commonly used
+"property" rather than seek to burden individuals and society with the costs
+of policing and restricting access to them?
After all, social anarchists note, for Proudhon there was a series of
industries and services that he had no qualms about calling _"public works"_
and which he considered best handled by communes and their federations. Thus
-_"the control undertaking such works will belong to the municipalities, and to
-districts within their jurisdiction"_ while _"the control of carrying them out
-will rest with the workmen's associations."_ This was due to both their nature
-and libertarian values and so the _"direct, sovereign initiative of
-localities, in arranging for public works that belong to them, is a
-consequence of the democratic principle and the free contract: their
-subordination to the State is . . . a return to feudalism."_ Workers' self-
-management of such public workers was, again, a matter of libertarian
-principles for _"it becomes necessary for the workers to form themselves into
-democratic societies, with equal conditions for all members, on pain of a
-relapse into feudalism."_ [**The General Idea of the Revolution**, p. 276 and
-p. 277]
+_"the initiative of communes and departments as to works that operate within
+their jurisdiction"_ with _"the initiative of the workers companies as to
+carrying the works out."_ This was due to both their nature and libertarian
+values and so the _"direct, sovereign initiative of localities, in arranging
+for public works that belong to them, is a consequence of the democratic
+principle and the free contract: their subordination to the State is . . . a
+return to feudalism."_ Workers' self-management of such public works was,
+again, a matter of libertarian principles for _"it becomes necessary for the
+workers to form themselves into democratic societies, with equal conditions
+for all members, on pain of a relapse into feudalism."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp.
+595-6]
In the case of a park, either it is open to all or it is fenced off and police
used to bar access. Taking "occupancy and use" as our starting point then it
@@ -445,15 +434,15 @@ the case of new people using the amenity, either they are excluded from it
the park is, in effect, common property and socialised. In such circumstances,
it would be far easier simply to ignore the issue of individual contributions
and base access on need (i.e., communistic principles). However, as already
-indicated in [section G.2.1](secG2.html#secg21), social anarchists reject
-attempts to coerce other workers into joining a co-operative or commune.
-Freedom cannot be given, it must be taken and social anarchism, like all forms
-of anarchy, cannot be imposed. How those who reject social anarchism will gain
-access to common property will depend, undoubtedly, on specific circumstances
-and who exactly is involved and how they wish to utilise it. As such, it will
-be difficult to generalise as each commune will determine what is best and
-reach the appropriate contracts with any individualist anarchists in their
-midst or vicinity.
+indicated in section G.2.1, social anarchists reject attempts to coerce other
+workers into joining a co-operative or commune. Freedom cannot be given, it
+must be taken and social anarchism, like all forms of anarchy, cannot be
+imposed. How those who reject social anarchism will gain access to common
+property will depend, undoubtedly, on specific circumstances and who exactly
+is involved and how they wish to utilise it. As such, it will be difficult to
+generalise as each commune will determine what is best and reach the
+appropriate contracts with any individualist anarchists in their midst or
+vicinity.
It should also be pointed out (and this may seem ironic), wage labour does
have the advantage that people can move to new locations and work without
@@ -465,7 +454,7 @@ abandoned and so its users may be forced to stay in one location until they
find a buyer for it. This is not an issue in social anarchism as access to the
means of life is guaranteed to all members of the free society.
-Most social anarchists also are critical of the means which individualists
+Most social anarchists also are critical of the means which individualist
anarchists support to achieve anarchy, namely to abolish capitalism by the
creation of mutual banks which would compete exploitation and oppression away.
While mutual banks could aid the position of working class people under
@@ -491,7 +480,7 @@ could be reformed away. As we noted in [section G.1.1](secG1.html#secg11), he
_"had come to believe that free banking and similar measures, even if
inaugurated, were no longer adequate to break the monopoly of capitalism or
weaken the authority of the state."_ [Paul Avrich, **Anarchist Voices**, p. 6]
-While admitted that political or revolutionary action was required to destroy
+While admitting that political or revolutionary action was required to destroy
the concentrations of capital which made anarchy impossible even with free
competition, he rejected the suggestion that individualist anarchists should
join in such activity. Voltairine de Cleyre came to similar conclusions
@@ -500,8 +489,8 @@ anarchist sometime in 1908. Perhaps unsurprisingly, one historian argues that
as the _"native American variety of anarchism dissolved in the face of
increasing State repression and industrialisation, rationalisation, and
concentration of capital, American anarchists were forced either to acquiesce
-or to seek a more militant stain of anarchism: this latter presented itself in
-the form of Communist Anarchism . . . Faith in peaceful evolution toward an
+or to seek a more militant strain of anarchism: this latter presented itself
+in the form of Communist Anarchism . . . Faith in peaceful evolution toward an
anarchist society seemed archaic and gradually faded."_ [Kline, **The
Individualist Anarchists**, p. 83]
@@ -526,29 +515,29 @@ the means of production they used). The individual workers involved may
available rather than what they really want. Which, of course, is the same as
under capitalism.
-This was why Proudhon argued that _"every worker employed in the association"_
-must have _"an undivided share in the property of the company"_ in order to
-ensure workers' self-management. [**Op. Cit.**, p. 222] Only this could ensure
-_"occupancy and use"_ and so self-management in a free society (i.e. keep that
-society free). Thus in anarchism, as de Cleyre summarised, it is _"a settled
-thing that to be free one must have liberty of access to the sources and means
-of production"_ Without socialisation of the means of life, liberty of access
-could be denied. Little wonder she argued that she had become _"convinced that
-a number of the fundamental propositions of individualistic economy would
-result in the destruction of equal liberty."_ The only logical anarchist
-position is _"that some settlement of the whole labour question was needed
-which would not split up the people again into land possessors and employed
-wage-earners."_ Hence her movement from individualism towards, first,
-mutualism and then communism -- it was the only logical position to take in a
-rapidly industrialising America which had made certain concepts of
-individualism obsolete. It was her love of freedom which made her sensitive to
-the possibility of any degeneration back into capitalism: _"the instinct of
-liberty naturally revolted not only at economic servitude, but at the outcome
-of it, class-lines."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 58, p. 105, p. 61 and p. 55] As we
-argue in [section G.4.2](secG4.html#secg42) such a possibility can be avoided
-only by a consistent application of "occupancy and use" which, in practice,
-would be nearly identical to the communalisation or socialisation of the means
-of life.
+This was why Proudhon argued that _"every individual employed in the
+association"_ must have _"an undivided share in the property of the company"_
+in order to ensure workers' self-management. [**Op. Cit.**, p. 585] Only this
+could ensure _"occupancy and use"_ and so self-management in a free society
+(i.e. keep that society free). Thus in anarchism, as de Cleyre summarised, it
+is _"a settled thing that to be free one must have liberty of access to the
+sources and means of production"_ Without socialisation of the means of life,
+liberty of access could be denied. Little wonder she argued that she had
+become _"convinced that a number of the fundamental propositions of
+individualistic economy would result in the destruction of equal liberty."_
+The only logical anarchist position is _"that some settlement of the whole
+labour question was needed which would not split up the people again into land
+possessors and employed wage-earners."_ Hence her movement from individualism
+towards, first, mutualism and then communism -- it was the only logical
+position to take in a rapidly industrialising America which had made certain
+concepts of individualism obsolete. It was her love of freedom which made her
+sensitive to the possibility of any degeneration back into capitalism: _"the
+instinct of liberty naturally revolted not only at economic servitude, but at
+the outcome of it, class-lines."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 58, p. 105, p. 61 and p.
+55] As we argue in [section G.4.2](secG4.html#secg42) such a possibility can
+be avoided only by a consistent application of "occupancy and use" which, in
+practice, would be nearly identical to the communalisation or socialisation of
+the means of life.
This issue is related to the question of inequality within a market economy
and whether free exchanges tend to reduce or increase any initial
@@ -559,21 +548,20 @@ of a good **cannot** really equal the multitude of costs within it (and so
price can only equal a workers' labour in those few cases where that labour
was applied in average circumstances). This issue was recognised by Tucker,
who argued that _"economic rent . . . is one of nature's inequalities. It will
-probably remain with us always. Complete liberty will every much lessen it; of
-that I have no doubt."_ [_"Why I am an Anarchist"_, pp. 132-6, **Man!**, M.
-Graham (ed.), pp. 135-6] However, argue social anarchists, the logic of market
-exchange produces a situation where the stronger party to a contract seeks to
-maximise their advantage. Given this, free exchange will tend to **increase**
-differences in wealth and income over time, not eliminate them. As Daniel
-Gurin summarised:
-
-> _ "Competition and the so-called market economy inevitably produce
-inequality and exploitation, and would do so even if one started from complete
-equality. They could not be combined with workers' self-management unless it
-were on a temporary basis, as a necessary evil, until (1) a psychology of
-'honest exchange' had developed among the workers; (2) most important, society
-as a whole had passed from conditions of shortage to the stage of abundance,
-when competition would lose its purpose . . . The libertarian communist would
+probably remain with us always. Complete liberty will very much lessen it; of
+that I have no doubt."_ [**Why I am an Anarchist**, pp. 135-6] However, argue
+social anarchists, the logic of market exchange produces a situation where the
+stronger party to a contract seeks to maximise their advantage. Given this,
+free exchange will tend to **increase** differences in wealth and income over
+time, not eliminate them. As Daniel Guérin summarised:
+
+> _"Competition and the so-called market economy inevitably produce inequality
+and exploitation, and would do so even if one started from complete equality.
+They could not be combined with workers' self-management unless it were on a
+temporary basis, as a necessary evil, until (1) a psychology of 'honest
+exchange' had developed among the workers; (2) most important, society as a
+whole had passed from conditions of shortage to the stage of abundance, when
+competition would lose its purpose . . . The libertarian communist would
condemn Proudhon's version of a collective economy as being based on a
principle of conflict; competitors would be in a position of equality at the
start, only to be hurled into a struggle which would inevitably produce
@@ -590,7 +578,7 @@ has a claim on account of this inequality . . . [it is] the other land workers
who hold inferior land. That is why in our scheme for liquidation [of
capitalism] we stipulated that every variety of cultivation should pay a
proportional contribution, destined to accomplish a balancing of returns among
-farm workers and an assurance of products."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 209] His
+farm workers and an assurance of products."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 582] His
advocacy of federations of workers' associations was, likewise, seen as a
means of abolishing inequalities.
@@ -607,18 +595,16 @@ communist-anarchist paper **Freedom** argued in the 1880s:
> _"Are not the scandalous inequalities in the distribution of wealth today
merely the culminate effect of the principle that every man is justified in
securing to himself everything that his chances and capacities enable him to
-lay hands on?
-
->
+lay hands on? _
-> "If the social revolution which we are living means anything, it means the
+> _"If the social revolution which we are living means anything, it means the
destruction of this detestable economic principle, which delivers over the
more social members of the community to the domination of the most unsocial
and self-interested."_ [**Freedom**, vol. 2, no. 19]
-**Freedom**, it should be noted, is slightly misrepresenting the position of individualist anarchists. They did **not** argue that every person could appropriate all the property he or she could. Most obviously, in terms of land they were consistently opposed to a person owning more of it than they actually used. They also tended to apply this to what was on the land as well, arguing that any buildings on it were abandoned when the owner no longer used them. Given this, individualist anarchists have stressed that such a system would be unlikely to produce the inequalities associated with capitalism (as Kropotkin noted, equality was essential and was implicitly acknowledged by individualists themselves who argued that their system _"would offer no danger, because the rights of each individual would have been limited by the equal rights of all others."_ [**Evolution and Environment**, p. 85]). Thus contemporary individualist anarchist Joe Peacott:
+**Freedom**, it should be noted, is slightly misrepresenting the position of individualist anarchists. They did **not** argue that every person could appropriate all the property he or she could. Most obviously, in terms of land they were consistently opposed to a person owning more of it than they actually used. They also tended to apply this to what was on the land as well, arguing that any buildings on it were abandoned when the owner no longer used them. Given this, individualist anarchists have stressed that such a system would be unlikely to produce the inequalities associated with capitalism (as Kropotkin noted, equality was essential and was implicitly acknowledged by individualists themselves who argued that their system _"would offer no danger, because the rights of each individual would have been limited by the equal rights of all others."_ [**Evolution and Environment**, p. 85]). Thus contemporary individualist anarchist Joe Peacott:
-> _ "Although individualists envision a society based on private property, we
+> _"Although individualists envision a society based on private property, we
oppose the economic relationships of capitalism, whose supporters misuse words
like private enterprise and free markets to justify a system of monopoly
ownership in land and the means of production which allows some to skim off
@@ -631,21 +617,17 @@ intervention in economic transactions makes it impossible for most workers to
become truly independent of the predation of capitalists, banks, and
landlords. Individualists argue that without the state to enforce the rules of
the capitalist economy, workers would not allow themselves to be exploited by
-these thieves and capitalism would not be able to exist . . .
+these thieves and capitalism would not be able to exist . . . _
->
-
-> "One of the criticisms of individualist economic proposals raised by other
+> _"One of the criticisms of individualist economic proposals raised by other
anarchists is that a system based on private ownership would result in some
level of difference among people in regard to the quality or quantity of
possessions they have. In a society where people are able to realise the full
value of their labour, one who works harder or better than another will
possess or have the ability to acquire more things than someone who works less
-or is less skilled at a particular occupation . . .
-
->
+or is less skilled at a particular occupation . . . _
-> "The differences in wealth that arise in an individualist community would
+> _"The differences in wealth that arise in an individualist community would
likely be relatively small. Without the ability to profit from the labour of
others, generate interest from providing credit, or extort rent from letting
out land or property, individuals would not be capable of generating the huge
@@ -734,7 +716,7 @@ was always a possibility. It is difficult to see how, for example, car workers
or IT programmers could produce for their own consumption using their own
tools.
-So in a market economy with a well developed division of labour it is possible
+So in a market economy with a well-developed division of labour it is possible
for a separation of workers from their means of production to occur. This is
particularly the case when the predominant economic activity is not farming.
Thus the net effect of market transactions could be to re-introduce class
@@ -743,9 +725,9 @@ developed without state aid would make it no less unfree and unjust. It is of
little use to point out that such a situation is **not** what the
Individualist Anarchists desired for it is a question of whether their ideas
would actually result in what they wanted. Social anarchists have fears that
-it will not. Significantly, as we noted in [section G.3](secG3.html), Tucker
+they will not. Significantly, as we noted in [section G.3](secG3.html), Tucker
was sensible enough to argue that those subject to such developments should
-rebel against it.
+rebel against them.
In response, individualist anarchists could argue that the alternative to
markets would be authoritarian (i.e., some form of central planning) and/or
@@ -785,7 +767,7 @@ bigger slice of profits than (and at the expense of) others. This means that
exploitation would still exist as larger companies could charge more than cost
for their products. It could be argued that the ethos of an anarchist society
would prevent such developments happening but, as Kropotkin noted, this has
-problems, firstly because of _"the difficulty if estimating the **market**
+problems, firstly because of _"the difficulty of estimating the **market**
value"_ of a product based on _"average time"_ or cost necessary to produce it
and, secondly, if that could be done then to get people _"to agree upon such
an estimation of their work would already require a deep penetration of the
@@ -812,9 +794,9 @@ earlier point that, for most social anarchists, capitalism cannot be reformed
away. As such, social anarchists would tend to agree with the summary provided
by this historian:
-> _ "If [individualist anarchists] rejected private ownership of property,
-they destroyed their individualism and 'levelled' mankind. If they accepted
-it, they had the problem of offering a solution whereby the inequalities [of
+> _"If [individualist anarchists] rejected private ownership of property, they
+destroyed their individualism and 'levelled' mankind. If they accepted it,
+they had the problem of offering a solution whereby the inequalities [of
wealth] would not amount to a tyranny over the individual. They meet the same
dilemma in 'method.' If they were consistent libertarian individualists they
could not force from 'those who had' what they had acquired justly or
@@ -829,10 +811,10 @@ exploitative system. Tucker was therefore fundamentally a **reformist,**
thinking that anarchy would evolve from capitalism as mutual banks spread
across society, increasing the bargaining power of labour. And reforming
capitalism over time, by implication, always means tolerating boss's control
-during that time. So, at its worse, this is a reformist position which becomes
+during that time. So, at its worst, this is a reformist position which becomes
little more than an excuse for tolerating landlord and capitalist domination.
-Also, we may note, in the slow transition towards anarchism, we would see the
+Also we may note, in the slow transition towards anarchism, we would see the
rise of pro-capitalist "defence associations" which **would** collect rent
from land, break strikes, attempt to crush unions and so on. Tucker seemed to
have assumed that the anarchist vision of _"occupancy-and-use"_ would become
@@ -849,7 +831,7 @@ capitalism would not be as non-violent or as simple as Tucker maintained. The
vested powers which the state defends will find other means to protect
themselves when required (for example, when capitalists and landlords backed
fascism and fascist squads in Italy after workers "occupied and used" their
-workplaces and land workers and peasants "occupied and used" the land in
+workplaces and land-workers and peasants "occupied and used" the land in
1920). We are sure that economists will then rush to argue that the resulting
law system that defended the collection of rent and capitalist property
against "occupancy and use" was the most "economically efficient" result for
@@ -859,9 +841,9 @@ In addition, even if individualist mutualism **did** result in an increase in
wages by developing artisan and co-operative ventures that decreased the
supply of labour in relation to its demand, this would not eliminate the
subjective and objective pressures on profits that produce the business cycle
-within capitalism (see [section C.7](secC7.html)). In fact, it was increase
+within capitalism (see [section C.7](secC7.html)). In fact, it would increase
the subjective pressures considerably as was the case under the social
-Keynesian of the post-war period. Unsurprisingly, business interests sought
+Keynesianism of the post-war period. Unsurprisingly, business interests sought
the necessary "reforms" and ruthlessly fought the subsequent strikes and
protests to achieve a labour market more to their liking (see [section
C.8.2](secC8.html#secc82) for more on this). This means that an increase in
@@ -904,7 +886,7 @@ wage labour as hierarchical and exploitative is taken as an obvious and
logical aspect of anarchist principles. However, ironically, this conclusion
must also be drawn from the principles expounded by individualist anarchism.
However, as noted in [section G.1.3](secG1.html#secg13), while many
-individualist anarchists opposed wage labour and sought it end not all did.
+individualist anarchists opposed wage labour and sought its end not all did.
Benjamin Tucker was one of the latter. To requote him:
> _"Wages is not slavery. Wages is a form of voluntary exchange, and voluntary
@@ -917,24 +899,24 @@ he was not a real anarchist, seeking to end freedom by imposing communism onto
all. In response to Most highlighting the fact that Tucker supported wage
labour, Tucker argued as followed:
-> _ "If the men who oppose wages -- that is, the purchase and sale of labour
--- were capable of analysing their thought and feelings, they would see that
-what really excites their anger is not the fact that labour is bought and
-sold, but the fact that one class of men are dependent for their living upon
-the sale of their labour, while another class of men are relieved of the
-necessity of labour by being legally privileged to sell something that is not
-labour, and that, but for the privilege, would be enjoyed by all gratuitously.
-And to such a state of things I am as much opposed as any one. But the minute
-you remove privilege, the class that now enjoy it will be forced to sell their
-labour, and then, when there will be nothing but labour with which to buy
-labour, the distinction between wage-payers and wage-receivers will be wiped
-out, and every man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers. Not to
-abolish wages, but to make every man dependent upon wages and secure to every
-man his whole wages is the aim of Anarchistic Socialism. What Anarchistic
-Socialism aims to abolish is usury. It does not want to deprive labour of its
-reward; it wants to deprive capital of its reward. It does not hold that
-labour should not be sold; it holds that capital should not be hired at
-usury."_ [**Liberty**, no. 123, p. 4]
+> _"If the men who oppose wages -- that is, the purchase and sale of labour --
+were capable of analysing their thought and feelings, they would see that what
+really excites their anger is not the fact that labour is bought and sold, but
+the fact that one class of men are dependent for their living upon the sale of
+their labour, while another class of men are relieved of the necessity of
+labour by being legally privileged to sell something that is not labour, and
+that, but for the privilege, would be enjoyed by all gratuitously. And to such
+a state of things I am as much opposed as any one. But the minute you remove
+privilege, the class that now enjoy it will be forced to sell their labour,
+and then, when there will be nothing but labour with which to buy labour, the
+distinction between wage-payers and wage-receivers will be wiped out, and
+every man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers. Not to abolish
+wages, but to make every man dependent upon wages and secure to every man his
+whole wages is the aim of Anarchistic Socialism. What Anarchistic Socialism
+aims to abolish is usury. It does not want to deprive labour of its reward; it
+wants to deprive capital of its reward. It does not hold that labour should
+not be sold; it holds that capital should not be hired at usury."_
+[**Liberty**, no. 123, p. 4]
Social anarchists, in reply, would argue that Tucker is missing the point. The
reason why almost all anarchists are against wage labour is because it
@@ -995,27 +977,26 @@ to control the employees in order to maximise the difference between what they
produce and what they get paid (i.e., to ensure exploitation). As August
Spies, one of the Haymarket Martyrs, noted:
-> _ "I was amazed and was shocked when I became acquainted with the condition
-of the wage-workers in the New World.
-
->
-
-> "The factory: the ignominious regulations, the surveillance, the spy system,
-the servility and lack of manhood among the workers and the arrogant arbitrary
-behaviour of the boss and his associates -- all this made an impression upon
-me that I have never been able to divest myself of. At first I could not
-understand why the workers, among them many old men with bent backs, silently
-and without a sign of protest bore every insult the caprice of the foreman or
-boss would heap upon them. I was not then aware of the fact that the
-opportunity to work was a privilege, a favour, and that it was in the power of
-those who were in the possession of the factories and instruments of labour to
-deny or grant this privilege. I did not then understand how difficult it was
-to find a purchaser for ones labour, I did not know then that there were
-thousands and thousands of idle human bodies in the market, ready to hire out
-upon most any conditions, actually begging for employment. I became conscious
-of this, very soon, however, and I knew then why these people were so servile,
-whey suffered the humiliating dictates and capricious whims of their
-employers."_ [**The Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs**, pp. 66-7]
+> _"I was amazed and was shocked when I became acquainted with the condition
+of the wage-workers in the New World. _
+
+> _"The factory: the ignominious regulations, the surveillance, the spy
+system, the servility and lack of manhood among the workers and the arrogant
+arbitrary behaviour of the boss and his associates -- all this made an
+impression upon me that I have never been able to divest myself of. At first I
+could not understand why the workers, among them many old men with bent backs,
+silently and without a sign of protest bore every insult the caprice of the
+foreman or boss would heap upon them. I was not then aware of the fact that
+the opportunity to work was a privilege, a favour, and that it was in the
+power of those who were in the possession of the factories and instruments of
+labour to deny or grant this privilege. I did not then understand how
+difficult it was to find a purchaser for ones labour, I did not know then that
+there were thousands and thousands of idle human bodies in the market, ready
+to hire out upon most any conditions, actually begging for employment. I
+became conscious of this, very soon, however, and I knew then why these people
+were so servile, whey suffered the humiliating dictates and capricious whims
+of their employers."_ [**The Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs**, pp.
+66-7]
That this is a kind of state-like authority becomes clear when we consider
company towns. As Ward Churchill notes, the _"extent of company power over
@@ -1071,12 +1052,12 @@ explicitly includes the possibility that a house could be used as a workplace.
Thus we have a massive contradiction between Tucker's "occupancy and use"
perspective on land use and his support for wage labour. One letter to
-**Liberty** (by "Egoist") pointed out this contradiction. As the letter put
-it, _"if production is carried on in groups, as it now is, who is the legal
-occupier of the land? The employer, the manager, or the ensemble of those
-engaged in the co-operative work? The latter appearing the only rational
-answer."_ [**Op. Cit.**, no. 143, p. 4] Sadly, Tucker's reply did not address
-this particular question and so we are left with an unresolved contradiction.
+**Liberty** (by "Egoist") pointed out this contradiction: _"if production is
+carried on in groups, as it now is, who is the legal occupier of the land? The
+employer, the manager, or the ensemble of those engaged in the co-operative
+work? The latter appearing the only rational answer."_ [**Op. Cit.**, no. 143,
+p. 4] Sadly, Tucker's reply did not address this particular question and so we
+are left with an unresolved contradiction.
Looking at the Homestead strike which provoked Tucker's rant against strikers,
the similarities between wage labour and statism become even clearer. The
@@ -1193,7 +1174,7 @@ that you are an authoritarian, but opposing voluntary landlordism is
libertarian. Yet, there is no logical reason for workplaces to be excluded
from "occupancy and use." As Tucker put it:
-> _ "Occupancy and use is the only title to land in which we will protect you;
+> _"Occupancy and use is the only title to land in which we will protect you;
if you attempt to use land which another is occupying and using, we will
protect him against you; if another attempts to use land to which you lay
claim, but which you are not occupying and using, we will not interfere with
@@ -1207,7 +1188,7 @@ the autocratic authority of the owners which their private army and the state
militia sought to impose on those who used, but did not own, the steel-mills
(as the commander of the state troops noted, others _"can hardly believe the
actual communism of these people. They believe the works are theirs quite as
-much as Carnegie's."_ [quoted by Jeremy Brecher, **Strike!**, p. 60] As we
+much as Carnegie's."_ [quoted by Jeremy Brecher, **Strike!**, p. 60]). As we
discuss in the [next section](secG4.html#secg42), this is precisely why most
anarchists have opposed wage labour as being incompatible with general
anarchist principles. In other words, a consistent anarchism precludes all
@@ -1234,18 +1215,23 @@ It was this aspect of ownership which made Proudhon such a firm supporter of
workers associations. As he put it, a _"hundred men, uniting or combining
their forces, produce, in certain cases, not a hundred times, but two hundred,
three hundred, a thousand times as much. This is what I have called
-**collective force**. I even drew from this an argument, which, like so many
-others, remains unanswered, against certain forms of appropriation: that it is
-not sufficient to pay merely the wages of a given number of workmen, in order
-to acquire their product legitimately; that they must be paid twice, thrice or
-ten times their wages, or an equivalent service rendered to each one of
-them."_ Thus, _"all workers must associate, inasmuch as collective force and
-division of labour exist everywhere, to however slight a degree."_ Industrial
-democracy, in which _"all positions are elective, and the by-laws subject to
-the approval of the members_, would ensure that _"the collective force, which
-is a product of the community, ceases to be a source of profit to a small
-number of managers"_ and becomes _"the property of all the workers."_ [**The
-General Idea of the Revolution**, pp. 81-2, p. 217, p. 222 and p. 223]
+**collective force**. I even drew from this an argument . . . against certain
+forms of appropriation: that it is not sufficient to pay merely the wages of a
+given number of workers, in order to acquire their product legitimately; that
+they must be paid twice, thrice or ten times their wages, or an equivalent
+service rendered to each one of them."_ This analysis of exploitation
+occurring **within** production meant that the workplace must be self-managed
+for as _"all labour must leave a surplus, all wages [must] be equal to
+product"_ and _"[b]y virtue of the principle of collective force, workers are
+the equals and associates of their leaders."_ Thus, _"all workers must
+associate, inasmuch as collective force and division of labour exist
+everywhere, to however slight a degree"_ because of _"the immorality, tyranny
+and theft suffered."_ Industrial democracy, in which _"all positions are
+elective, and the by-laws subject to the approval of the members_,_"_ would
+ensure that _"the collective force, which is a product of the community,
+ceases to be a source of profit to a small number of managers"_ and becomes
+_"the property of all the workers."_ [**Property is Theft!,** p. 554, p. 77,
+p. 584 and p. 586]
Proudhon had first expounded this analysis in **What is Property?** in 1840
and, as K. Steven Vincent notes, this was _"[o]one of the reasons Proudhon
@@ -1284,16 +1270,11 @@ to get more out of their labour than they pay in wages? And why does the
capitalist get this reward? They own "capital" and, consequently, their
"labour" partly involves excluding others from using it and ordering about
those whom they do allow in -- in exchange for keeping the product of their
-labour. As Marx put it, _"the worker works under the control of the capitalist
-to whom his labour belongs"_ and _"the product is the property of the
-capitalist and not that of the worker, its immediate producer."_ And so
-_"[f]rom the instant he steps into the workshop, the use-value of his labour-
-power and therefore its use, which is labour, belongs to the capitalist."_
-[**Op. Cit.**, p. 291 and p. 292] This suggests that exploitation takes place
-within production and so a contract for wages made beforehand simply cannot be
-expected to anticipate the use-value extracted by the boss from the workers
-subjected to his authority. Thus wage labour and exploitation would go hand-
-in-hand -- and so Most's horror at Tucker's support for it.
+labour. Thus exploitation takes place within production and so a contract for
+wages made beforehand simply cannot be expected to anticipate the use-value
+extracted by the boss from the workers subjected to his authority. Thus wage
+labour and exploitation would go hand-in-hand -- and so Most's horror at
+Tucker's support for it.
As best, it could be argued that such "wages" would be minimal as workers
would be able to swap jobs to get higher wages and, possibly, set up co-
@@ -1325,7 +1306,7 @@ cost to the consumer."_ [**The Individualist Anarchists**, p. 110] This was
the position of Voltairine de Cleyre (during her individualist phase) as well
as her mentor Dyer Lum:
-> _ "Lum drew from the French anarchist Proudhon . . . a radical critique of
+> _"Lum drew from the French anarchist Proudhon . . . a radical critique of
classical political economy and . . . a set of positive reforms in land tenure
and banking . . . Proudhon paralleled the native labour reform tradition in
several ways. Besides suggesting reforms in land and money, Proudhon urged
@@ -1373,15 +1354,15 @@ That is not the case and the reason is obvious -- Tucker's support for wage
labour is inconsistent with his ideas on "occupancy and use" while Rothbard's
are in line with his capitalist property rights. Given the key place self-
management holds in almost all anarchist thought, unsurprisingly we find
-Chomsky summarising the anarchist position thusly:
+Chomsky summarising the anarchist position as follows:
> _"A consistent anarchist must oppose private ownership of the means of
production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as
incompatible with the principle that labour must be freely undertaken and
under the control of the producer . . . A consistent anarchist must oppose not
only alienated labour but also the stupefying specialisation of labour that
-takes place when the means for developing production."_ [_"Notes on
-Anarchism"_, **Chomsky on Anarchism**, p. 123]
+takes place when the means for developing production."_ [**Chomsky on
+Anarchism**, p. 123]
Thus the _"consistent anarchist, then, will be a socialist, but a socialist of
a particular sort."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 125] Which suggests that Tucker's
@@ -1392,9 +1373,9 @@ Johann Most calling his ideas _"Manchesterism"_, Tucker wrote _"what better
can a man who professes Anarchism want than that? For the principle of
Manchesterism is liberty, and consistent Manchesterism is consistent adherence
to liberty. The only inconsistency of the Manchester men lies in their
-infidelity to liberty in some of its phases. And these infidelity to liberty
-in some of its phases is precisely the fatal inconsistency of the 'Freiheit'
-school . . . Yes, genuine A narchism is consistent Manchesterism, and
+infidelity to liberty in some of its phases. And this infidelity to liberty in
+some of its phases is precisely the fatal inconsistency of the 'Freiheit'
+school . . . Yes, genuine Anarchism is consistent Manchesterism, and
Communistic or pseudo-Anarchism is inconsistent Manchesterism."_ [**Liberty**,
no. 123, p. 4]
@@ -1403,8 +1384,7 @@ Manchesterism"_ then, argue social anarchists, individualist anarchism is
"inconsistent" anarchism. This means that some of Tucker's arguments
contradict some of his own fundamental principles, most obviously his
indifference to wage labour. This, as argued, violates "occupancy and use",
-his opposition to exploitation and, as it is a form of hierarchy, his
-anarchism.
+his opposition to exploitation and his anarchism as it is a form of hierarchy.
To see what we mean we must point out that certain individualist anarchists
are not the only "inconsistent" ones that have existed. The most obvious
@@ -1417,17 +1397,17 @@ inconsistent with his key principles. As one French anarcha-feminist critic of
Proudhon put it in 1869: _"These so-called lovers of liberty, if they are
unable to take part in the direction of the state, at least they will be able
to have a little monarchy for their personal use, each in his own home . . .
-Order in the family seems impossible to them -- well then, what about in the
-state?"_ [Andr Lo, quoted by Carolyn J. Eichner, _"'Vive La Commune!'
-Feminism, Socialism, and Revolutionary Revival in the Aftermath of the 1871
-Paris Commune,"_, pp. 68-98, **Journal of Women's History**, Vol. 15, No.2, p.
-75] Rejecting monarchy and hierarchy on the state level and within the
-workplace while supporting it -- in the form of rule by the father -- on the
-family level was simply illogical and inconsistent. Subsequent anarchists
-(from Bakunin onwards) solved this obvious contradiction by consistently
-applying anarchist principles and opposing sexism and patriarchy. In other
-words, by critiquing Proudhon's sexism by means of the very principles he
-himself used to critique the state and capitalism.
+Order in the family without hierarchy seems impossible to them -- well then,
+what about in the state?"_ [André Léo, quoted by Carolyn J. Eichner, _"'Vive
+La Commune!' Feminism, Socialism, and Revolutionary Revival in the Aftermath
+of the 1871 Paris Commune,"_, pp. 68-98, **Journal of Women's History**, Vol.
+15, No.2, p. 75] Rejecting monarchy and hierarchy on the state level and
+within the workplace while supporting it -- in the form of rule by the father
+-- on the family level was simply illogical and inconsistent. Subsequent
+anarchists (from Bakunin onwards) solved this obvious contradiction by
+consistently applying anarchist principles and opposing sexism and patriarchy.
+In other words, by critiquing Proudhon's sexism by means of the very
+principles he himself used to critique the state and capitalism.
Much the same applies to individualist anarchists. The key issue is that,
given their own principles, individualist anarchism can easily become
@@ -1444,56 +1424,60 @@ _"the father of the Anarchistic school of socialism"_ as well as _"being the
Anarchist **par excellence**"_ [Tucker, **Instead of a Book**, p. 391]).
Tucker is distinctly at odds with Proudhon who consistently opposed wage-
labour and so, presumably, was also an advocate of _"pseudo-Anarchism"_
-alongside Kropotkin and Most. For Proudhon, the worker has _"sold and
-surrendered his liberty"_ to the proprietor, with the proprietor being _"a
-man, who, having absolute control of an instrument of production, claims the
-right to enjoy the product of the instrument without using it himself."_ This
-leads to exploitation and if _"the labourer is proprietor of the value which
-he creates, it follows"_ that _"all production being necessarily collective,
-the labourer is entitled to a share of the products and profits commensurate
-with his labour"_ and that, _"all accumulated capital being social property,
-no one can be its exclusive proprietor."_ [**What is Property?**, p. 130, p.
-293 and p. 130] With _"machinery and the workshop, divine right -- that is,
-the principle of authority -- makes its entrance into political economy.
-Capital . . . Property . . . are, in economic language, the various names of .
-. . Power, Authority."_ Thus, under capitalism, the workplace has a
-_"hierarchical organisation."_ There are three alternatives, capitalism
-(_"that is, monopoly and what follows"_), state socialism (_"exploitation by
-the State"_) _"or else . . . a solution based on equality, -- in other words,
-the organisation of labour, which involves the negation of political economy
-and the end of property."_ [**System of Economical Contradictions**, pp. 203-4
-and p. 253]
-
-For Proudhon, employees are _"subordinated, exploited"_ and their _"permanent
-condition is one of obedience."_ The wage worker is, therefore, a _"slave."_
-Indeed, capitalist companies _"plunder the bodies and souls of wage workers"_
-and they are _"an outrage upon human dignity and personality."_ However, in a
-co-operative the situation changes and the worker is an _"associate"_ and
-_"forms a part of the producing organisation"_ and _"forms a part of the
-sovereign power, of which he was before but the subject."_ Without co-
-operation and association, _"the workers . . . would remain related as
-subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two industrial castes of
+alongside Kropotkin and Most.
+
+For Proudhon, the worker has _"sold and surrendered his liberty"_ to the
+proprietor, with the proprietor being _"a man, who, having absolute control of
+an instrument of production, claims the right to enjoy the product of the
+instrument without using it himself."_ This leads to exploitation and if _"the
+labourer is proprietor of the value which he creates, it follows"_ that _"all
+production being necessarily collective, the labourer is entitled to a share
+of the products and profits commensurate with his labour"_ and that, _"all
+accumulated capital being social property, no one can be its exclusive
+proprietor."_ With _"machinery and the workshop, divine right -- that is, the
+principle of authority -- makes its entrance into political economy. Capital .
+. . Property . . . are, in economic language, the various names of . . .
+Power, Authority."_ Thus, under capitalism, the workplace has a _"hierarchical
+organisation."_ There are three alternatives, capitalism (_"that is, monopoly
+and what follows"_), state socialism (_"exploitation by the State"_) _"or else
+. . . a solution based on equality, -- in other words, the organisation of
+labour, which involves the negation of political economy and the end of
+property."_ In short, _"all property becomes . . . collective and undivided."_
+[**Property is Theft!**, p. 21, p. 139, p. 114, pp. 117-8, p. 193, p. 202 and
+p. 137] Indeed, in 1849 he angrily rejected the assertion that he wanted
+_"individual ownership and non-organisation of the instruments of labour"_:
+
+> _"I have never penned nor uttered any such thing: and have argued the
+opposite a hundred times over . . . I deny all kinds of proprietary domain. I
+deny it, precisely because I believe in an order wherein the instruments of
+labour will cease to be appropriated and instead become shared."_ [**Op.
+Cit.**, p. 499]
+
+So _"under universal association, ownership of the land and of the
+instruments of labour is **social** ownership."_ This was because wage-
+workers were _"subordinated, exploited,"_ their _"permanent condition is one
+of obedience"_ and so, therefore, a _"slave."_ Capitalist companies _"plunder
+the bodies and souls of wage workers"_ and they are _"an outrage upon human
+dignity and personality."_ However, in a co-operative the situation changes
+and the worker is an _"associate"_ and _"forms a part of the producing
+organisation"_ and _"forms a part of the sovereign power, of which he was
+before but the subject."_ Without association, people _" would remain related
+as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two industrial castes of
masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic
-society."_ [**The General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century**,
-p. 216, p. 219 and p. 216] As Robert Graham notes, _"Proudhon's market
-socialism is indissolubly linked to his notions of industry democracy and
-workers' self-management."_ [_"Introduction"_, **Op. Cit.,**, p. xxxii]
-
-This analysis lead Proudhon to call for co-operatives to end wage labour. This
-was most consistently advocated in his **The General Idea of the Revolution**
-but appears repeatedly in his work. Thus we find him arguing in 1851 that
+society."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 377, p. 583, p. 584 and p. 583]
+
+This analysis lead Proudhon to call for co-operatives to end wage labour and
+it appears repeatedly in his work. Thus we find him arguing in 1851 that
socialism is _"the elimination of misery, the abolition of capitalism and of
wage-labour, the transformation of property, . . . the effective and direct
sovereignty of the workers, . . . the substitution of the contractual regime
for the legal regime."_ [quoted by John Ehrenberg, **Proudhon and his Age**,
p. 111] Fourteen years later, he argued the same, with the aim of his
mutualist ideas being _"the complete emancipation of the workers . . . the
-abolition of the wage worker."_ Thus a key idea of Proudhon's politics is the
-abolition of wage labour: _"Industrial Democracy must. . . succeed Industrial
-Feudalism."_ [quoted by K. Steven Vincent, **Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the
-Rise of French Republican Socialism** p. 222 and p. 167] _"In democratising
-us,"_ Proudhon argued, _"revolution has launched us on the path of industrial
-democracy."_ [**Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon**, p. 63]
+abolition of the wage worker."_ [quoted by K. Steven Vincent, **Pierre-Joseph
+Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism** p. 222] Thus a key idea
+of Proudhon's politics is the abolition of wage labour: _"Industrial Democracy
+must follow Industrial Feudalism."_ [**Property is Theft!**, p. 610]
(As an aside, it is deeply significant how different Proudhon's analysis of
hierarchy and wage-labour is to Murray Rothbard's. For Rothbard, both
@@ -1522,22 +1506,22 @@ completely gain that end, the associations must be associated, united in one
body for mutual aid."_ This is _"the Syndicate of Production."_ [**Proudhon
and His _"Bank of the People"_**, p. 45, p. 50 and p. 54] Tucker, however,
asserted that Proudhon included the syndicate of production _"to humour those
-of his associated who placed stress on these features. He did not consider
+of his associates who placed stress on these features. He did not consider
them of any value."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 51-2] However, he was simply
incorrect. Industrial democracy was a key aspect of Proudhon's ideas, as was
the creation of an _"agro-industrial federation"_ based on these self-managed
associations. This can be seen from Tucker's own comparison of Marx and
Proudhon made on the formers death:
-> _ "For Karl Marx, the 'egalitaire', we feel the profoundest respect; as for
+> _"For Karl Marx, the 'egalitaire', we feel the profoundest respect; as for
Karl Marx, the 'authoritaire', we must consider him an enemy. . . . Proudhon
was years before Marx [in discussing the struggle of the classes and the
privileges and monopolies of capital]. . . . The vital difference between
Proudhon and Marx [was] to be found in their respective remedies which they
-proposed. Man would nationalise the productive and distributive forces;
+proposed. Marx would nationalise the productive and distributive forces;
Proudhon would individualise and associate them. Marx would make the labourers
political masters; Proudhon would abolish political mastership entirely . . .
-Man believed in compulsory majority rule; Proudhon believed in the voluntary
+Marx believed in compulsory majority rule; Proudhon believed in the voluntary
principle. In short, Marx was an 'authoritaire'; Proudhon was a champion of
Liberty."_ [**Liberty**, no. 35, p. 2]
@@ -1546,9 +1530,9 @@ Ironically, therefore, by Tucker placing so much stress in opposing capitalist
to the _"authoritaire"_ Marx than Proudhon and, like Marx, opened the door to
various kinds of domination and restrictions on individual self-government
within anarchism. Again we see a support for contract theory creating
-authoritarian, not libertarian, relationships between people. Simply out, the
-social relationships produced by wage labour shares far too much in common
-with those created by the state **not** to be of concern to any genuine
+authoritarian, not libertarian, relationships between people. Simply put, the
+social relationships produced by wage labour share far too much in common with
+those created by the state **not** to be of concern to any genuine
libertarian. Arguing that it is based on consent is as unconvincing as those
who defend the state in similar terms.
@@ -1605,7 +1589,7 @@ In other words, _"some degree and form of voluntary communism."_ Ultimately,
as John P. Clark summarised, opposition to authority which is limited to just
the state hardly makes much sense from a libertarian perspective:
-> _ "Neither . . . is there any reason to consider such a position a very
+> _"Neither . . . is there any reason to consider such a position a very
consistent or convincing form of anarchism . . . A view of anarchism which
seeks to eliminate coercion and the state, but which overlooks other ways in
which people dominate other people, is very incomplete and quite contradictory
@@ -1649,7 +1633,7 @@ than libertarian and liberty enhancing ones.
This explains anarchist opposition to wage labour, it undermines liberty and,
as a result, allows exploitation to happen. Albert Parsons put it well. Under
capitalism labour _"is a commodity and wages is the price paid for it. The
-owner of this commodity \-- of labour -- sells it, that is himself, to the
+owner of this commodity -- of labour -- sells it, that is himself, to the
owner of capital in order to live . . . The reward of the wage labourer's
activity is not the product of his labour -- far from it."_ This implies
exploitation and so class struggle as there is a _"irreconcilable conflict
@@ -1729,9 +1713,9 @@ own principles consistently. In contrast, "anarcho"-capitalism rejects so many
of the basic, underlying, principles of anarchism and has consistently
followed the logical conclusions of such a rejection into private statism and
support for hierarchical authority associated with private property that it
-cannot be made consistent with the ideals of anarchism. In constrast, given
-its **own** principles, individualist anarchism can easily become
-**consistent** anarchism. That is why it is a school of anarchism, unlike
+cannot be made consistent with the ideals of anarchism. In contrast, given its
+**own** principles, individualist anarchism can easily become **consistent**
+anarchism. That is why it is a school of anarchism, unlike
"anarcho"-capitalism. All that is required is to consistently apply "occupancy
and use" to workplaces (as Proudhon advocated as did many individualist
anarchists). By consistently applying this principle it finally ends
@@ -1750,3 +1734,8 @@ exploitation and domination, in other words, to authority . . . for freedom is
not possible without equality, and real anarchy cannot exist without
solidarity, without socialism."_ [**Anarchy**, p. 48 and p. 47]
+[‹ G.3 Is "anarcho"-capitalism a new form of individualist
+anarchism?](/afaq/secG3.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secGcon.html
+"Go to parent page" ) [G.5 Benjamin Tucker: Capitalist or Anarchist?
+›](/afaq/secG5.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secG5.md b/markdown/secG5.md
index b96cf76a99afa676a5ce6284414a76f2ee4a80b5..383f98b9945a01a90a8b63eae18fafbae84c3d89 100644
--- a/markdown/secG5.md
+++ b/markdown/secG5.md
@@ -27,14 +27,12 @@ would, almost invariably detracts from that of all. Wealth is made by legal
privilege a hook with which to filch from labour's pockets. Every man who gets
rich thereby makes his neighbours poor. The better off one is, the worse the
rest are . . . Labour's Deficit is precisely equal to the Capitalist's
-Efficit.
+Efficit. _
->
-
-> "Now, Socialism wants to change all this. Socialism says . . . that no man
+> _"Now, Socialism wants to change all this. Socialism says . . . that no man
shall be able to add to his riches except by labour; that is adding to his
riches by his labour alone no man makes another man poorer; that on the
-contrary every man this adding to his riches makes every other man richer; . .
+contrary every man thus adding to his riches makes every other man richer; . .
. that every increase in capital in the hands of the labourer tends, in the
absence of legal monopoly, to put more products, better products, cheaper
products, and a greater variety of products within the reach of every man who
@@ -72,7 +70,7 @@ were not using it. Once capitalism was abolished, the market would be able to
reach its full promise and become a means of enriching all rather than the
few:
-> _ "Liberty's aim -- universal happiness -- is that of all Socialists, in
+> _"Liberty's aim -- universal happiness -- is that of all Socialists, in
contrast with that of the Manchester men -- luxury fed by misery. But its
principle -- individual sovereignty -- is that of the Manchester men, in
contrast with that of the Socialists -- individual subordination. But
@@ -313,7 +311,7 @@ workers would gain economic liberty. His ideal society would be classless,
with _"each man reaping the fruit of his labour and no man able to live in
idleness on an income from capital"_ and society _"would become a great hive
of Anarchistic workers, prosperous and free individuals."_ While, like all
-anarchists, he rejected _"abolute equality"_ he did envision an egalitarian
+anarchists, he rejected _"absolute equality"_ he did envision an egalitarian
society whose small differences in wealth were rooted in labour, not property,
and so liberty, while abolishing exploitation, would _"not abolish the limited
inequality between one labourer's product and another's . . . Liberty will
@@ -412,7 +410,7 @@ disagreeable alternative of either abolishing private property or continuing
to hold labour under the capitalistic yoke."_ [**Liberty**, no. 122, p. 4] By
1911, he had come to the conclusion that the latter had come to pass and
considered revolutionary or political action as the only means of breaking up
-such concentrations of wealth (although he was against individualists
+such concentrations of wealth (although he was against individualist
anarchists participating in either strategy). [Martin, **Op. Cit.**, pp.
273-4] In other words, Tucker recognised that economic power existed and, as a
consequence, free markets were not enough to secure free people in conditions
@@ -448,7 +446,7 @@ true **by definition** that he advocated the elimination of "private property"
in the capitalist sense.
So while it is true that Tucker placed "property" and markets at the heart of
-his vision of anarchy, this does not make he a supporter of capitalism (see
+his vision of anarchy, this does not make him a supporter of capitalism (see
sections [G.1.1](secG1.html#secg11) and [G.1.2](secG1.html#secg12)). Unlike
supporters of capitalism, the individualist anarchists identified "property"
with simple "possession," or _"occupancy and use"_ and considered profit, rent
@@ -479,3 +477,8 @@ and making others produce it for them. This clearly indicates that Rothbard's
claim to have somehow modernised Tucker's thought is **false** \-- "ignored"
or "changed beyond recognition" would be more appropriate.
+[‹ G.4 Why do social anarchists reject individualist
+anarchism?](/afaq/secG4.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secGcon.html
+"Go to parent page" ) [G.6 What are the ideas of Max Stirner?
+›](/afaq/secG6.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secG6.md b/markdown/secG6.md
index 88ed4396313d42002176578028e686582e6ed7d2..638b6a342351fd4c53508ea9516b8ad2e877258c 100644
--- a/markdown/secG6.md
+++ b/markdown/secG6.md
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ acceptance of many of the principles of anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-
communism with a strong emphasis on individuality and personal uniqueness. The
inspiration for this latter part of her outlook comes from thinkers like . . .
Stirner. Herbert Read has commented on the value of Stirner's defence of
-individuality."_ [**Max Stirner's Egoism**, p. 90] Daniel Gurin's classic
+individuality."_ [**Max Stirner's Egoism**, p. 90] Daniel Guérin's classic
introduction to anarchism gives significant space to the German egoist,
arguing he _"rehabilitated the individual at a time when the philosophical
field was dominated by Hegelian anti-individualism and most reformers in the
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ egoism"_ based on the awareness that greed _"in its fullest sense is the
**only possible** basis of communist society."_
It is not hard to see why so many people are influenced by Stirner's work. It
-is a classic, full of ideas and a sense of fun which is lacking in many
+is a classic, full of ideas and a sense of fun that is lacking in many
political writers. For many, it is only known through the criticism Marx and
Engels subjected it too in their book **The German Ideology**. As with their
later attacks on Proudhon and Bakunin, the two Germans did not accurately
@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ that authority figure would approve of. True egoism is not parroting what
Stirner wrote and agreeing with everything he expounded. Nothing could be more
foreign to Stirner's work than to invent "Stirnerism." As Donald Rooum put it:
-> _ "I am happy to be called a Stirnerite anarchist, provided 'Stirnerite'
+> _"I am happy to be called a Stirnerite anarchist, provided 'Stirnerite'
means one who agrees with Stirner's general drift, not one who agrees with
Stirner's every word. Please judge my arguments on their merits, not on the
merits of Stirner's arguments, and not by the test of whether I conform to
@@ -137,14 +137,14 @@ Stirner is also aware that _"[i]t need not make any difference to the 'good
citizens' who protects them and their principles, whether an absolute King or
a constitutional one, a republic, if only they are protected. And what is
their principle, whose protector they always 'love'? Not that of labour"_,
-rather it is _"**interesting-bearing possession** . . . **labouring capital**,
+rather it is _"**interest-bearing possession** . . . **labouring capital**,
therefore . . . labour certainly, yet little or none at all of one's own, but
labour of capital and of the -- subject labourers."_ [p. 251, p. 114, p. 113
and p. 114]
As can be seen from capitalist support for fascism, Stirner was correct -- as
long as a regime supports capitalist interests, the 'good citizens' (including
-many on the so-called "libertarian" right)) will support it. Stirner sees that
+many on the so-called "libertarian" right) will support it. Stirner sees that
not only does private property require state protection, it also leads to
exploitation and oppression. As noted in [section D.10](secD10.html), like
subsequent anarchists like Kropotkin, Stirner attacked the division of labour
@@ -165,21 +165,19 @@ by this other."_ [p. 121]
Stirner had nothing but contempt for those who defended property in terms of
"natural rights" and opposed theft and taxation with a passion because it
violates said rights. _"Rightful, or legitimate property of another,"_ he
-stated, _"will by only that which **you** are content to recognise as such. If
+stated, _"will be only that which **you** are content to recognise as such. If
your content ceases, then this property has lost legitimacy for you, and you
will laugh at absolute right to it."_ After all, _"what well-founded objection
could be made against theft"_ [p. 278 and p. 251] He was well aware that
inequality was only possible as long as the masses were convinced of the
-sacredness of property. In this way, the majority end up without property:
+sacredness of property. In this way, the majority ends up without property:
-> _ "Property in the civic sense means **sacred** property, such that I must
+> _"Property in the civic sense means **sacred** property, such that I must
**respect** your property . . . Be it ever so little, if one only has somewhat
of his own - to wit, a **respected** property: The more such owners . . . the
-more 'free people and good patriots' has the State.
+more 'free people and good patriots' has the State. _
->
-
-> "Political liberalism, like everything religious, counts on **respect**,
+> _"Political liberalism, like everything religious, counts on **respect**,
humaneness, the virtues of love . . . For in practice people respect nothing,
and everyday the small possessions are bought up again by greater proprietors,
and the 'free people' change into day labourers."_ [p. 248]
@@ -215,14 +213,14 @@ men as soon as they no longer respect the master as master."_ And in order for
labour to become free, all must have _"property."_ _"The poor become free and
proprietors only when they **rise.**"_ Thus, _"[i]f we want no longer to leave
the land to the landed proprietors, but to appropriate it to ourselves, we
-unite ourselves to this end, form a union, a **socit**, that makes **itself**
-proprietor . . . we can drive them out of many another property yet, in order
-to make it **our** property, the property of the -- **conquerors**."_ Thus
-property _"deserves the attacks of the Communists and Proudhon: it is
-untenable, because the civic proprietor is in truth nothing but a propertyless
-man, one who is everywhere **shut out**. Instead of owning the world, as he
-might, he does not own even the paltry point on which he turns around."_ [p.
-258, p. 260, p. 249 and pp. 248-9]
+unite ourselves to this end, form a union, a **société**, that makes
+**itself** proprietor . . . we can drive them out of many another property
+yet, in order to make it **our** property, the property of the --
+**conquerors**."_ Thus property _"deserves the attacks of the Communists and
+Proudhon: it is untenable, because the civic proprietor is in truth nothing
+but a propertyless man, one who is everywhere **shut out**. Instead of owning
+the world, as he might, he does not own even the paltry point on which he
+turns around."_ [p. 258, p. 260, p. 249 and pp. 248-9]
Stirner recognises the importance of self-liberation and the way that
authority often exists purely through its acceptance by the governed. As he
@@ -237,7 +235,7 @@ by thoughts."_ [p. 72 and p. 74] That is, by our own willingness to not
question authority and the sources of that authority, such as private property
and the state:
-> _ "Proudhon calls property 'robbery' (**le vol**) But alien property -- and
+> _"Proudhon calls property 'robbery' (**le vol**) But alien property -- and
he is talking of this alone -- is not less existent by renunciation, cession,
and humility; it is a **present**. Who so sentimentally call for compassion as
a poor victim of robbery, when one is just a foolish, cowardly giver of
@@ -311,7 +309,7 @@ urges an universal egoism rather than one limited to just a few. In other
words, he would wish those subjected to fascistic domination to reject such
spooks and to unite and rise against those oppressing them:
-> _ "Well, who says that every one can do everything? What are you there for,
+> _"Well, who says that every one can do everything? What are you there for,
pray, you who do not need to put up with everything? Defend yourself, and no
one will do anything to you! He who would break your will has to do with you,
and is your **enemy**. Deal with him as such. If there stand behind you for
@@ -332,7 +330,7 @@ of egoists,"_ his proposed alternative mode of organising society. Stirner
believed that as more and more people become egoists, conflict in society will
decrease as each individual recognises the uniqueness of others, thus ensuring
a suitable environment within which they can co-operate (or find _"truces"_ in
-the _"war of all against all"_). These _"truces"_ Stirner termed _**"Unions of
+the _"war of all against all"_). These _"truces"_ Stirner termed **_"Unions of
Egoists."_** They are the means by which egoists could, firstly,
_"annihilate"_ the state, and secondly, destroy its creature, private
property, since they would _"multiply the individual's means and secure his
@@ -372,14 +370,12 @@ to assume that some of the egoists involved will stop being egoists and will
allow themselves to be dominated by another, which is unlikely. As Stirner
himself argued:
-> _ "But is an association, wherein most members allow themselves to be lulled
+> _"But is an association, wherein most members allow themselves to be lulled
as regards their most natural and most obvious interests, actually an Egoist's
association? Can they really be 'Egoists' who have banded together when one is
-a slave or a serf of the other?. . .
-
->
+a slave or a serf of the other?. . . _
-> "Societies wherein the needs of some are satisfied at the expense of the
+> _"Societies wherein the needs of some are satisfied at the expense of the
rest, where, say, some may satisfy their need for rest thanks to the fact that
the rest must work to the point of exhaustion, and can lead a life of ease
because others live in misery and perish of hunger, or indeed who live a life
@@ -401,7 +397,7 @@ themselves from both state and capitalist oppression. Sounding like an
anarcho-syndicalist, Stirner recognised the potential for strike action as a
means of self-liberation:
-> _ "The labourers have the most enormous power in their hands, and, if they
+> _"The labourers have the most enormous power in their hands, and, if they
once become thoroughly conscious of it and used it, nothing could withstand
them; they would only have to stop labour, regard the product of labour as
theirs, and enjoy it. This is the sense of the labour disturbances which show
@@ -418,7 +414,7 @@ points to a **libertarian** form of organisation within these "unions" (i.e.
one based on equality and participation), **not** a hierarchical one. If you
have no say in how a group functions (as in wage slavery, where workers have
the "option" of "love it or leave it") then you can hardly be said to own it,
-can you? Indeed, Stirner argues, for _ "[o]nly in the union can you assert
+can you? Indeed, Stirner argues, for _"[o]nly in the union can you assert
yourself as unique, because the union does not possess you, but you possess it
or make it of use to you."_ [p. 312]
@@ -527,3 +523,8 @@ where it belongs. Finally, he reminds us that a free society must exist in the
interests of all, and must be based upon the self-fulfilment, liberation and
enjoyment of the individual.
+[‹ G.5 Benjamin Tucker: Capitalist or Anarchist?](/afaq/secG5.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secGcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [G.7 Lysander
+Spooner: right-"libertarian" or libertarian socialist? ›](/afaq/secG7.html "Go
+to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secG7.md b/markdown/secG7.md
index ecceb0cb4709fab2193f70d7b364c3b6086ab157..3df14384d124c00bcda810458e01387530fe7f0c 100644
--- a/markdown/secG7.md
+++ b/markdown/secG7.md
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ support for "anarcho"-capitalist claims of being a form of anarchism is
untrue. This is because, regardless of his closeness to liberalism, Spooner's
vision of a free society was fundamentally anti-capitalist. It is clear that
Spooner was a left-libertarian who was firmly opposed to capitalism. The
-ignoring (at best) or outright dismissal (at worse) of Spooner's economic
+ignoring (at best) or outright dismissal (at worst) of Spooner's economic
ideas and vision of a free society by right-"libertarians" should be more than
enough to show that Spooner cannot be easily appropriated by the right
regardless of his (from an anarchist position) unique, even idiosyncratic,
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ employer, it was necessary for one to have access to one's own capital."_
[James J. Martin, **Men Against the State**, p. 172] This was because wage
labour resulted in exploitation:
-> _ "When a man knows that he is to have **all** the fruits of his labour, he
+> _"When a man knows that he is to have **all** the fruits of his labour, he
labours with more zeal, skill, and physical energy, than when he knows -- as
in the case of one labouring for wages -- that a portion of the fruits of his
labour are going to another. . . In order that each man may have the fruits of
@@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ for all, and creating no necessity, for either force or fraud, on the part of
anyone, to enable him to secure his standing."_ [quoted by Peter Marshall,
**Demanding the Impossible**, pp. 388-9] Thus:
-> _ "That the principle of allowing each man to have, (so far as it is
+> _"That the principle of allowing each man to have, (so far as it is
consistent with the principles of natural law that he can have,) all the
fruits of his own labour, would conduce to a more just and equal distribution
of wealth than now exists, is a proposition too self-evident almost to need
@@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ illustration. It is an obvious principle of natural justice, that each man
should have the fruits of his own labour . . . It is also an obvious fact,
that the property produced by society, is now distributed in very unequal
proportions among those whose labour produced it, and with very little regard
-to the actual value of each ones labour in producing it."_ [**Poverty: Its
+to the actual value of each one’s labour in producing it."_ [**Poverty: Its
Illegal Causes and Legal Cure**, p. 7]
For Spooner, as with other left-libertarians, equality was seen as the
@@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ another."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 42] As he stressed equality will have many
positive outcomes beyond the abolition of wage labour and increased
productiveness:
-> _ "Extremes of difference, in their pecuniary circumstances, divide society
+> _"Extremes of difference, in their pecuniary circumstances, divide society
into castes; set up barriers to personal acquaintance; prevent or suppress
sympathy; give to different individuals a widely different experience, and
thus become the fertile source of alienation, contempt, envy, hatred, and
@@ -120,11 +120,11 @@ Spooner was opposed to the way America was developing in the 19th century. He
had no illusions about tariffs, for example, seeing them as a means of
accumulating capital as they _"enable[d] the home producers . . . to make
fortunes by robbing everybody else in the prices of their goods."_ Such
-protectionism _"originated with the employers"_ as the workers _"could not
-have had no hope of carrying through such a scheme, if they alone were to
-profit; because they could have had no such influence with governments."_ [**A
-Letter to Grover Cleveland** p. 20 and p. 44] He had no illusions that the
-state was anything else than a machine run by and for the wealthy.
+protectionism _"originated with the employers"_ as the workers _"could have
+had no hope of carrying through such a scheme, if they alone were to profit;
+because they could have had no such influence with governments."_ [**A Letter
+to Grover Cleveland** p. 20 and p. 44] He had no illusions that the state was
+anything else than a machine run by and for the wealthy.
Spooner viewed the rise of capitalism with disgust and suggested a way for
non-exploitative and non-oppressive economic relationships to become the norm
@@ -293,11 +293,9 @@ and the enslavement of still other defenceless persons; increasing, too, their
numbers, perfecting their organisations, and multiplying their weapons of war,
they extend their conquests until, in order to hold what they have already
got, it becomes necessary for them to act systematically, and co-operate with
-each other in holding their slaves in subjection.
+each other in holding their slaves in subjection. _
->
-
-> "But all this they can do only by establishing what they call a government,
+> _"But all this they can do only by establishing what they call a government,
and making what they call laws . . . Thus substantially all the legislation of
the world has had its origin in the desires of one class of persons to plunder
and enslave others, **and hold them as property.**"_
@@ -306,7 +304,7 @@ Nothing too provocative here, simply Spooner's view of government as a tool of
the wealth-holding, slave-owning class. What is more interesting is Spooner's
view of the subsequent development of (post-slavery) socio-economic systems:
-> _ "In process of time, the robber, or slaveholding, class -- who had seized
+> _"In process of time, the robber, or slaveholding, class -- who had seized
all the lands, and held all the means of creating wealth -- began to discover
that the easiest mode of managing their slaves, and making them profitable,
was **not** for each slaveholder to hold his specified number of slaves, as he
@@ -409,7 +407,7 @@ person has a natural right to kill those who would deny these rights. Spooner
called for a class war."_ [Wm. Gary Kline, **The Individualist Anarchists**,
p. 41] Elsewhere he thundered:
-> _ "**Who** compose the real governing power in the country? . . . How shall
+> _"**Who** compose the real governing power in the country? . . . How shall
we find these men? How shall we know them from others? . . . Who, of our
neighbours, are members of this secret band of robbers and murderers? How can
we know which are **their** houses, that we may burn or demolish them? Which
@@ -473,13 +471,13 @@ exploiting the working class and that the state is simply an organ of
individualist anarchists. This analysis is, needless to say, a left-
libertarian one rather than right-"libertarian."
-Of course, it may be objected that Spooner was a right-Libertarian" because he
-supported the market and private property. However, as we argued in [section
-G.1.1](secG1.html#secg11) support for the market does not equate to support
-for capitalism (no matter how often the ideologues of capitalism proclaim it
-so). As noted, markets are not the defining feature of capitalism as there
-were markets long before capitalism existed. So the fact that Spooner retained
-the concept of markets does not necessarily make him a supporter of
+Of course, it may be objected that Spooner was a right-"libertarian" because
+he supported the market and private property. However, as we argued in
+[section G.1.1](secG1.html#secg11) support for the market does not equate to
+support for capitalism (no matter how often the ideologues of capitalism
+proclaim it so). As noted, markets are not the defining feature of capitalism
+as there were markets long before capitalism existed. So the fact that Spooner
+retained the concept of markets does not necessarily make him a supporter of
capitalism. As for "property", this question is more complex as Spooner is the
only individualist anarchist to apparently reject the idea of "occupancy and
use." Somewhat ironically, he termed the doctrine that _"which holds that a
@@ -534,12 +532,12 @@ people? The socio-economic situation of the mass of the population is in
exactly the same situation as under a system founded by stealing the land by
the few. Equally, having to pay for access to the land results in just as much
a deduction from the product of work as wage labour. If property is a "natural
-right" then they must be universal and so must be extended to everyone \--
-like all rights -- and this implies an end to absolute property rights
-(_"Because the right to live and to develop oneself fully is equal for all,"_
-Proudhon argued, _"and because inequality of conditions is an obstacle to the
-exercise of this right."_ [quoted by John Enrenberg, **Proudhon and his Age**,
-pp. 48-9]). However, saying that it is fair to suggest, given his arguments in
+right" then they must be universal and so must be extended to everyone -- like
+all rights -- and this implies an end to absolute property rights (_"Because
+the right to live and to develop oneself fully is equal for all,"_ Proudhon
+argued, _"and because inequality of conditions is an obstacle to the exercise
+of this right."_ [quoted by John Enrenberg, **Proudhon and his Age**, pp.
+48-9]). However, saying that it is fair to suggest, given his arguments in
favour of universal self-employment, that Spooner did not think that his
system of property rights would be abused to produce a landlord class and, as
such, did not see the need to resolve the obvious contradictions in his
@@ -550,7 +548,7 @@ unique position on property rights within the movement. As we argued in
[section A.3.1](secA3.html#seca31), only a system where the users of land or a
workplace own it can it be consistent with anarchist principles. Otherwise, if
there are bosses and landlords, then that society would be inherently
-hierarchical and so _**Archist**_. Spooner's vision of a free society, rooted
+hierarchical and so **_Archist_**. Spooner's vision of a free society, rooted
as it is in self-employment, meets the criteria of being genuinely libertarian
in spite of the property rights used to justify it. Certain
"anarcho"-capitalists may subscribe to a similar theory of property but they
@@ -567,11 +565,10 @@ producing inequality, servitude and a servile mentality. Moreover, the
argument that capitalists deny workers _"all the fruits"_ of their labour is
identical to the general **socialist** position that capitalism is
exploitative. All of which undoubtedly explains why Rothbard only selectively
-quoted from Spooner's critique of the state rather and ignored the socio-
-economic principles which underlay his political analysis and hopes for a free
-society. Yet without those aspects of his ideas, Spooner's political analysis
-is pressed into service of an ideology it is doubtful he would have agreed
-with.
+quoted from Spooner's critique of the state and ignored the socio-economic
+principles that underlay his political analysis and hopes for a free society.
+Yet without those aspects of his ideas, Spooner's political analysis is
+pressed into service of an ideology it is doubtful he would have agreed with.
As such, we must agree with Peter Marshall, who notes that Spooner
_"recommends that every man should be his own employer, and he depicts an
@@ -592,8 +589,8 @@ directed as much against inequality as against tyranny."_ Spooner _"attempt[s]
to realise th[e] promise of social harmony by recreating [a] rough equality of
condition"_ and so joins the _"critics of modern capitalism and champions of
the Jeffersonian idea of the autonomous individual -- independent yeoman and
-the self-employed mechanic."_ **Liberalism at Wit's End**, p. 76, p. 74 and p.
-91]
+the self-employed mechanic."_ [**Liberalism at Wit's End**, p. 76, p. 74 and
+p. 91]
In summary, as can be seen, as with other individualist anarchists, there is a
great deal of commonality between Spooner's ideas and those of social
@@ -605,3 +602,7 @@ his individualist anarchism is just as anti-capitalist as the ideas of, say,
Bakunin, Kropotkin or Chomsky. Spooner, in spite of his closeness to classical
liberalism, was no more a capitalist than Rothbard was an anarchist.
+[‹ G.6 What are the ideas of Max Stirner?](/afaq/secG6.html "Go to previous
+page" ) [up](/afaq/secGcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [Section H - Why do
+anarchists oppose state socialism? ›](/afaq/secHcon.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secGcon.md b/markdown/secGcon.md
index 3033ab154bc9b841f144ceef38d74c05f593fb42..bd204c4091f3e0920b6bb3d2da0362bca22d7d84 100644
--- a/markdown/secGcon.md
+++ b/markdown/secGcon.md
@@ -1,51 +1,73 @@
# Section G - Is individualist anarchism capitalistic?
+##
+
## [Introduction](secGint.html)
+##
+
## [G.1 Are individualist anarchists anti-capitalist?](secG1.html)
-### [G.1.1 What about their support of the free market?](secG1.html#secg11)
-[G.1.2 What about their support of "private property"?](secG1.html#secg12)
-[G.1.3 What about their support for wage labour?](secG1.html#secg13)
-[G.1.4 Why is the social context important in evaluating Individualist
+> ### [G.1.1 What about their support of the free market?](secG1.html#secg11)
+> [G.1.2 What about their support of "private property"?](secG1.html#secg12)
+> [G.1.3 What about their support for wage labour?](secG1.html#secg13)
+> [G.1.4 Why is the social context important in evaluating Individualist
Anarchism?](secG1.html#secg14)
## [G.2 Why do individualist anarchists reject social anarchism?](secG2.html)
-### [G.2.1 Is communist-anarchism compulsory?](secG2.html#secg21)
-[G.2.2 Is communist-anarchism violent?](secG2.html#secg22)
-[G.2.3 Does communist-anarchism aim to destroy
+> ### [G.2.1 Is communist-anarchism compulsory?](secG2.html#secg21)
+> [G.2.2 Is communist-anarchism violent?](secG2.html#secg22)
+> [G.2.3 Does communist-anarchism aim to destroy
individuality?](secG2.html#secg23)
-[G.2.4 What other reasons do individualists give for rejecting communist-
+> [G.2.4 What other reasons do individualists give for rejecting communist-
anarchism?](secG2.html#secg24)
-[G.2.5 Do most anarchists agree with the individualists on communist-
+> [G.2.5 Do most anarchists agree with the individualists on communist-
anarchism?](secG2.html#secg25)
## [G.3 Is "anarcho"-capitalism a new form of individualist
anarchism?](secG3.html)
-### [G.3.1 Is "anarcho"-capitalism American anarchism?](secG3.html#secg31)
-[G.3.2 What are the differences between "anarcho"-capitalism and individualist
-anarchism?](secG3.html#secg32)
-[G.3.3 What about "anarcho"-capitalism's support of "defence
+> ### [G.3.1 Is "anarcho"-capitalism American anarchism?](secG3.html#secg31)
+> [G.3.2 What are the differences between "anarcho"-capitalism and
+individualist anarchism?](secG3.html#secg32)
+> [G.3.3 What about "anarcho"-capitalism's support of "defence
associations"?](secG3.html#secg33)
-[G.3.4 Why is individualist anarchist support for equality
+> [G.3.4 Why is individualist anarchist support for equality
important?](secG3.html#secg34)
-[G.3.5 Would individualist anarchists have accepted "Austrian"
+> [G.3.5 Would individualist anarchists have accepted "Austrian"
economics?](secG3.html#secg35)
-[G.3.6 Would mutual banking simply cause inflation?](secG3.html#secg36)
+> [G.3.6 Would mutual banking simply cause inflation?](secG3.html#secg36)
## [G.4 Why do social anarchists reject individualist anarchism?](secG4.html)
-### [G.4.1 Is wage labour consistent with anarchist
+> ### [G.4.1 Is wage labour consistent with anarchist
principles?](secG4.html#secg41)
-[G.4.2 Why do social anarchists think individualism is inconsistent
+> [G.4.2 Why do social anarchists think individualism is inconsistent
anarchism?](secG4.html#secg42)
## [G.5 Benjamin Tucker: capitalist or anarchist?](secG5.html)
+##
+
## [G.6 What are the ideas of Max Stirner?](secG6.html)
+##
+
## [G.7 Lysander Spooner: right-"libertarian" or libertarian
socialist?](secG7.html)
+ * [G.0 Section G Introduction](/afaq/secGint.html)
+ * [G.1 Are individualist anarchists anti-capitalist?](/afaq/secG1.html)
+ * [G.2 Why do individualist anarchists reject social anarchism?](/afaq/secG2.html)
+ * [G.3 Is "anarcho"-capitalism a new form of individualist anarchism?](/afaq/secG3.html)
+ * [G.4 Why do social anarchists reject individualist anarchism?](/afaq/secG4.html)
+ * [G.5 Benjamin Tucker: Capitalist or Anarchist?](/afaq/secG5.html)
+ * [G.6 What are the ideas of Max Stirner?](/afaq/secG6.html)
+ * [G.7 Lysander Spooner: right-"libertarian" or libertarian socialist?](/afaq/secG7.html)
+
+[‹ F.8 What role did the state take in the creation of
+capitalism?](/afaq/secF8.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/index.html
+"Go to parent page" ) [G.0 Section G Introduction ›](/afaq/secGint.html "Go to
+next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secGint.md b/markdown/secGint.md
index 13c31fd2fc3f5cbf4ba7f909a3fcf2bffba6add7..b95e81d737f61abd3528145840f6e1cd9ee4f5e0 100644
--- a/markdown/secGint.md
+++ b/markdown/secGint.md
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ movement that can be used for this purpose. They think that with the
individualist anarchists they have found such a thread. However, such an
appropriation requires the systematic ignoring or dismissal of key aspects of
individualist-anarchism (which, of course, the right-"libertarian" does).
-Somewhat ironically, this attempt by right-"libertarians" to exclude
+Somewhat ironically, this attempt by right-libertarians" to exclude
individualist anarchism from socialism parallels an earlier attempt by state
socialists to do the same. Tucker furiously refuted such attempts in an
article entitled _"Socialism and the Lexicographers"_, arguing that _"the
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ Nevertheless, in the individualists we find anarchism coming closest to
forefather of "libertarian" capitalism (of the minimal state variety). As
Kropotkin summarised, their ideas were _"a combination of those of Proudhon
with those of Herbert Spencer."_ [**Anarchism**, p. 296] What the
-"anarcho"-capitalist is trying to is to ignore Proudhon's influence (i.e. the
+"anarcho"-capitalist is trying is to ignore Proudhon's influence (i.e. the
socialist aspect of their theories) which just leaves Spencer, who was a
right-wing liberal. To reduce individualist anarchism so is to destroy what
makes it a unique political theory and movement. While both Kropotkin and
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ anarchists were more aware of this contradiction as we will see). Therefore,
social anarchists tend to think of individualist anarchism as an inconsistent
form of anarchism, one which could become consistent by simply logically
applying its own principles (see [section G.4](secG4.html)). On their part,
-many individualist anarchists simply denied that social anarchists where
+many individualist anarchists simply denied that social anarchists were
anarchists, a position other anarchists refute (see [section
G.2](secG2.html)). As such, this section can also be considered, in part, as a
continuation of the discussion begun in [section A.3](secA3.html).
@@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ and anti-capitalism, it is likely that had he realised the authoritarian
social relationships which contract theory tends to produce (and justify) when
involving employing labour, he would have modified his views in such a way as
to eliminate the contradiction (particularly as contracts involving wage
-labour directly contradicts his support for "occupancy and use"). It is
+labour directly contradict his support for "occupancy and use"). It is
understandable why he failed to do so, however, given the social context in
which he lived and agitated. In Tucker's America, self-employment was still a
possibility on a wide scale (in fact, for much of the nineteenth century it
@@ -106,8 +106,8 @@ authoritarianism within the workplace (this was the conclusion of Proudhon as
well as Kropotkin). Nevertheless, it is this inconsistency -- the non-
anarchist aspect of individualist anarchism -- which right "libertarians" like
Murray Rothbard select and concentrate on, ignoring the anti-capitalist
-context in which this aspect of individualist thought exists within. As David
-Wieck pointed out:
+context in which this aspect of individualist thought exists. As David Wieck
+pointed out:
> _"Out of the history of anarchist thought and action Rothbard has pulled
forth a single thread, the thread of individualism, and defines that
@@ -138,14 +138,14 @@ Saying that, it would be a mistake to suggest (as some writers have) that
individualist anarchism can be viewed purely in American terms. While
understanding the nature of American society and economy at the time is
essential to understanding individualist anarchism, it would be false to imply
-that only individualist anarchism was the product of America conditions and
+that only individualist anarchism was the product of American conditions and
subscribed to by Americans while social anarchism was imported from Europe by
immigrants. After all, Albert and Lucy Parsons were both native-born Americans
who became communist-anarchists while Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman only
become anarchists once they had arrived in America. Native-born Voltairine de
Cleyre moved from individualist to communist anarchism. Josiah Warren may have
-been born in Boston, but he developed his anarchism after his experiences in a
-experimental community set up by Welsh socialist Robert Owen (who, in turn,
+been born in Boston, but he developed his anarchism after his experiences in
+an experimental community set up by Welsh socialist Robert Owen (who, in turn,
was inspired by William Godwin's ideas). While Warren and Proudhon may have
developed their ideas independently, American libertarians became aware of
Proudhon and other European socialists as radical journals had correspondents
@@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ Most would have been prepared to admit and each tendency, in its own way,
reflected aspects of American society and the drastic transformation it was
going through at the time. Moreover, it was changes in American society which
lead to the steady rise of social anarchism and its eclipse of individualist
-anarchism from the 1880s onwards. While there has been a tendency to stress
+anarchism from the 1880s onwards. While there has been a tendency to stress an
individualist tendency in accounts of American anarchism due to its unique
characteristics, only those _"without a background in anarchist history"_
would think _"that the individualist anarchists were the larger segment of the
@@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ revolutionary branch of the movement. [Paul Avrich, **The Haymarket Tragedy**,
p. 57] Equally ironic, given the appropriation of the term by the American
right, the first anarchist journal to use the term "libertarian" (**La
Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social**) was published in New York between
-1858 and 1861 by French communist-anarchist Joseph Djacque. [Max Nettlau, **A
+1858 and 1861 by French communist-anarchist Joseph Déjacque. [Max Nettlau, **A
Short History of Anarchism**, pp. 75-6]
All this is not to suggest that individualist anarchism does not have American
@@ -280,7 +280,7 @@ It is not a fitting tribute to the individualist anarchists that their ideas
are today being associated with the capitalism that they so clearly despised
and wished to abolish. As one modern day Individualist Anarchist argues:
-> _ "It is time that anarchists recognise the valuable contributions of . . .
+> _"It is time that anarchists recognise the valuable contributions of . . .
individualist anarchist theory and take advantage of its ideas. It would be
both futile and criminal to leave it to the capitalist libertarians, whose
claims on Tucker and the others can be made only by ignoring the violent
@@ -307,3 +307,8 @@ enough to indicate why the likes of Tucker, Labadie, Yarros and Spooner
deserve better than to be reduced to footnotes in books defending an even more
extreme version of the capitalism they spent their lives fighting.
+[‹ Section G - Is individualist anarchism capitalistic?](/afaq/secGcon.html
+"Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secGcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [G.1 Are
+individualist anarchists anti-capitalist? ›](/afaq/secG1.html "Go to next
+page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secH1.md b/markdown/secH1.md
index 26217bbe21a6530e2878b02e2c3d9f0c0a483910..307f2ed169e2302e525982d250a098ddca4599dd 100644
--- a/markdown/secH1.md
+++ b/markdown/secH1.md
@@ -39,18 +39,18 @@ section](secH1.html#sech11), we should consider the thoughts of Stirner and
Proudhon on state socialism. These critiques contain may important ideas and
so are worth summarising. However, it is worth noting that when both Stirner
and Proudhon were writing communist ideas were all authoritarian in nature.
-Libertarian communism only developed after Bakunin's death in 1876\. This
-means that when Proudhon and Stirner were critiquing "communism" they were
-attacking a specific form of communism, the form which subordinated the
-individual to the community. Anarchist communists like Kropotkin and Malatesta
-also opposed such kinds of "communism" (as Kropotkin put it, _"before and in
-1848"_ communism _"was put forward in such a shape as to fully account for
-Proudhon's distrust as to its effect upon liberty. The old idea of Communism
-was the idea of monastic communities . . . The last vestiges of liberty and of
-individual energy would be destroyed, if humanity ever had to go through such
-a communism."_ [**Act for Yourselves**, p. 98]). Of course, it may be likely
-that Stirner and Proudhon would have rejected libertarian communism as well,
-but bear in mind that not all forms of "communism" are identical.
+Libertarian communism only developed after Bakunin's death in 1876. This means
+that when Proudhon and Stirner were critiquing "communism" they were attacking
+a specific form of communism, the form which subordinated the individual to
+the community. Anarchist communists like Kropotkin and Malatesta also opposed
+such kinds of "communism." As Kropotkin put it, _"before and in 1848"_
+communism _"was put forward in such a shape as to fully account for Proudhon's
+distrust as to its effect upon liberty. The old idea of Communism was the idea
+of monastic communities . . . The last vestiges of liberty and of individual
+energy would be destroyed, if humanity ever had to go through such a
+communism."_ [**Act for Yourselves**, p. 98] Of course, it may be likely that
+Stirner and Proudhon would have rejected libertarian communism as well, but
+bear in mind that not all forms of "communism" are identical.
For Stirner, the key issue was that communism (or socialism), like liberalism,
looked to the _"human"_ rather than the unique. _"To be looked upon as a mere
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ As such, his protest against socialism was similar to his protest against
liberalism (indeed, he drew attention to their similarity by calling it
_"social liberalism"_). Stirner was aware that capitalism was not the great
defender of freedom it was claimed to be by its supporters. _"Restless
-acquisition,"_ he argued, _"does not let us take breath, take a claim
+acquisition,"_ he argued, _"does not let us take breath, take a calm
**enjoyment**: we do not get the comfort of our possessions."_ Communism, by
the _"organisation of labour,"_ can _"bear its fruit"_ so that _"we come to an
agreement about **human** labours, that they may not, as under competition,
@@ -97,10 +97,10 @@ _"silent"_ on these matters and incorporates Stirner's legitimate concerns and
arguments).
Similar arguments to Stirner's can be found in Proudhon's works against the
-various schemes of state socialism that existing in France in the middle of
-the nineteenth century. He particularly attacked the ideas of Louis Blanc.
-Blanc, whose most famous book was **Organisation du Travail** (**Organisation
-of Work**, first published in 1840) argued that social ills resulted from
+various schemes of state socialism that existed in France in the middle of the
+nineteenth century. He particularly attacked the ideas of Louis Blanc. Blanc,
+whose most famous book was **Organisation du Travail** (**Organisation of
+Work**, first published in 1840) argued that social ills resulted from
competition and they could be solved by means of eliminating it via government
initiated and financed reforms. More specifically, Blanc argued that it was
_"necessary to use the whole power of the state"_ to ensure the creation and
@@ -126,10 +126,10 @@ Moreover, by getting the funds for the "social workshop" from capitalists,
Blanc's scheme was hardly undermining their power. _"Capital and power,"_
Proudhon argued, _"secondary organs of society, are always the gods whom
socialism adores; if capital and power did not exist, it would invent them."_
-[quoted by Vincent, **Op. Cit.**, p. 157] He stressed the authoritarian nature
-of Blanc's scheme:
+[**Property is Theft!**, p. 215 and p. 217] He stressed the authoritarian
+nature of Blanc's scheme:
-> _ "M. Blanc is never tired of appealing to authority, and socialism loudly
+> _"M. Blanc is never tired of appealing to authority, and socialism loudly
declares itself anarchistic; M. Blanc places power above society, and
socialism tends to subordinate it to society; M. Blanc makes social life
descend from above, and socialism maintains that it springs up and grows from
@@ -138,26 +138,23 @@ more hypocrisy, let me say to M. Blanc: you desire neither Catholicism nor
monarchy nor nobility, but you must have a God, a religion, a dictatorship, a
censorship, a hierarchy, distinctions, and ranks. For my part, I deny your
God, your authority, your sovereignty, your judicial State, and all your
-representative mystifications."_ [**System of Economical Contradictions**, p.
-263]
+representative mystifications."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 205]
Equally, Proudhon opposed the "top-down" nature of Blanc's ideas. As it was
run by the state, the system of workshops would hardly be libertarian as
_"hierarchy would result from the elective principle . . . as in
-constitutional politics. But these social workshops again, regulated by law, -
-will they be anything but corporations? What is the bond of corporations? The
-law. Who will make the law? The government."_ Such a regime, Proudhon argued,
-would be unlikely to function well and the net result would be _"all reforms
-ending, now in hierarchical corporation, now in State monopoly, or the tyranny
-of communism."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 269 and p. 271] This was because of the
-perspective of state socialists:
-
-> _ "As you cannot conceive of society without hierarchy, you have made
+constitutional politics . . . Who will make the law? The government."_ Such a
+regime, Proudhon argued, would be unlikely to function well and the net result
+would be _"all reforms ending, now in hierarchical corporation, now in State
+monopoly, or the tyranny of community."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 21 and p. 207] This
+was because of the perspective of state socialists:
+
+> _"As you cannot conceive of society without hierarchy, you have made
yourselves the apostles of authority; worshippers of power, you think only of
strengthening it and muzzling liberty; your favourite maxim is that the
welfare of the people must be achieved in spite of the people; instead of
proceeding to social reform by the extermination of power and politics, you
-insist on a reconstruction of power and politics."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 397]
+insist on a reconstruction of power and politics."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 225-6]
Instead of reform from above, Proudhon stressed the need for working class
people to organise themselves for their own liberation. As he put it, the
@@ -170,12 +167,11 @@ of no use to change the holders of power or introduce some variation into its
workings: an agricultural and industrial combination must be found by means of
which power, today the ruler of society, shall become its slave."_ This was
because the state _"finds itself inevitably enchained to capital and directed
-against the proletariat."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 398, p. 397 and p. 399]
-Unsurprisingly, Proudhon stressed in 1848 that _"the proletariat must
-emancipate itself without the help of the government."_ [quoted by George
-Woodcock, **Pierre-Joseph Proudhon**, p. 125] In addition, by guaranteeing
-interest payments, Blanc's scheme insured the continued exploitation of labour
-by capital and, of course, while opposing capitalist competition, Proudhon did
+against the proletariat."_ Unsurprisingly, Proudhon stressed in 1848 that
+_"the proletariat must emancipate itself without the help of the government."_
+[**Op. Cit.**, pp. 225-6 and p. 306] In addition, by guaranteeing interest
+payments, Blanc's scheme insured the continued exploitation of labour by
+capital and, of course, while opposing capitalist competition, Proudhon did
not consider it wise to abolish all forms of the market.
Proudhon argued for a two-way approach to undermining capitalism from below:
@@ -197,7 +193,7 @@ anarchists, who were generally revolutionaries and argued that capitalism
cannot be reformed away and so supported strikes and other forms of collective
working class direct action, struggle and combative organisation).
-Unsurprisingly, Proudhon's ideas were shaped by the society in lived and
+Unsurprisingly, Proudhon's ideas were shaped by the society he lived and
agitated in. In the mid-nineteenth century, the bulk of the French working
class were artisans and peasants and so such an approach reflected the social
context in which it was proposed. With a predominance of small-scale industry,
@@ -207,11 +203,11 @@ feasible. It was this social context which informed Proudhon's ideas (see
[section H.2.3](secH2.html#sech23)). He never failed to stress that
association would be tyranny if imposed upon peasants and artisans (rather, he
thought that associations would be freely embraced by these workers if they
-thought it was in their interests to). However, he did not ignore the rise of
-large-scale industry and explicitly proposed workers' associations (i.e., co-
-operatives) for those industries which objectively needed it (i.e. capitalist
-industry) and for those other toilers who desired it. The net effect was the
-same, though, namely to abolish wage labour.
+thought it was in their interests to do so). However, he did not ignore the
+rise of large-scale industry and explicitly proposed workers' associations
+(i.e., co-operatives) for those industries which objectively needed it (i.e.
+capitalist industry) and for those other toilers who desired it. The net
+effect was the same, though, namely to abolish wage labour.
It was this opposition to wage labour which drove Proudhon's critique of state
socialism. He continually stressed that state ownership of the means of
@@ -254,7 +250,7 @@ place in communist-anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism and in their critique of
mainstream Marxism (such as social democracy) and Leninism. Echoes of these
critiques can be found Bakunin's comments of 1868:
-> _ "I hate Communism because it is the negation of liberty and because for me
+> _"I hate Communism because it is the negation of liberty and because for me
humanity is unthinkable without liberty. I am not a Communist, because
Communism concentrates and swallows up in itself for the benefit of the State
all the forces of society, because it inevitably leads to the concentration of
@@ -388,7 +384,7 @@ 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] By the start of the First World
-War, the Social Democrats had become so corrupted by its activities in
+War, the Social Democrats had become so corrupted by their activities in
bourgeois institutions they supported its state (and ruling class) and voted
for war credits rather than denounce the war as Imperialist slaughter for
profits. Clearly, Bakunin was proved right. (see also [section
@@ -398,40 +394,39 @@ on radical parties).
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 (see [section J.2.10](secJ2.html#secj210)). Bakunin
-clearly advocated what would later by termed a syndicalist strategy (see
+clearly advocated what would later be termed a syndicalist strategy (see
[section H.2.8](secH2.html#sech28)). 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](secJ3.html#secj37)).
Comparing Bakunin and Marx, it is clear whom history has validated. Even that
-anti-anarchist Stalinist hack Eric Hobsbawn could not avoid admitting that
-_"the remarkable achievement of Spanish anarchism which was to create a
-working-class movement that remained genuinely revolutionary. Social
-democratic and . . . even communist trade unions have rarely been able to
-escape either schizophrenia [i.e., revolutionary rhetoric hiding reformist
-practice] or betrayal of their socialist convictions."_ [**Revolutionaries**,
-p. 104] This is probably the only accurate comment made in his various
-diatribes on anarchism but, of course, he did not allow the implications of
-his statement to bother his faith in Leninist ideology. So given the long
-history of reformism and betrayal of socialist principles by radicals
-utilising elections and political parties, it comes as no surprise that
-anarchists consider both Bakunin's critique and alternative to be confirmed by
-experience ([section J.2](secJ2.html) discusses direct action and
-electioneering).
+anti-anarchist Stalinist hack Eric Hobsbawn could not avoid admitting _"the
+remarkable achievement of Spanish anarchism which was to create a working-
+class movement that remained genuinely revolutionary. Social democratic and .
+. . even communist trade unions have rarely been able to escape either
+schizophrenia [i.e., revolutionary rhetoric hiding reformist practice] or
+betrayal of their socialist convictions."_ [**Revolutionaries**, p. 104] This
+is probably the only accurate comment made in his various diatribes on
+anarchism but, of course, he did not allow the implications of his statement
+to bother his faith in Leninist ideology. So given the long history of
+reformism and betrayal of socialist principles by radicals utilising elections
+and political parties, it comes as no surprise that anarchists consider both
+Bakunin's critique and alternative to be confirmed by experience ([section
+J.2](secJ2.html) discusses direct action and electioneering).
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]
+capital. In his words, _"the revolution must set out from the first 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 _"does not regard
capital . . . but the **state** as the main evil to be abolished"_ after which
@@ -450,7 +445,7 @@ workers with their poverty."_ 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
+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."_ [**The
Political Philosophy of Bakunin**, p. 294 and p. 289]
@@ -464,8 +459,8 @@ economic foundations upon which rests the existence of classes."_ Engels
argued that the _"proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this
transforms the . . . means of production . . . into public property."_ 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
+the working class"_ is _"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."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 635, p. 717
@@ -498,23 +493,23 @@ economic masters. Which makes perfect sense, as otherwise the term
_"dictatorship of the proletariat"_ would be meaningless.
Then there is the issue of when the working class could seize political power.
-As Engels put it, the struggle _"between bourgeoisie and proletariat can only
-be fought out in a republic."_ This is _"the form in which the struggle must
-be fought out"_ and in countries without a republic, such as Germany at the
-time, workers would _"have to **conquer** it."_ [Marx and Engels, **The
-Socialist Revolution**, p. 264] Decades previously, Engels has argued that the
-_"first, fundamental condition for the introduction of community of property
-is the political liberation of the proletariat through a democratic
-constitution."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 6, p. 102] Thus the bourgeois
-revolution would come first, then the proletarian one. The **Communist
-Manifesto** had raised the possibility of a bourgeois revolution in Germany
-being _"but a prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution."_
-[**Selected Writings**, p. 63] Within two years, Marx and Engels argued that
-this was wrong, that a socialist revolution was not possible in Continental
-Europe for some time. Even in the 1880s, Engels was still arguing that a
-proletarian revolution was not immediately possible in Germany and the first
-results of any revolution would be a bourgeois republic within which the task
-of social democracy was to build its forces and influence.
+As Engels put it, the conflict _"between bourgeoisie and proletariat can only
+be fought out in a republic"_ as this is _"the form in which the struggle must
+be fought out."_ Workers would have to create a republic in countries without
+one (such as Germany at the time). [Marx and Engels, **The Socialist
+Revolution**, p. 264] Decades previously, Engels had argued that the _"first,
+fundamental condition for the introduction of community of property is the
+political liberation of the proletariat through a democratic constitution."_
+[**Collected Works**, vol. 6, p. 102] Thus the bourgeois revolution would come
+first, then the proletarian one. The **Communist Manifesto** had raised the
+possibility of a bourgeois revolution in Germany being _"but a prelude to an
+immediately following proletarian revolution."_ [**Selected Writings**, p. 63]
+Within two years, Marx and Engels argued that this was wrong, that a socialist
+revolution was not possible in Continental Europe for some time. Even in the
+1880s, Engels was still arguing that a proletarian revolution was not
+immediately possible in Germany and the first results of any revolution would
+be a bourgeois republic within which the task of social democracy was to build
+its forces and influence.
Clearly, then, Marx and Engels considered the creation of a republic in a well
developed capitalist economy as the basis for seizing of state power as the
@@ -535,7 +530,7 @@ As the experience of the Russian Revolution showed, the position of Marx and
Engels proved to be untenable. Bakunin's perspective was repeated by a Russian
worker in 1906 when he expressed his impatience with Menshevik strategy:
-> _ "Here [the Mensheviks] . . . tells us that the workers' congress is the
+> _"Here [the Mensheviks] . . . tells us that the workers' congress is the
best means of assuring the independence of the proletariat in the bourgeois
revolution; otherwise, we workers will play the role of cannon fodder in it.
So I ask: what is the insurance for? Will we really make the bourgeois
@@ -551,7 +546,7 @@ followed Bakunin's path (mostly spontaneously and without significant
influence by anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists). The Mensheviks repeated
their mistakes of 1905 as they _"proved unable to harness this revolutionary
potential to any practical purpose. They were blinded by their rigid marxist
-formula of 'bourgeois revolution first, socialist revolution later' and tired
+formula of 'bourgeois revolution first, socialist revolution later' and tried
to restrain the masses. They preached self-abnegation to them, told them to
stand aside until such times as the bourgeoisie had built a solid capitalist
system. This made no sense to workers and peasants - why should they renounce
@@ -646,9 +641,9 @@ pressing."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 332, pp. 332-3 and p. 318]
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 for that, 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 concept totally (see [section
+that anarchists do not see the need for that, 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 concept totally (see [section
H.2.1](secH2.html#sech21) for a refutation of claims that anarchists think a
revolution does not need defending). To understand why Bakunin rejected the
concept, we must provide some historical context.
@@ -681,10 +676,10 @@ 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:
-> _ "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
+> _"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 Bakunin, to advocate the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in an
@@ -712,7 +707,7 @@ 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
+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
@@ -750,7 +745,7 @@ Then there is the issue of whether, even if the proletariat **does** seize
political power, whether the whole class can actually exercise it. Bakunin
raised the obvious questions:
-> _ "For, even from the standpoint of that urban proletariat who are supposed
+> _"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
@@ -772,7 +767,7 @@ 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
+well as the democratic school - is a lie behind which 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]
@@ -801,8 +796,8 @@ leaders 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 working class 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
+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.
@@ -853,16 +848,16 @@ note, by a follower of Proudhon). However, in 1850, Marx stood for extreme
centralisation of power, arguing that 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**, pp. 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]
+He argued that in a nation like Germany _"where there are 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**, pp. 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]
Obviously, this issue dove-tails into the question of whether the whole class
exercises power under the "dictatorship of the proletariat." In a centralised
@@ -872,7 +867,7 @@ 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:
-> _ "What man, what group of individuals, no matter how great their genius,
+> _"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**,
@@ -933,7 +928,7 @@ their nature exclude.
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 Gurin, that Marx's comments
+centralisation). What is true is, to quote Daniel Guérin, 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]
@@ -952,7 +947,7 @@ 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!).
-Since Bakunin, anarchists have deepen this critique of Marxism and, with the
+Since Bakunin, anarchists have deepened this critique of Marxism and, with the
experience of both Social-Democracy and 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
@@ -981,13 +976,11 @@ 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:
-> _ "The important, fundamental dissension [between anarchists and Marxists]
-is [that] . . . [Marxist] socialists are authoritarians, anarchists are
-libertarians.
-
->
+> _"The important, fundamental dissension [between anarchists and Marxists] is
+[that] . . . [Marxist] socialists are authoritarians, anarchists are
+libertarians. _
-> "Socialists want power . . . and once in power wish to impose their
+> _"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
@@ -1032,18 +1025,16 @@ 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:
-> _ "Anarchist critics of Marx pointed out with considerable effect that any
+> _"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 . . .
-
->
+Bakunin's more favourite terms) of unparalleled oppression . . . _
-> "Republican institutions, however much they are intended to express the
+> _"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
@@ -1068,13 +1059,13 @@ 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. 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 Bolshevik
-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
+the real power, not the workers. That is the 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
+Bolshevik 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."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 33, p. 55] Yet Lenin's comments came
just a few months after factions within the Communist Party had been banned
and after the Kronstadt rebellion and a wave of strikes calling for free
@@ -1090,7 +1081,7 @@ 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 Communists' correct understanding of his tasks"_
lies in _"correctly gauging the conditions and the moment when the vanguard of
-the proletariat can successfully assume power, when it will be able \- during
+the proletariat can successfully assume power, when it will be able - during
and after the seizure of power - to win adequate support from sufficiently
broad strata of the working class and of the non-proletarian working masses,
and when it is able thereafter to maintain, consolidate, and extend its rule
@@ -1114,7 +1105,7 @@ dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard . . . Such is the basic
mechanism of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the essentials of
transition from capitalism to communism . . . for the dictatorship of the
proletariat cannot be exercised by a mass proletarian organisation."_
-[**Collected Works**, vol. 32, p. 21] This position had became Communist
+[**Collected Works**, vol. 32, p. 21] This position had become Communist
orthodoxy both in Russia and internationally since early 1919. The American
socialist John Reed, author of **Ten Days that Shook the World**, was a
defender of _"the value of centralisation"_ and _"the dictatorship of a
@@ -1162,20 +1153,20 @@ absurdities of this assertion are all too plain. Needless to say, when
defending the concept of _"the dictatorship of the party"_ he linked it to
Lenin (and so to Leninist orthodoxy):
-> _ "Of course, the foundation of our regime is the dictatorship of a class.
-But this in turn assumes . . . it is class that has come to self-consciousness
-through its vanguard, which is to say, through the party. Without this, the
-dictatorship could not exist . . . Dictatorship is the most highly
-concentrated function of function of a class, and therefore the basic
-instrument of a dictatorship is a party. In the most fundamental aspects a
-class realises its dictatorship through a party. That is why Lenin spoke not
-only of the dictatorship of the class but also the dictatorship of the party
-and, **in a certain sense**, made them identical."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 75-6]
+> _"Of course, the foundation of our regime is the dictatorship of a class.
+But this in turn assumes . . . it is a class that has come to self-
+consciousness through its vanguard, which is to say, through the party.
+Without this, the dictatorship could not exist . . . Dictatorship is the most
+highly concentrated function of a class, and therefore the basic instrument of
+a dictatorship is a party. In the most fundamental aspects a class realises
+its dictatorship through a party. That is why Lenin spoke not only of the
+dictatorship of the class but also the dictatorship of the party and, **in a
+certain sense**, made them identical."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 75-6]
He repeated this position on party dictatorship into the late 1930s, long
after it had resulted in the horrors of Stalinism:
-> _ "The revolutionary dictatorship of a proletarian party is for me not a
+> _"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
@@ -1198,18 +1189,18 @@ of soviet democracy in **The Revolution Betrayed**. Moreover, as we discuss in
he had made while in power during the Russian Revolution. Nor was he the only
one. Zinoviev, another leading Bolshevik, argued in 1920 along the same lines:
-> _ "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 be 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 of 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]
+> _"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 be 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
+of 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]
Three years later, at the Communist Party's congress, he made light of
_"comrades who think that the dictatorship of the party is a thing to be
@@ -1256,10 +1247,10 @@ the theory of single-party government - by this time, it was too late."_
Significantly, this position on party rule 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" (show "vacillation") during a
+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" (show "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 did in fact take).
@@ -1295,15 +1286,16 @@ rule/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. So not all Marxists are Leninists. A few (council
communists, Situationists, 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.
+reject the idea of party power/dictatorship and the use of elections and
+instead argue for direct action, 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 as summarised
by Lenin in his work **The State and Revolution**:
-> _ "The difference between the Marxists and the anarchists is this: 1) the
+> _"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
@@ -1333,8 +1325,8 @@ _"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
+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
@@ -1343,16 +1335,16 @@ 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, for Marxists, the denial the need to defend a revolution.
-This particular straw man was used by Lenin in **The State and Revolution**
-when he quoted Marx's article _"Indifference to Politics"_ to suggest that
-anarchists advocated workers _"laying down their arms"_ after a successful
-revolution. Such a _"laying down [of] their arms"_ would mean _"abolishing the
-state"_ while keeping their arms _"in order to crush the resistance of the
-bourgeoisie"_ would mean _"giv[ing] the state a revolutionary and transitory
-form,"_ so setting up _"their revolutionary dictatorship in place of the
-dictatorship of the bourgeoisie."_ [Marx, quoted by Lenin, **Op. Cit.**, p.
-315]
+proletariat means, for Marxists, the denial of the need to defend a
+revolution. This particular straw man was used by Lenin in **The State and
+Revolution** when he quoted Marx's article _"Indifference to Politics"_ to
+suggest that anarchists advocated workers _"laying down their arms"_ after a
+successful revolution. Such a _"laying down [of] their arms"_ would mean
+_"abolishing the state"_ while keeping their arms _"in order to crush the
+resistance of the bourgeoisie"_ would mean _"giv[ing] the state a
+revolutionary and transitory form,"_ so setting up _"their revolutionary
+dictatorship in place of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie."_ [Marx, quoted
+by Lenin, **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"
@@ -1404,53 +1396,41 @@ 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:
-> _ "The formula 'dictatorship of the proletariat' has been used to mean many
+> _"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.
+federalist conception of the Commune. _
->
-
-> "Can it mean the exercise of political power by the victorious working
+> _"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.
-
->
+masses. _
-> "But if by dictatorship of the proletariat is understood collective and
+> _"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!
-
->
+political power, it is about doing away with it all together! _
-> "If by dictatorship is meant the domination of the majority by a minority,
+> _"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.
+arrange for its defence its own social Organisation. _
->
+> _[...] _
-> [...]
-
->
-
-> "The terms 'domination', 'dictatorship' and 'state' are as little
+> _"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.
-
->
+seizure of the factories by the workers. _
-> We reject then as inaccurate and causes of confusion the expressions
+> _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]
@@ -1461,7 +1441,7 @@ 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:
-> _ "The mistake of authoritarian communists in this connection is the belief
+> _"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
@@ -1469,11 +1449,9 @@ 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.
+passively entrusting themselves to the authority of the supreme leaders. _
->
-
-> "Any governing body is an impediment to the real organisation of the broad
+> _"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,
@@ -1519,7 +1497,7 @@ working class and eliminate their power in favour of party power (_"the
principle error of the [Paris] Commune, an unavoidable error, since it derived
from the very principle on which power was constituted, was precisely that of
being a government, and of substituting itself for the people by force of
-circumstances."_ [Elise Reclus, quoted John P. Clark and Camille Martin,
+circumstances."_ [Elisée Reclus, quoted John P. Clark and Camille Martin,
**Anarchy, Geography, Modernity**, p. 72]).
In place of a state anarchists' argue for a free federation of workers'
@@ -1537,7 +1515,7 @@ the voluntary fusion of the proletarian communes, for the sole purpose of
destroying bourgeois rule and the bourgeois state machine."_ [**The Lenin
Anthology**, p. 348] Yet _"voluntary centralism"_ is, at best, just another
why of describing federalism - assuming that "voluntary" really means that, of
-course. At worse, and in practice, such centralism simply places all the
+course. At worst, and in practice, such centralism simply places all the
decision making at the centre, at the top, and all that is left is for the
communes to obey the decisions of a few party leaders.
@@ -1592,7 +1570,7 @@ stressed that a federation of workers' associations would constitute the
framework of a free society, to assert otherwise (as Lenin did) is little more
than a joke or a slander. To quote Bakunin:
-> _ "The future social organisation must be made solely from the bottom up, by
+> _"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."_ [**Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings**, p.
@@ -1621,40 +1599,28 @@ 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 bourgeoisie's power over the popular masses springs from economic
+> _"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 following measures strike us as essential to the welfare of the
-revolution, every bit as much as armed struggle against its enemies:
+various manifestations. _
->
+> _"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,
+> _"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:
+gems and precious stones and manufactured products: _
->
+> _"All political, administrative and judicial authorities are to be deposed .
+. . What should the organisational measures of the revolution be? _
-> "All political, administrative and judicial authorities are to be deposed .
-. . What should the organisational measures of the revolution be?
-
->
-
-> "Immediate and spontaneous establishment of trade bodies: provisional
+> _"Immediate and spontaneous establishment of trade bodies: provisional
assumption by those of . . . social capital . . .: local federation of a
-trades bodies and labour organisation:
-
->
+trades bodies and labour organisation: _
-> "Establishment of neighbourhood groups and federations of same . . .
+> _"Establishment of neighbourhood groups and federations of same . . . _
->
-
-> "Organisation of the insurgent forces . . . the federation of all the
+> _"Organisation of the insurgent forces . . . the 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 . . .
@@ -1682,12 +1648,12 @@ dictatorship **over** the proletariat by the party.
Italian anarchist Camillo Berneri summed up the differences well:
-> _ "The Marxists . . . foresee the natural disappearance of the State as a
+> _"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 armed conquest of the Commune by the whole proletariat, but they
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
@@ -1703,7 +1669,7 @@ only well aware of the need for a federation of working class associations
(workers' councils or soviets) to replace the state, they were advocating it
long before Lenin took up this perspective in 1917 (as we discuss in [section
H.3.10](secH3.html#sech310)). The key difference being, of course, anarchists
-meant it will Lenin saw it as a means of securing Bolshevik party power.
+meant it while Lenin saw it as a means of securing Bolshevik party power.
Lastly, it should also be noted that Marxists, having taken so long to draw
the same conclusions as anarchists like Proudhon and Bakunin, have tended to
@@ -1760,7 +1726,7 @@ place in a mostly pre-capitalist Tsarist regime which was barely out of the
18th century itself? Did they not realise that the leaders of the vanguard
party know better than themselves how they should organise and conduct their
struggles? That the people of the 21st century knew best how to organise their
-own revolts is lost of Harman, who prefers to squeeze the realities of modern
+own revolts is lost on Harman, who prefers to squeeze the realities of modern
struggles into the forms which Marxists took so long to recognise in the first
place. Given that anarchists have been discussing the possibilities of
community assemblies for some time, perhaps we can expect Leninists to
@@ -1796,7 +1762,7 @@ 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:
-> _ "Participation in the politics of the bourgeois States has not brought the
+> _"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
@@ -1814,7 +1780,7 @@ their own political and administrative interests."_ Political action, in
contrast, needs centralised _"authoritarian organisations"_ and results in
_"ceding power by all to someone, the delegate, the representative"_. "For
direct pressure put against the ruling classes by the masses, the Socialist
-Party has substituted representation"_ and _"instead of fostering the class
+Party has substituted representation" and _"instead of fostering the class
struggle . . . it has adopted class collaboration in the legislative arena,
without which all reforms would remain a vain hope."_ [Luigi Galleani, **The
End of Anarchism?**, pp. 13-4, p. 14 and p. 12]
@@ -1837,24 +1803,22 @@ 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 Bakunin predicted 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](secJ2.html#secj26) for more
-discussion). 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:
-
-> _ "The Social Question will be put . . . long before the Socialists have
+for a social revolution. Moreover, as Bakunin predicted, participation in
+elections has a corrupting effect on those who do so. 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](secJ2.html#secj26) for more discussion). 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:
+
+> _"The Social Question will be put . . . long before the Socialists have
conquered a few seats in Parliament, and thus the solution of the question
-will be actually in the hands of the workmen [and women] themselves . . .
-
->
+will be actually in the hands of the workmen [and women] themselves . . . _
-> "Under the influence of government worship, they may try to nominate a new
+> _"Under the influence of government worship, they may try to nominate a new
government . . . and they may entrust it with the solution of all
difficulties. It is so simple, so easy, to throw a vote into the ballot-box,
and to return home! So gratifying to know that there is somebody who will
@@ -1886,34 +1850,32 @@ of organisation in order to manage and co-ordinate the struggle, voting
creates no alternative social structures. 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!
+other individuals (the voters). This 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 anti-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.
+electioneering. Various left-wing parties 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 of 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 be 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
@@ -1932,7 +1894,7 @@ whether they would act for people or not.
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
+a de-radicalising of those who use it? This would be the inevitable result 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
@@ -1946,7 +1908,7 @@ So anarchists point to the actual record of Marxists _"utilising the present
state"_. Murray Bookchin's comments about the German Social Democrats are
appropriate here:
-> _"[T]he party's preoccupation with parliamentarism was taking it ever away
+> _"the party's preoccupation with parliamentarism was taking it ever away
from anything Marx had envisioned. Instead of working to overthrow the
bourgeois state, the SPD, with its intense focus on elections, had virtually
become an engine for getting votes and increasing its Reichstag representation
@@ -1964,7 +1926,7 @@ similar failure to consider the evidence:
> _"From the early 1920s on, the Leninist attachment to pre-WWI social
democratic tactics such as electoral politics and political activity within
pro-capitalist labour unions dominated the perspectives of the so-called
-Communist. But if these tactics were correct ones, why didn't they lead to a
+Communists. But if these tactics were correct ones, why didn't they lead to a
less dismal set of results? We must be materialists, not idealists. What was
the actual outcome of the Leninist strategies? Did Leninist strategies result
in successful proletarian revolutions, giving rise to societies worthy of the
@@ -2084,7 +2046,7 @@ This perspective can be seen from the justly famous _"Circular of the
Sixteen"_ issued at the Sonvillier congress by the libertarian wing of the
First International:
-> _ "The future society must be nothing else than the universalisation of the
+> _"The future society must be nothing else than the universalisation of the
organisation that the International has formed for itself. We must therefore
take care to make this organisation as close as possible to our ideal. How
could one want an equalitarian and free society to issue from an authoritarian
@@ -2109,7 +2071,7 @@ effective _"schools of anarchism"_ in which we learn to manage our own affairs
without hierarchy and bosses and so popular organisations become the cells of
the new society:
-> _ "Libertarian forms of organisation have the enormous responsibility of
+> _"Libertarian forms of organisation have the enormous responsibility of
trying to resemble the society they are seeking to develop. They can tolerate
no disjunction between ends and means. Direct action, so integral to the
management of a future society, has its parallel in the use of direct action
@@ -2164,9 +2126,9 @@ took the revolt as a striking, if incomplete, confirmation of anarchism (see
The Paris Commune, it must be stressed, brought the contradictions of the
Marxist attacks on anarchism to the surface. It is deeply sad to read, say,
-Engels attacking anarchists for holding certain position yet praising the 1871
-revolution when it implement exactly the same ideas. For example, in his
-deeply inaccurate diatribe _"The Bakuninists at Work"_, Engels was keen to
+Engels attacking anarchists for holding certain positions yet praising the
+1871 revolution when it implemented exactly the same ideas. For example, in
+his deeply inaccurate diatribe _"The Bakuninists at Work"_, Engels was keen to
distort the federalist ideas of anarchism, dismissing _"the so-called
principles of anarchy, free federation of independent groups."_ [**Collected
Works**, vol. 23, p. 297] Compare this to his praise for the Paris Commune
@@ -2202,9 +2164,9 @@ their constituents within the party. [**In Defense of Marxism**, pp. 80-1]
Clearly a _"free federation"_ of Communes and binding mandates are bad when
anarchists advocate them but excellent when workers in revolt implement them!
Why this was the case Engels failed to explain. However, it does suggest that
-anarchist ideas that we must reflect the future in how we organise today is no
-hindrance to revolutionary change and, in fact, reflects what is required to
-turn a revolt into a genuine social revolution.
+the anarchist idea that we must reflect the future in how we organise today is
+no hindrance to revolutionary change and, in fact, reflects what is required
+to turn a revolt into a genuine social revolution.
Engels asserted that the anarchist position meant that _"the proletariat is
told to organise not in accordance with the requirements of the struggle . . .
@@ -2263,19 +2225,19 @@ and our struggles shape our dreams. People resist oppression and exploitation
because we want to determine what goes on in our lives and to manage our own
affairs. In that process, we create new forms of organisation which allows
that to happen, ones that reflect our dreams of a better world. This is not in
-opposition to the needs of the struggle, as Engels asserted, but are rather an
+opposition to the needs of the struggle, as Engels asserted, but is rather an
expression of it. To dismiss this process, to advocate organisational methods
which are the very antithesis of what working class people have shown,
-repeatedly, what they want, is the height of arrogance and, ultimately, little
+repeatedly, that they want, is the height of arrogance and, ultimately, little
more than a dismissal of the hopes, dreams and creative self-activity of
working class people. As libertarian socialist Cornelius Castoriadis put it:
-> _ "the organisation's inspiration can come only from the socialist
-structures created by the working class in the course of its own history. It
-must let itself be guided by the principles on which the soviet and the
-factory council were founded . . . the principles of workers' management must
-govern the operation and structure of the organisation. Apart from them, there
-are only capitalist principles, which, as we have seen, can only result in the
+> _"the organisation's inspiration can come only from the socialist structures
+created by the working class in the course of its own history. It must let
+itself be guided by the principles on which the soviet and the factory council
+were founded . . . the principles of workers' management must govern the
+operation and structure of the organisation. Apart from them, there are only
+capitalist principles, which, as we have seen, can only result in the
establishment of capitalist relationships."_ [**Political and Social
Writings**, vol. 2, pp. 217-8]
@@ -2291,10 +2253,10 @@ 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 clearly
-shows who was correct!
+reflects the ideas of 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 clearly shows who was correct!
Anarchists, in other words, simply generalised the experiences of the workers
in struggle and Bakunin and his followers were expressing a common position
@@ -2336,23 +2298,19 @@ Such a centralised, inevitably top-down, system can only be counter-
productive, both practically and in terms of generating socialist
consciousness:
-> _ "Bolsheviks argue that to fight the highly centralised forces of modern
+> _"Bolsheviks argue that to fight the highly centralised forces of modern
capitalism requires an equally centralised type of party. This ignores the
fact that capitalist centralisation is based on coercion and force and the
exclusion of the overwhelming majority of the population from participating in
-any of its decisions . . .
-
->
+any of its decisions . . . _
-> "The very structure of these organisations ensures that their personnel do
+> _"The very structure of these organisations ensures that their personnel do
not think for themselves, but unquestioningly carry out the instructions of
-their superiors . . .
+their superiors . . . _
->
-
-> "Advocates of 'democratic centralism' insist that it is the only type of
+> _"Advocates of 'democratic centralism' insist that it is the only type of
organisations which can function effectively under conditions of illegality.
-This is nonsense. The 'democratic centralist' organisation particularly
+This is nonsense. The 'democratic centralist' organisation is particularly
vulnerable to police persecution. When all power is concentrated in the hands
of the leaders, their arrest immediately paralyses the whole organisation.
Members trained to accept unquestioningly the instruction of an all-wise
@@ -2432,7 +2390,7 @@ militias to defend a revolution. Moreover, he was well aware that revolution
was a **process** rather than an event and so would take time to develop and
flourish. Hence Murray Bookchin:
-> _ "Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Malatesta were not so naive as to believe that
+> _"Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Malatesta were not so naive as to believe that
anarchism could be established over night. In imputing this notion to Bakunin,
Marx and Engels wilfully distorted the Russian anarchist's views. Nor did the
anarchists . . . believe that abolition of the state involved 'laying down of
@@ -2449,7 +2407,7 @@ identification of soviets with a state."_ [**Post-Scarcity Anarchism**, p.
That this is the case is hidden in Lenin's work as he deliberately distorts
anarchist ideas in it (see sections [H.1.3](secH1.html#sech13) and
[H.1.4](secH1.html#sech14) for example). Therefore, when Marxists ask whether
-anarchist have read Lenin's **State and Revolution** we reply by arguing that
+anarchists have read Lenin's **State and Revolution** we reply by arguing that
most of Lenin's ideas were first expressed by anarchists and his work just
strikes anarchists as little more than a re-hash of many of our own ideas but
placed in a statist context which totally and utterly undermines them in
@@ -2458,7 +2416,7 @@ 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 home how the ideological nature and theoretical bankruptcy of
+simply drives home the ideological nature and theoretical bankruptcy of
Leninism. This is because the person is asking you to evaluate their politics
based on what they say rather than on what they do, like any politician.
@@ -2482,7 +2440,7 @@ large and, therefore, it is a damning indictment of Bolshevism. Post-October,
the Bolsheviks not only failed to introduce the ideas of Lenin's book, they in
fact introduced the exact opposite. As one historian puts it:
-> _ "To consider 'State and Revolution' as the basic statement of Lenin's
+> _"To consider 'State and Revolution' as the basic statement of Lenin's
political philosophy - which non-Communists as well as Communists usually do -
is a serious error. Its argument for a utopian anarchism never actually became
official policy. The Leninism of 1917 . . . came to grief in a few short
@@ -2520,7 +2478,7 @@ So what did Lenin argue for in **State and Revolution**? Writing in the mid-
1930s, anarchist Camillo Berneri summarised the main ideas of that work as
follows:
-> _ "The Leninist programme of 1917 included these points: the discontinuance
+> _"The Leninist programme of 1917 included these points: the discontinuance
of the police and standing army, abolition of the professional bureaucracy,
elections for all public positions and offices, revocability of all officials,
equality of bureaucratic wages with workers' wages, the maximum of democracy,
@@ -2538,9 +2496,9 @@ about a work which was never really implemented when the its author was in a
position to do so (i.e. before the onslaught of a civil war Lenin thought was
inevitable anyway!). Similarly, if **State and Revolution** indicates the
features a "workers' state" must have then, by May 1918, Russia did not have
-such a state and so, logically, it can only be considered as such only if we
-assume that the good intentions of its rulers somehow overcome its political
-and economic structure (which, sadly, **is** the basic Trotskyist defence of
+such a state and so, logically, it can be considered as such only if we assume
+that the good intentions of its rulers somehow overcome its political and
+economic structure (which, sadly, **is** the basic Trotskyist defence of
Leninism against Stalinism!).
To see that Berneri's summary is correct, we need to quote Lenin directly.
@@ -2559,14 +2517,10 @@ _"parliamentarianism"_ by turning _"representative institutions from mere
division of labour between the legislative and the executive."_ [**Essential
Works of Lenin**, p. 304 and p. 306]
->
-
> 2) _"All officials, without exception, to be elected and subject to recall
**at any time**"_ and so _"directly responsible to their constituents."_
[**Op. Cit.**, p. 302 and p. 306]
->
-
> 3) The _"immediate introduction of control and superintendence by **all,**
so that **all** shall become 'bureaucrats' for a time and so that, therefore,
**no one** can become a 'bureaucrat'."_ Proletarian democracy would _"take
@@ -2575,16 +2529,12 @@ abolition of bureaucracy"_ as the _"**essence** of bureaucracy"_ is officials
becoming transformed_" into privileged persons divorced from the masses and
**superior to** the masses."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 355 and p. 360]
->
-
> 4) There should be no _"special bodies of armed men"_ standing apart from
the people _"since the majority of the people itself suppresses its
oppressors, a 'special force' is no longer necessary."_ Using the example of
the Paris Commune, Lenin suggested this meant _"abolition of the standing
army"_ by the _"armed masses."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 275, p. 301 and p. 339]
->
-
> 5) The new (workers) state would be _"the organisation of violence for the
suppression of . . . the exploiting class, i.e. the bourgeoisie. The toilers
need a state only to overcome the resistance of the exploiters"_ who are _"an
@@ -2603,14 +2553,14 @@ However, the key practical ideas on what the new "semi-state" would be are
contained in these five points. He generalised these points, considering them
valid for all countries.
-The first point as the creation of "working bodies", the combining of
-legislative and executive bodies. The first body to be created by the
-Bolshevik revolution was the "Council of People's Commissars" (CPC) This was a
-government separate from and above the Central Executive Committee (CEC) of
-the soviets congress which, in turn, was separate from and above the national
-soviet congress. It was an executive body elected by the soviet congress, but
-the soviets themselves were not turned into "working bodies." The promises of
-Lenin's **State and Revolution** did not last the night.
+The first point was the combining of legislative and executive functions in
+"working bodies". The first body to be created by the Bolshevik revolution was
+the "Council of People's Commissars" (CPC) This was a government separate from
+and above the Central Executive Committee (CEC) of the soviets congress which,
+in turn, was separate from and above the national soviet congress. It was an
+executive body elected by the soviet congress, but the soviets themselves were
+not turned into "working bodies." The promises of Lenin's **State and
+Revolution** did not last the night.
The Bolsheviks, it must be stressed, clearly recognised that the Soviets had
alienated their power to this body with the party's Central Committee arguing
@@ -2660,7 +2610,7 @@ immediately with the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks, particularly as the
state's functions grew to include economic decisions as well as political
ones. Instead of the state starting to _"wither away"_ it grew:
-> _ "The old state's political apparatus was 'smashed,' but in its place a new
+> _"The old state's political apparatus was 'smashed,' but in its place a new
bureaucratic and centralised system emerged with extraordinary rapidity. After
the transfer of government to Moscow in March 1918 it continued to expand . .
. As the functions of the state expanded so did the bureaucracy, and by August
@@ -2671,7 +2621,7 @@ remained a steady proportion of the falling population"_ [Richard Sakwa, _"The
Commune State in Moscow in 1918,"_ pp. 429-449, **Slavic Review**, vol. 46,
no. 3/4, pp. 437-8]
-This, anarchists would stress, is an inherent feature of centralised system.
+This, anarchists would stress, is an inherent feature of centralised systems.
As such, this rise of bureaucracy confirmed anarchist predictions that
centralisation will recreate bureaucracy. After all, some means were required
to gather, collate and provide information by which the central bodies made
@@ -2761,7 +2711,7 @@ We have stressed this period for a reason. This was the period **before** the
out-break of major Civil War and thus the policies applied show the actual
nature of Bolshevism, it's essence if you like. This is a significant period
as most Leninists blame the failure of Lenin to live up to his promises on
-this even. In reality, the civil war was **not** the reason for these
+this event. In reality, the civil war was **not** the reason for these
betrayals - simply because it had not started yet. Each of the promises were
broken in turn months before the civil war happened. _"All Power to the
Soviets"_ became, very quickly, "All Power to the Bolsheviks." Unsurprisingly,
@@ -2809,23 +2759,23 @@ Soviet republic,"_ to quote Cliff). [**Op. Cit.**, p. 161 and p. 18]
Similarly, much of the economic policies implemented by the Bolsheviks had
their roots in that book and the other writings by Lenin from 1917.
-The conclusions of dissent Marxist Samuel Farber seem appropriate here. As he
-puts it, _"the very fact that a Sovnarkom had been created as a separate body
-from the CEC [Central Executive Committee] of the soviets clearly indicates
-that, Lenin's **State and Revolution** notwithstanding, the separation of at
-least the top bodies of the executive and the legislative wings of the
-government remained in effect in the new Soviet system."_ This suggests _"that
-**State and Revolution** did not play a decisive role as a source of policy
-guidelines for 'Leninism in power.'"_ After all, _"immediately after the
-Revolution the Bolsheviks established an executive power . . . as a clearly
-separate body from the leading body of the legislature . . . Therefore, some
-sections of the contemporary Left appear to have greatly overestimated the
-importance that **State and Revolution** had for Lenin's government. I would
-suggest that this document . . . can be better understood as a distant,
-although doubtless sincere [!], socio-political vision . . . as opposed to its
-having been a programmatic political statement, let alone a guide to action,
-for the period immediately after the successful seizure of power."_ [**Op.
-Cit.**, pp. 20-1 and p. 38]
+The conclusions of dissident Marxist Samuel Farber seem appropriate here. As
+he puts it, _"the very fact that a Sovnarkom had been created as a separate
+body from the CEC [Central Executive Committee] of the soviets clearly
+indicates that, Lenin's **State and Revolution** notwithstanding, the
+separation of at least the top bodies of the executive and the legislative
+wings of the government remained in effect in the new Soviet system."_ This
+suggests _"that **State and Revolution** did not play a decisive role as a
+source of policy guidelines for 'Leninism in power.'"_ After all,
+_"immediately after the Revolution the Bolsheviks established an executive
+power . . . as a clearly separate body from the leading body of the
+legislature . . . Therefore, some sections of the contemporary Left appear to
+have greatly overestimated the importance that **State and Revolution** had
+for Lenin's government. I would suggest that this document . . . can be better
+understood as a distant, although doubtless sincere [!], socio-political
+vision . . . as opposed to its having been a programmatic political statement,
+let alone a guide to action, for the period immediately after the successful
+seizure of power."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 20-1 and p. 38]
That is **one** way of looking at it. Another would be to draw the conclusion
that a _"distant . . . socio-political vision"_ drawn up to sound like a
@@ -2833,10 +2783,10 @@ _"guide to action"_ which was then immediately ignored is, at worse, little
more than a deception, or, at best, a theoretical justification for seizing
power in the face of orthodox Marxist dogma. Whatever the rationale for Lenin
writing his book, one thing is true - it was never implemented. Strange, then,
-that Leninists today urge use to read it to see what "Lenin really wanted."
+that Leninists today urge us to read it to see what "Lenin really wanted."
Particularly given that so few of its promises were actually implemented
-(those that were just recognised the facts on the ground) and **all** of were
-no longer applied in less than six months after the seize of power.
+(those that were just recognised the facts on the ground) and **all** of them
+were no longer applied in less than six months after the seize of power.
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
@@ -2867,7 +2817,7 @@ 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. In the words of historian Marc Ferro:
-> _ "In a way, **The State and Revolution** even laid the foundations and
+> _"In a way, **The State and Revolution** even laid the foundations and
sketched out the essential features of an alternative to Bolshevik power, and
only the pro-Leninist tradition has used it, almost to quieten its conscience,
because Lenin, once in power, ignored its conclusions. The Bolsheviks, far
@@ -2884,3 +2834,7 @@ 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.
+[‹ H.0 Section H Introduction](/afaq/secHint.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/secHcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [H.2 What parts of anarchism do
+Marxists particularly misrepresent? ›](/afaq/secH2.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secH2.16.md b/markdown/secH2.16.md
deleted file mode 100644
index 565eae437bc47c97ad5d54a257fb49bc8fecd85c..0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
--- a/markdown/secH2.16.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,279 +0,0 @@
-## H.2.16 Does the Spanish Revolution show the failure of anarchism?
-
-The actions of the anarchists of the CNT and FAI during the Spanish Civil War
-is almost always mentioned by Marxists when they attack anarchism. Take, for
-example, Pat Stack:
-
-> _ "This question of state power, and which class holds it, was to prove
-crucial for revolutionaries during the Spanish Civil War and in particular
-during the revolutionary upheavals in Catalonia. Here anarchism faced its
-greatest test and greatest opportunity, yet it failed the former and therefore
-missed the latter.
-
->
-
-> "When the government in the region under the leadership of Companys admitted
-its impotence and offered to dissolve, effectively handing power to the
-revolutionary forces, the anarchists turned them down. CNT leader and FAI . .
-. militant Garcia Oliver explained, 'The CNT and the FAI decided on
-collaboration and democracy, renouncing revolutionary totalitarianism which
-would lead to the strangulation of the revolution by the anarchist and
-Confederal dictatorship. We had to choose, between Libertarian Communism,
-which meant anarchist dictatorship, and democracy, which meant collaboration.'
-The choice was between leaving the state intact and paving the way for
-Franco's victory or building a workers' government in Catalonia which could
-act as a focal point for the defeat of Franco and the creation of the
-structures of a new workers' state. In choosing the former the anarchists were
-refusing to distinguish between a capitalist state and a workers' state . . .
-The movement that started by refusing to build a workers' state ended up by
-recognising a capitalist one and betraying the revolution in the process."_
-[_"Anarchy in the UK?"_, **Socialist Review**, no. 246]
-
-There are four key flaws in this kind of argument. First, there is the actual
-objective situation in which the decision to collaborate was made in.
-Strangely, for all his talk of anarchists ignoring _"material conditions"_
-when we discuss the Russian revolution, Stack fails to mention any when he
-discusses the decisions of the Spanish Anarchists. As such, his critique is
-pure idealism, without any attempt to ground it in the objective circumstances
-facing the CNT and FAI. Second, the quote provided as the only evidence for
-Stack's analysis dates from a year **after** the decision was made. Rather
-than reflect the actual concerns of the CNT and FAI at the time, they reflect
-the attempts of the leaders of an organisation which had significantly
-departed from its libertarian principles to justify their actions. While this
-obviously suits Stack's idealist analysis of events, its use can be flawed for
-this reason. Thirdly, clearly the decision of the CNT and FAI **ignored**
-anarchist theory. As such, it seems ironic to blame anarchism when anarchists
-ignores its recommendations, yet this is what Stack argues. Lastly, there is
-the counter-example of Aragon, which clearly refutes Stack's analysis.
-
-To understand why the CNT and FAI made the decisions it did, it is necessary
-to do what Stack fails to do, namely to provide some context. The decision to
-ignore anarchist theory, ignore the state rather than smashing it and work
-with other anti-fascist organisations was made immediately after the army had
-been defeated on the streets of Barcelona on the 20th of July, 1936. It is
-this fact, the success of a popular insurrection in one region against a
-**nation wide** military coup, which helps place the CNT's decisions into
-context. Catalonia is but one region in Spain. While the CNT had great
-strength, it was not uniform. Some areas, such as around Madrid and in
-Asturias, the socialist UGT was stronger (although the CNT had been making
-inroads in both areas).
-
-This meant any decision to introduce libertarian communism in Catalonia would
-have, in all likelihood, meant isolation within Republican Spain and the
-possibility that the CNT would have to fight both the Republican state **as
-well as** Franco. So the decision to collaborate was obviously driven by fear
-of Franco and the concern not to divide the forces fighting him. As a 1937 CNT
-report put it, the union had a _"difficult alternative: to completely destroy
-the state, to declare war against the Rebels, the government, foreign
-capitalists . . . or collaborating."_ [quoted by Robert Alexander, **The
-Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War**, vol. 2, p. 1156]
-
-As such, the **real** choice facing the CNT was not _"between leaving the
-state intact . . . or building a workers' government in Catalonia which could
-act as a focal point for the defeat of Franco"_ but rather something
-drastically different. Either work with other anti-fascists against Franco so
-ensuring unity against the common enemy and implement anarchism after victory
-**or** immediately implement libertarian communism and possibly face a
-conflict on two fronts, against Franco **and** the Republic (and, possibly,
-imperialist intervention against the social revolution). This situation made
-the CNT-FAI decide to collaborate with other anti-fascist groups in the
-Catalan **Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias**. To downplay these
-objective factors and simply blame the decision on anarchist politics is a
-joke. This dilemma was the one which was driving the decisions of the CNT
-leadership, **not** any failings in anarchist politics.
-
-Similarly, the Garica Oliver quote provided by Stack dated from July 1937.
-They were made as justifications of CNT-FAI actions and were designed for
-political effect. They cannot be taken at face value as they are totally
-contradictory. He was arguing that libertarian communism (a society based on
-directly democratic free associations organised and run from the bottom up)
-was an _"anarchist dictatorship"_ and **less** democratic than the capitalist
-Republic he had been fighting against between 1931 and 1936! Moreover,
-libertarian communism **was** the revolution. As such, to choose it over
-capitalist democracy to stop _"the strangulation of the revolution"_ makes no
-sense, as the revolution which was created by the rank-and-file of the
-anarchist movement after the defeat of Franco was based on libertarian
-communist ideas and ideals!
-
-It is safe to take Garica Oliver's words with a large pinch of salt. To rely
-upon them for an analysis of the actions of the Spanish Anarchists or the
-failings of anarchism suggests an extremely superficial perspective. This is
-particularly the case when we look at both the history of the CNT and
-anarchist theory. As noted in [section H.1.4](secH1.html#sech14), according to
-anarchist ideas, the social revolution, to quote Bakunin, must _"totally
-destroy the State,"_ expropriate capital and the land _"on behalf of workers'
-associations"_ and create _"the federative Alliance of all working men's
-associations"_ which _"will constitute the Commune."_ [**Michael Bakunin:
-Selected Writings**, p. 170] As can be seen, the CNT ignored these
-recommendations. Given that the CNT did **not** destroy the state, nor create
-a federation of workers' councils, then how can anarchist theory be blamed? It
-seems strange to point to the failure of anarchists to apply their politics as
-an example of the failure of those politics, yet this is what Stack is doing.
-
-As we discuss in [section I.8.11](secI8.html#seci811), the CNT leadership,
-going against anarchist theory, decided to postpone the revolution until
-**after** Franco was defeated. As the Catalan CNT leadership put it in August
-1936:
-
-> _ "Reports have also been received from other regions. There has been some
-talk about the impatience of some comrades who wish to go further than
-crushing fascism, but for the moment the situation in Spain as a whole is
-extremely delicate. In revolutionary terms, Catalonia is an oasis within
-Spain.
-
->
-
-> "Obviously no one can foresee the changes which may follow the civil war and
-the conquest of that part of Spain which is still under the control of
-mutinous reactionaries."_ [quoted by Jose Peirats, **The CNT in the Spanish
-Revolution**, vol. 1, pp. 151-2]
-
-As can be seen, concern that Catalonia would be isolated from the rest of the
-Republic is foremost in their minds. Equally, there is the acknowledgement
-that many CNT members were applying anarchist politics by fighting fascism via
-a revolutionary war. This can be seen by the rank and file of the CNT and FAI
-ignoring the decision to "postpone" the revolution in favour of an anti-
-fascist war. All across Republican Spain, workers and peasants started to
-expropriate capital and the land, placing it under workers' self-management.
-They did so on their own initiative. They also applied anarchist ideas in full
-in Aragon, where the **Council of Aragon** was created in October 1936 at a
-meeting of delegates from CNT unions, village collectives and militia columns.
-In other words, the creation of a federation of workers' associations as
-argued by Bakunin. Little wonder Stack fails to mention what happened in
-Aragon: it would undermine his argument against anarchism to mention it.
-
-To contrast Catalonia and Aragon shows the weakness of Stack's argument. The
-same organisation, with the same politics, yet different results. How can
-anarchist ideas be blamed for what happened in Catalonia when they had been
-applied in Aragon? Such a position could not be logically argued and,
-unsurprisingly, Aragon usually fails to get mentioned by Marxists when
-discussing Anarchism during the Spanish Civil War. The continuity of what
-happened in Aragon with the ideas of anarchism and the CNT's 1936 Zaragoza
-Resolution on Libertarian Communism is clear.
-
-In summary, how could anarchism have _"failed"_ during the Spanish Revolution
-when it was ignored in Catalonia (for fear of fascism) and applied in Aragon?
-How can it be argued that anarchist politics were to blame when those very
-same politics had formed the Council of Aragon? It cannot. Simply put, the
-Spanish Civil War showed the failure of certain anarchists to apply their
-ideas in a difficult situation rather than the failure of anarchism.
-
-Needless to say, Stack also claims that the **Friends of Durruti** group
-developed towards Marxism. As he puts it:
-
-> _ "Interestingly the one Spanish anarchist group that developed the most
-sophisticated critique of all this was the Friends of Durutti [sic!]. As
-[Trotskyist] Felix Morrow points out, 'They represented a conscious break with
-the anti-statism of traditional anarchism. They explicitly declared the need
-for democratic organs of power, juntas or soviets, in the overthrow of
-capitalism, and the necessary state measures of repression against the
-counter-revolution.' The failure of the Spanish anarchists to understand
-exactly that these were the stark choices workers' power, or capitalist power
-followed by reaction."_
-
-That Stack could not bother to spell Durruti's name correctly shows how
-seriously we should take this analysis. The **Friends of Durruti** (FoD) were
-an anarchist grouping within the CNT and FAI which, like a large minority of
-others, strongly and consistently opposed the policy of anti-fascist unity.
-Rather than signify a _"conscious break"_ with anarchism, it signified a
-conscious **return** to it. This can be clearly seen when we compare their
-arguments to those of Bakunin. As noted by Stack, the FoD argued for
-_"juntas"_ in the overthrow of capitalism and to defend against counter-
-revolution. Yet this was **exactly** what revolutionary anarchists have argued
-for since Bakunin (see [section H.2.1](secH2.html#sech21) for details). The
-continuity of the ideas of the FoD with the pre-Civil War politics of the CNT
-and the ideas of revolutionary anarchism are clear. As such, the FoD were
-simply arguing for a return to the traditional positions of anarchism and
-cannot be considered to have broken with it. If Stack or Morrow knew anything
-about anarchism, then they would have known this.
-
-As such, the failure of the Spanish anarchists was not the _"stark choice"_
-between _"workers' power"_ and _"capitalist power"_ but rather the making of
-the wrong choice in the real dilemma of introducing anarchism (which would, by
-definition, be based on workers' power, organisation and self-management) or
-collaborating with other anti-fascist groups in the struggle against the
-greater enemy of Franco (i.e. fascist reaction). That Stack does not see this
-suggests that he simply has no appreciation of the dynamics of the Spanish
-Revolution and prefers abstract sloganeering to a serious analysis of the
-problems facing it.
-
-Stack ends by summarising:
-
-> _ "The most important lesson . . . is that whatever ideals and gut instincts
-individual anarchists may have, anarchism, both in word and deed, fails to
-provide a roadworthy vehicle for human liberation. Only Marxism, which sees
-the centrality of the working class under the leadership of a political party,
-is capable of leading the working class to victory."_
-
-As a useful antidote to these claims, we need simply quote Trotsky on what the
-Spanish anarchists should have done. In his words: _"Because the leaders of
-the CNT renounced dictatorship **for themselves** they left the place open for
-the Stalinist dictatorship."_ Hardly an example of "workers' power"! Or, as he
-put it earlier in the same year, a _"revolutionary party, even having seized
-power (of which the anarchist leaders were incapable in spite of the heroism
-of the anarchist workers), is still by no means the sovereign ruler of
-society."_ [our emphasis, **Writings 1936-7**, p. 514 and p. 488] Rather than
-seeing _"democratic organs of power, juntas or soviets, in the overthrow of
-capitalism"_ as being the key issue, Trotsky considered the party as being the
-decisive factor. At best, such organs would be used to achieve party power and
-would simply be a fig-leaf for its rule (see [section
-H.3.11](secH3.html#sech311) for more on this).
-
-Clearly, the leading Marxist at the time was not arguing for the _"centrality
-of the working class under the leadership of a political party."_ He was
-arguing for the dictatorship of a "revolutionary" party _**over**_ the working
-class. Rather than the working class being "central" to the running of a
-revolutionary regime, Trotsky saw the party taking that position. What sort of
-_"victory"_ is possible when the party has dictatorial power over the working
-class and the _"sovereign ruler"_ of society? Simply the kind of "victory"
-that leads to Stalinism.
-
-Anarchists reject this vision. They also reject the first step along this
-path, namely the identification of party power with workers' power. Simply
-put, if the "revolutionary" party is in power then the working class is not.
-Rather than seeing working class organisations as the means by which working
-people run society, Leninists see them purely in instrumental terms - the
-means by which the party can seize power. As the Russian Revolution proved
-beyond doubt, in a conflict between workers' power and party power Leninists
-will suppress the former to ensure the latter.
-
-To paraphrase Stack, the most important lesson from both the Russian and
-Spanish revolutions is that whatever ideals and gut instincts individual
-Leninists may have, Leninism, both in word and deed, fails to provide a
-roadworthy vehicle for human liberation. Only Anarchism, which sees the
-centrality of the working class self-management of the class struggle and
-revolution, is capable of ensuring the creation of a real, free, socialist
-society.
-
-Therefore, rather than see the failure of anarchism, the Spanish Revolution
-showed the failure of anarchists to apply their politics due to exceptionally
-difficult objective circumstances, a mistake which almost all anarchists
-acknowledge and have learned from. This does not justify the decision, rather
-it helps to explain it. Moreover, the Spanish Revolution also has a clear
-example of anarchism being applied in the Council of Aragon. As such, it is
-hard to blame anarchism for the failure of the CNT when the same organisation
-applied its ideas successfully there. Simply put, Marxist claims that the
-Spanish Revolution shows the failure of anarchist ideas are not only wrong,
-they are extremely superficial and not rooted in the objective circumstances
-of the time.
-
-Lastly, it could be argued that our critique of the standard Leninist attack
-on anarchism during the Spanish Revolution is similar to that presented by
-Leninists to justify Bolshevik authoritarianism during the Russian one. After
-all, Leninists like Stack point to the objective circumstances facing Lenin's
-regime - its isolation, civil war and economic problems - as explaining its
-repressive actions. However, this is not the case as the defeat of the Spanish
-Revolution was due to anarchists **not** applying our ideas while, for Russia,
-it was due to the Bolsheviks **applying** their ideology. The difficulties
-that faced the Russian Revolution pushed the Bolsheviks further down the road
-they where already travelling down (not to mention that Bolshevik ideology
-significantly contributed to making many of these problem worse). As we
-discuss in [section H.6](secH6.html), the notion that "objective
-circumstances" explains Bolshevik tyranny is simply unconvincing, particularly
-given the role Bolshevik ideology played in this process.
-
-For more discussion of the Spanish Revolution and its lessons for anarchists,
-see [section I.8](secI8.html). In addition, the appendix _["Marxists and
-Spanish Anarchism"](append32.html)_ has a much fuller discussion of this issue
-(including whether the **Friends of Durruti** broke with anarchism).
-
diff --git a/markdown/secH2.md b/markdown/secH2.md
index 85bfe69093f76992a272cc6d1c02b841a50c2112..c80e4a96c734183ff2a6f1235e1566f68187b3cf 100644
--- a/markdown/secH2.md
+++ b/markdown/secH2.md
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
# H.2 What parts of anarchism do Marxists particularly misrepresent?
Many people involved in politics will soon discover that Marxist groups
-(particularly Leninist ones) organise "debates"_ about anarchism. These
+(particularly Leninist ones) organise "debates" about anarchism. These
meetings are usually entitled _"Marxism and Anarchism"_ and are usually
organised after anarchists have been active in the area or have made the
headlines somewhere.
@@ -30,24 +30,22 @@ such meetings. However, when anarchists do hit the headlines (such as in the
1990s and early 2000s), various Marxist papers will produce articles on
"Anarchism" as well. Like the meetings, the articles are full of so many
elementary errors that it takes a lot of effort to think they are the product
-of ignorance rather than a conscious desire to lie (the appendix [_"Anarchism
-and Marxism"_](append3.html) contains a few replies to such articles). In
-addition, many of the founding fathers of Marxism (and Leninism) also decided
-to attack anarchism in similar ways, so this activity does have a long
-tradition in Marxist circles (particularly in Leninist and Trotskyist ones).
-Sadly, Max Nettlau's comments on Marx and Engels are applicable to many of
-their followers today. He argued that they _"acted with that shocking lack of
-honesty which was characteristic of **all** their polemics. They worked with
-inadequate documentation, which, according to their custom, they supplemented
-with arbitrary declarations and conclusions \- accepted as truth by their
-followers although they were exposed as deplorable misrepresentations, errors
-and unscrupulous perversions of the truth."_ [**A Short History of
-Anarchism**, p. 132] As the reader will discover, this summary has not lost
-its relevance today. If you read Marxist "critiques" of anarchism you will
-soon discover the same repetition of "accepted" truths, the same inadequate
-documentation, the same arbitrary declarations and conclusions as well as an
-apparent total lack of familiarity with the source material they claim to be
-analysing.
+of ignorance rather than a conscious desire to lie. In addition, many of the
+founding fathers of Marxism (and Leninism) also decided to attack anarchism in
+similar ways, so this activity does have a long tradition in Marxist circles
+(particularly in Leninist and Trotskyist ones). Sadly, Max Nettlau's comments
+on Marx and Engels are applicable to many of their followers today. He argued
+that they _"acted with that shocking lack of honesty which was characteristic
+of **all** their polemics. They worked with inadequate documentation, which,
+according to their custom, they supplemented with arbitrary declarations and
+conclusions - accepted as truth by their followers although they were exposed
+as deplorable misrepresentations, errors and unscrupulous perversions of the
+truth."_ [**A Short History of Anarchism**, p. 132] As the reader will
+discover, this summary has not lost its relevance today. If you read Marxist
+"critiques" of anarchism you will soon discover the same repetition of
+"accepted" truths, the same inadequate documentation, the same arbitrary
+declarations and conclusions as well as an apparent total lack of familiarity
+with the source material they claim to be analysing.
This section of the FAQ lists and refutes many of the most common distortions
Marxists make with regards to anarchism. As will become clear, many of the
@@ -93,11 +91,12 @@ peasants, like the industrial city workers, should unite by federating the
fighting battalions, district by district, assuring a common co-ordinated
defence against internal and external enemies."_ [_"Letters to a Frenchman on
the present crisis"_, **Bakunin on Anarchism**, p. 196, p. 206, p. 207 and p.
-190] In this he repeated his earlier arguments concerning social revolution -
-arguments that Engels was well aware of.
+190]
-In other words, Engels deliberately misrepresented Bakunin's ideas while being
-an attack on federalism when, in fact, federalism was **not** actually
+In this Bakunin was repeating his earlier arguments concerning social
+revolution - arguments that Engels was well aware of and so he deliberately
+misrepresented Bakunin's ideas. Moreover, far from exposing the flaws of
+federalism, Engels recounts a revolt in which federalism was **not** actually
implemented. It should also be mentioned that Engels opposed the Spanish
workers rising in revolt in the first place. _"A few years of peaceful
bourgeois republic,"_ he argued, _"would prepare the ground in Spain for a
@@ -109,7 +108,7 @@ revolutionary movement."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 420-1] In his post-revolt
diatribe, Engels repeated this analysis and suggested that the "Bakuninists"
should have simply stood for election:
-> _ "At quiet times, when the proletariat knows beforehand that at best it can
+> _"At quiet times, when the proletariat knows beforehand that at best it can
get only a few representatives to parliament and have no chance whatever of
winning a parliamentary majority, the workers may sometimes be made to believe
that it is a great revolutionary action to sit out the elections at home, and
@@ -117,7 +116,7 @@ in general, not to attack the State in which they live and which oppresses
them, but to attack the State as such which exists nowhere and which
accordingly cannot defend itself."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 583]
-For some reason, few Leninist quote these recommendations to the Spanish
+For some reason, few Leninists quote these recommendations to the Spanish
workers nor do they dwell on the reformist and bureaucratic nature of the
Socialist party inspired by this advice. As we discuss in [section
H.3.10](secH3.html#sech310), the notion that voting in elections was to
@@ -246,7 +245,7 @@ prophet wrote down the scriptures in past centuries and if only we could reach
a correct understanding of these writings today we would see the way forward.
Chomsky put it extremely well:
-> _ "The whole concept of Marxist or Freudian or anything like that is very
+> _"The whole concept of Marxist or Freudian or anything like that is very
odd. These concepts belong to the history of organised religion. Any living
person, no matter how gifted, will make some contributions intermingled with
error and partial understanding. We try to understand and improve on their
@@ -257,7 +256,7 @@ to be assimilated and transcended. It's a crazy idea, a kind of idolatry."_
[**The Chomsky Reader**, pp. 29-30]
This means that anarchists recognise that any person, no matter how great or
-influential, are just human. They make mistakes, they fail to live up to all
+influential, is only human. They make mistakes, they fail to live up to all
the ideals they express, they are shaped by the society they live in, and so
on. Anarchists recognise this fact and extract the positive aspects of past
anarchist thinkers, reject the rest and develop what we consider the living
@@ -270,12 +269,12 @@ nevertheless have to find their own way from theory to practice and to the
critique of our present-day conditions, as Proudhon did in his time. This does
not call for a slavish imitation; it implies using his work to inspire us and
enable us to profit by his experience."_ [**A Short History of Anarchism**,
-pp. 46-7] Similarly for other anarchists \- we see them as a source of
+pp. 46-7] Similarly for other anarchists - we see them as a source of
inspiration upon which to build rather than a template which to copy. This
means to attack anarchism by, say, attacking Bakunin's or Proudhon's personal
failings is to totally miss the point. While anarchists may be inspired by the
ideas of, say, Bakunin or Proudhon it does not mean we blindly follow all of
-their ideas. Far from it! We critically analysis their ideas and keep what is
+their ideas. Far from it! We critically analyse their ideas and keep what is
living and reject what is useless or dead. Sadly, such common sense is lacking
in many who critique anarchism.
@@ -332,39 +331,35 @@ revolution or think that it is not necessary. The Trotskyists of **Workers'
Power** present a typical Marxist account of what **they** consider as
anarchist ideas on this subject:
-> _ "the anarchist conclusion is not to build any sort of state in the first
+> _"the anarchist conclusion is not to build any sort of state in the first
place - not even a democratic workers' state. But how could we stop the
capitalists trying to get their property back, something they will definitely
-try and do?
+try and do? _
->
-
-> "Should the people organise to stop the capitalists raising private armies
+> _"Should the people organise to stop the capitalists raising private armies
and resisting the will of the majority? If the answer is yes, then that
organisation - whatever you prefer to call it - is a state: an apparatus
-designed to enable one class to rule over another.
-
->
+designed to enable one class to rule over another. _
-> "The anarchists are rejecting something which is necessary if we are to beat
-the capitalists and have a chance of developing a classless society."_
+> _"The anarchists are rejecting something which is necessary if we are to
+beat the capitalists and have a chance of developing a classless society."_
[_"What's wrong with anarchism?"_, pp. 12-13, **World Revolution: Prague S26
2000**, p. 13]
It would be simple to quote Malatesta from 1891 on this issue and leave it at
-that. As he put some seem to suppose _"that anarchists, in the name of their
-principles, would wish to see that strange freedom respected which violates
-and destroys the freedom and life of others. They 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**, pp. 42-3] Pretty much common sense,
-so you would think! Sadly, this appears to not be the case. As such, we have
-to explain anarchist ideas on the defence of a revolution and why this
-necessity need not imply a state and, if it did, then it signifies the end of
-the revolution.
-
-The argument by **Workers' Power** is very common with the Leninist left and
+that. As he put it some seem to suppose _"that anarchists, in the name of
+their principles, would wish to see that strange freedom respected which
+violates and destroys the freedom and life of others. They 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**, pp. 42-3]
+Pretty much common sense, so you would think! Sadly, this appears to not be
+the case. As such, we have to explain anarchist ideas on the defence of a
+revolution and why this necessity need not imply a state and, if it did, then
+it signifies the end of the revolution.
+
+The argument by **Workers' Power** is very common within the Leninist left and
contains three fallacies, which we expose in turn. Firstly, we have to show
that anarchists have always seen the necessity of defending a revolution. This
shows that the anarchist opposition to the _"democratic workers' state"_ (or
@@ -381,7 +376,7 @@ defend itself against counter-revolutionary threats. Bakunin, for example,
while strenuously objecting to the idea of a _"dictatorship of the
proletariat"_ also thought a revolution would need to defend itself:
-> _ "Immediately after established governments have been overthrown, communes
+> _"Immediately after established governments have 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
@@ -391,7 +386,7 @@ Gods, No Masters**, vol. 1, p. 142]
And:
-> _ "the Alliance of all labour associations . . . will constitute the Commune
+> _"the Alliance of all labour associations . . . will constitute the Commune
. . . there will be a standing federation of the barricades and a
Revolutionary Communal Council . . . [made up of] delegates . . . invested
with binding mandates and accountable and revocable at all times . . . all
@@ -478,13 +473,13 @@ As such, the centralisation of power (while it may take many forms) is the key
means by which a class system is maintained and, therefore, a key aspect of a
state.
-As Kropotkin put, the State idea _"includes the existence of a power situated
-above society"_ as well as _"a **territorial concentration** as well as the
-concentration of many functions of the life of societies in the hands of a
-few."_ It _"implies some new relationships between members of society . . . in
-order to subject some classes to the domination of others"_ and this becomes
-obvious _"when one studies the origins of the State."_ [**The State: Its
-Historic Role**, p. 10] This was the case with representative democracy:
+As Kropotkin put it, the State idea _"includes the existence of a power
+situated above society"_ as well as _"a **territorial concentration** as well
+as the concentration of many functions of the life of societies in the hands
+of a few."_ It _"implies some new relationships between members of society . .
+. in order to subject some classes to the domination of others"_ and this
+becomes obvious _"when one studies the origins of the State."_ [**The State:
+Its Historic Role**, p. 10] This was the case with representative democracy:
> _"To attack the central power, to strip it of its prerogatives, to
decentralise, to dissolve authority, would have been to abandon to the people
@@ -515,7 +510,7 @@ exploit the many. So while we agree with Marxists that the main function of
the state is to defend class society, we also stress the structure of the
state has evolved to execute that role. In the words of Rudolf Rocker:
-> _ "[S]ocial institutions . . . do not arise arbitrarily, but are called into
+> _"social institutions . . . do not arise arbitrarily, but are called into
being by special needs to serve definite purposes . . . The newly arisen
possessing classes had need of a political instrument of power to maintain
their economic and social privileges over the masses of their own people . . .
@@ -550,21 +545,22 @@ little difference. The name changes nothing of the substance"_ for to be able
to do anything at all the communal councils _"must be vested with some power
and supported by a public force."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 23, p. 469]
-Anarchists reject this argument. To quote Daniel Gurin, initially Bakunin used
-the term state _"as synonyms for 'social collective.' The anarchists soon saw,
-however, that it was rather dangerous for them to use the same word as the
-authoritarians while giving it a quite different meaning. They felt that a new
-concept called for a new word and that the use of the old term could be
-dangerously ambiguous; so they ceased to give the name 'State' to the social
-collective of the future."_ [**Anarchism**, pp. 60-1] This is more than mere
-labels or semantics as it gets to the heart of the difference between
-libertarian and authoritarian conceptions of society and social change.
-Anarchists argue that the state is structured to ensure minority rule and,
-consequently, a "workers' state" would be a new form of minority rule over the
-workers. For this reason we argue that working class self-management from the
-bottom-up cannot be confused with a "state." The Russian Revolution showed the
-validity of this, with the Bolsheviks calling their dictatorship a "workers'
-state" in spite of the workers having no power in it.
+Anarchists reject this argument. To quote Daniel Guérin, initially anarchists
+used terms like the state or revolutionary state as a synonym for _"social
+collective"_ but_ "soon saw, however, that it was rather dangerous for them to
+use the same word as the authoritarians while giving it a quite different
+meaning. They felt that a new concept called for a new word and that the use
+of the old term could be dangerously ambiguous; so they ceased to give the
+name 'State' to the social collective of the future."_ [**Anarchism**, pp.
+60-1] This is more than mere labels or semantics as it gets to the heart of
+the difference between libertarian and authoritarian conceptions of society
+and social change. Anarchists argue that the state is structured to ensure
+minority rule and, consequently, a "workers' state" would be a new form of
+minority rule over the workers. For this reason we argue that working class
+self-management from the bottom-up cannot be confused with a "state." The
+Russian Revolution showed the validity of this, with the Bolsheviks calling
+their dictatorship a "workers' state" in spite of the workers having no power
+in it.
Anarchists have long pointed out that government is not the same as collective
decision making and to call the bottom-up communal system anarchists aim for a
@@ -629,26 +625,22 @@ the bourgeoisie. Having taken over the Revolution, having mastered it, and
bridled it, **power is compelled to create a bureaucratic apparatus**,
indispensable to all authority which wants to maintain itself, to command, to
order - in a word, 'to govern'. Rapidly, it attracts around itself all sorts
-of elements eager to dominate and exploit.
-
->
+of elements eager to dominate and exploit. _
-> "**Thus it forms a new privileged caste**, at first politically and later
+> _"**Thus it forms a new privileged caste**, at first politically and later
economically . . . It sows everywhere the seed of inequality and soon infects
the whole social organism."_ [Voline, **The Unknown Revolution**, p. 249]
So if it **were** simply a question of consolidating a revolution and its
self-defence then there would be no argument:
-> _ "But perhaps the truth is simply this: . . . [some] take the expression
+> _"But perhaps the truth is simply this: . . . [some] take the expression
'dictatorship of the proletariat' to mean simply the revolutionary action of
the workers in taking possession of the land and the instruments of labour,
and trying to build a society and organise a way of life in which there will
-be no place for a class that exploits and oppresses the producers.
+be no place for a class that exploits and oppresses the producers. _
->
-
-> "Thus constructed, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' would be the
+> _"Thus constructed, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' would be the
effective power of all workers trying to bring down capitalist society and
would thus turn into Anarchy as soon as resistance from reactionaries would
have ceased and no one can any longer seek to compel the masses by violence to
@@ -656,11 +648,9 @@ obey and work for him. In which case, the discrepancy between us would be
nothing more than a question of semantics. Dictatorship of the proletariat
would signify the dictatorship of everyone, which is to say, it would be a
dictatorship no longer, just as government by everybody is no longer a
-government in the authoritarian, historical and practical sense of the word.
-
->
+government in the authoritarian, historical and practical sense of the word. _
-> "But the real supporters of 'dictatorship of the proletariat' do not take
+> _"But the real supporters of 'dictatorship of the proletariat' do not take
that line, as they are making quite plain in Russia. Of course, the
proletariat has a hand in this, just as the people has a part to play in
democratic regimes, that is to say, to conceal the reality of things. In
@@ -735,7 +725,7 @@ and its replacement by another form of minority rule (by the party).
Anarchists have always argued that the defence of a revolution must not be
confused with the state and so argue for the abolition of the state **and**
the defence of a revolution. Only when working class people actually run
-themselves society will a revolution be successful. For anarchists, this means
+society themselves will a revolution be successful. For anarchists, this means
that _"effective emancipation can be achieved only by the **direct,
widespread, and independent action** . . . **of the workers themselves**,
grouped . . . in their own class organisations . . . on the basis of concrete
@@ -757,18 +747,16 @@ struggle, in the organisation, solidarity and actions of working class people.
Anarchist Nicholas Walter summarised the obvious and is worth quoting at
length:
-> _ "Virtually all forms of revolutionary socialism during the nineteenth
+> _"Virtually all forms of revolutionary socialism during the nineteenth
century, whether authoritarian or libertarian, were based on the concept of
class struggle . . . The term anarchist was first adopted by Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon in 1840, and although he disliked the class struggle, he recognised
it existed, and took sides in it when he had to . . . during the French
Revolution of 1848, he insisted that he was on the side of the proletariat
against the bourgeoisie . . . his last book was a positive study of the need
-for specially proletarian politics . . .
+for specifically proletarian politics . . . _
->
-
-> "The actual anarchist movement was founded later, by the anti-authoritarian
+> _"The actual anarchist movement was founded later, by the anti-authoritarian
sections of the First International . . . They accepted [its] founding Address
. . ., drafted by Karl Marx, which assumed the primacy of the class struggle
and insisted that 'the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered
@@ -781,31 +769,25 @@ accomplishment of the social revolution, the proletarians of all countries
must establish, outside all bourgeois politics, the solidarity of
revolutionary action' . . . This was certainly the first anarchist movement,
and this movement was certainly based on a libertarian version of the concept
-of the class struggle.
-
->
+of the class struggle. _
-> "Most of the leaders of this movement - first Michael Bakunin, James
+> _"Most of the leaders of this movement - first Michael Bakunin, James
Guillaume, Errico Malatesta, Carlo Caliero, later Peter Kropotkin, Louise
Michel, Emile Pouget, Jean Grave, and so on - took for granted that there was
a struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and that the social
revolution would be conducted by the former against the latter. They derived
such ideas . . . from the traditional theory of revolutionary socialism and
-the traditional practice of working-class action . . .
+the traditional practice of working-class action . . . _
->
-
-> "The great revolutions of the early twentieth century - in Mexico, Russia,
+> _"The great revolutions of the early twentieth century - in Mexico, Russia,
Spain - all derived from the class struggle and all involved anarchist
intervention on the side of the working class. The great martyrs of the
anarchist movement - from Haymarket in 1887 through Francisco Ferrer in 1909
to Sacco and Vanzetti in 1927 - were killed in the class struggle. The great
partisans of anarchist warfare - from Emiliano Zapata through Nestor Makhno to
-Buenaventura Durruti - were all fighting in the class struggle.
-
->
+Buenaventura Durruti - were all fighting in the class struggle. _
-> "So . . . class struggle in anarchism . . . [and] its importance in the
+> _"So . . . class struggle in anarchism . . . [and] its importance in the
anarchist movement is incontrovertible."_ [**The Anarchist Past and other
essays**, pp. 60-2]
@@ -859,7 +841,7 @@ all the privileges of those classes."_ There was _"but a single path, that of
**emancipation through practical action**"_ which _"has only one meaning. It
means workers' solidarity in their struggle against the bosses. It means
**trades-unions, organisation, and the federation of resistance funds.**"_
-Then, _"when the revolution \- brought about by the force of circumstances -
+Then, _"when the revolution - brought about by the force of circumstances -
breaks out, the International will be a real force and know what it has to
do"_, namely to _"take the revolution into its own hands"_ and become _"an
earnest international organisation of workers' associations from all
@@ -945,7 +927,7 @@ built upon Bakunin's arguments and, like him, based his politics on collective
working class struggle and organisation. He consistently stressed that _"the
Anarchists have always advised taking an active part in those workers'
organisations which carry on the **direct** struggle of Labour against Capital
-and its protector \- the State."_ Such struggle, _"better than any other
+and its protector - the State."_ Such struggle, _"better than any other
indirect means, permits the worker to obtain some temporary improvements in
the present conditions of work, while it opens his eyes to the evil done by
Capitalism and the State that supports it, and wakes up his thoughts
@@ -965,7 +947,7 @@ _"a question of organising societies of resistance for all trades in each
town, of creating resistance funds against the exploiters, of giving more
solidarity to the workers' organisations of each town and of putting them in
contact with those of other towns, of federating them . . . Workers'
-solidarity must no longer be an empty word by practised each day between all
+solidarity must no longer be an empty word but practised each day between all
trades and all nations."_ [quoted by Cahm, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 255-6]
As can be seen, Kropotkin was well aware of the importance of popular, mass,
@@ -992,7 +974,7 @@ by Caroline Cahm, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 153-4]
He saw the class struggle in terms of _"a multitude of acts of revolt in all
countries, under all possible conditions: first, individual revolt against
capital and State; then collective revolt - strikes and working-class
-insurrections \- both preparing, in men's minds as in actions, a revolt of the
+insurrections - both preparing, in men's minds as in actions, a revolt of the
masses, a revolution."_ Clearly, the mass, collective nature of social change
was not lost on Kropotkin who pointed to a _"multitude of risings of working
masses and peasants"_ as a positive sign. Strikes, he argued, _"were once 'a
@@ -1019,8 +1001,8 @@ As for other anarchists, we discover the same concern over class conflict,
collective struggle and organisation and the awareness of a mass social
revolution by the working class. Emma Goldman, for example, argued that
anarchism _"stands for direct action"_ and that _"[t]rade unionism, the
-economic area of the modern gladiator, owes its existence to direct action . .
-. In France, in Spain, in Italy, in Russian, nay even in England (witness the
+economic arena of the modern gladiator, owes its existence to direct action .
+. . In France, in Spain, in Italy, in Russia, nay even in England (witness the
growing rebellion of English labour unions), direct, revolutionary economic
action has become so strong a force in the battle for industrial liberty as to
make the world realise the tremendous importance of labour's power. The
@@ -1118,12 +1100,12 @@ maximise the profits and power of the capitalists. As such, it will develop
This means that various tendencies apparent in capitalist society exist
specifically to aid the development of capital. It does not follow that
because a society which places profits above people has found a specific way
-of organising production "efficient" it means that a socialist society will
-do. As such, anarchist opposition to specific tendencies within capitalism
-(such as the increased concentration and centralisation of companies) does not
-mean a _"yearning"_ for the past. Rather, it shows an awareness that
-capitalist methods are precisely that and that they need not be suited for a
-society which replaces the profit system with human and ecological need as the
+of organising production "efficient" that a socialist society will do so. As
+such, anarchist opposition to specific tendencies within capitalism (such as
+the increased concentration and centralisation of companies) does not mean a
+_"yearning"_ for the past. Rather, it shows an awareness that capitalist
+methods are precisely that and that they need not be suited for a society
+which replaces the profit system with human and ecological need as the
criteria for decision making.
For anarchists, this means questioning the assumptions of capitalist progress
@@ -1134,23 +1116,23 @@ have long argued that capitalist methods cannot be used for socialist ends. In
our battle to democratise and socialise the workplace, in our awareness of the
importance of collective initiatives by the direct producers in transforming
their work situation, we show that factories are not merely sites of
-production, but also of reproduction \- the reproduction of a certain
-structure of social relations based on the division between those who give
-orders and those who take them. Moreover, the structure of industry has
-developed to maximise profits. Why assume that this structure will be equally
-as efficient in producing useful products by meaningful work which does not
-harm the environment, society or those who do the actual tasks? A further
-aspect of this is that many of the struggles today, from the Zapatistas in
-Chiapas to those against Genetically Modified (GM) food and nuclear power are
-precisely based on the understanding that capitalist "progress" can not be
-uncritically accepted. To resist the expulsion of people from the land in the
-name of progress or the introduction of terminator seeds is not to look back
-to _"what had gone"_, although this is also precisely what the proponents of
-capitalist globalisation often accuse us of. Rather, it is to put **_"people
-before profit."_**
+production, but also of reproduction - the reproduction of a certain structure
+of social relations based on the division between those who give orders and
+those who take them. Moreover, the structure of industry has developed to
+maximise profits. Why assume that this structure will be equally as efficient
+in producing useful products by meaningful work which does not harm the
+environment, society or those who do the actual tasks? A further aspect of
+this is that many of the struggles today, from the Zapatistas in Chiapas to
+those against Genetically Modified (GM) food and nuclear power are precisely
+based on the understanding that capitalist "progress" can not be uncritically
+accepted. To resist the expulsion of people from the land in the name of
+progress or the introduction of terminator seeds is not to look back to _"what
+had gone"_, although this is also precisely what the proponents of capitalist
+globalisation often accuse us of. Rather, it is to put **_"people before
+profit."_**
That so many Marxists fail to understand this suggests that their ideology
-subscribes to notions of "progress" which simply builds upon capitalist ones.
+subscribes to notions of "progress" which simply build upon capitalist ones.
As such, only a sophist would confuse a critical evaluation of trends within
capitalism with a yearning for the past. It means to buy into the whole
capitalist notion of "progress" which has always been part of justifying the
@@ -1201,7 +1183,7 @@ reduced to a socialism for only the peasant class, nor was it a socialism only
for the petite bourgeois; it was a socialism of and for French workers. And in
the mid-nineteenth century . . . most French workers were still artisans."_
Indeed, _"[w]hile Marx was correct in predicting the eventual predominance of
-the industrial proletariat vis--vis skilled workers, such predominance was
+the industrial proletariat vis-à-vis skilled workers, such predominance was
neither obvious nor a foregone conclusion in France during the nineteenth
century. The absolute number of small industries even increased during most of
the century."_ [**Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican
@@ -1210,7 +1192,7 @@ population of 36 million, 24 million were peasants and 6 million were
artisans. Of the remaining 6 million, these included wage-workers for whom
_"workmen's associations"_ would be essential as _"a protest against the wage
system,"_ the _"denial of the rule of capitalists"_ and for _"the management
-of large instruments of labour."_ [**The General Idea of the Revolution**, pp.
+of large instruments of labour."_ [**General Idea of the Revolution**, pp.
97-8]
To summarise, if the society in which you live is predominately made-up of
@@ -1241,16 +1223,14 @@ and were aimed for. As can be seen, Proudhon incorporated the development of
large-scale industry within his mutualist ideas and so the need to abolish
wage labour by workers' associations and workers' control of production.
Perhaps Stack can fault Proudhon for seeking the end of capitalism too soon
-and for not waiting patiently will it developed further (if he does, he will
+and for not waiting patiently while it developed further (if he does, he will
also have to attack Marx, Lenin and Trotsky as well for the same failing!),
but this has little to do with _"yearn[ing] for what has gone before."_
After distorting Proudhon's ideas on industry, Stack does the same with
Bakunin. He asserts the following:
-_
-
-> "Similarly, the Russian anarchist leader Bakunin argued that it was the
+> _"Similarly, the Russian anarchist leader Bakunin argued that it was the
progress of capitalism that represented the fundamental problem. For him
industrialisation was an evil. He believed it had created a decadent western
Europe, and therefore had held up the more primitive, less industrialised Slav
@@ -1277,7 +1257,7 @@ was an evil,"_ a key aspect of Bakunin's ideas on social revolution was the
seizing of industry and its placing under social ownership. As he put it,
_"capital and all tools of labour belong to the city workers - to the workers
associations. The whole organisation of the future should be nothing but a
-free federation of workers \- agricultural workers as well as factory workers
+free federation of workers - agricultural workers as well as factory workers
and associations of craftsmen."_ [**The Political Philosophy of Bakunin**, p.
410] Bakunin argued that _"to destroy . . . all the instruments of labour . .
. would be to condemn all humanity - which is infinity too numerous today to
@@ -1302,10 +1282,10 @@ destiny of Russia."_ [**The Doctrine of Anarchism of Michael A. Bakunin**, p.
Rather than oppose industrialisation and urge the destruction of industry,
Bakunin considered one of the first acts of the revolution would be workers'
associations taking over the means of production and turning them into
-collective property managed by the workers themselves. Hence Daniel Gurin's
+collective property managed by the workers themselves. Hence Daniel Guérin's
comment:
-> _ "Proudhon and Bakunin were 'collectivists,' which is to say they declared
+> _"Proudhon and Bakunin were 'collectivists,' which is to say they declared
themselves without equivocation in favour of the common exploitation, not by
the State but by associated workers of the large-scale means of production and
of the public services. Proudhon has been quite wrongly presented as an
@@ -1315,9 +1295,9 @@ exclusive enthusiast of private property."_ [_"From Proudhon to Bakunin"_, pp.
Clearly, Stack does not have the faintest idea of what he is talking about!
Nor is Kropotkin any safer than Proudhon or Bakunin from Stack's distortions:
-> _ "Peter Kropotkin, another famous anarchist leader to emerge in Russia,
-also looked backwards for change. He believed the ideal society would be based
-on small autonomous communities, devoted to small scale production. He had
+> _"Peter Kropotkin, another famous anarchist leader to emerge in Russia, also
+looked backwards for change. He believed the ideal society would be based on
+small autonomous communities, devoted to small scale production. He had
witnessed such communities among Siberian peasants and watchmakers in the
Swiss mountains."_
@@ -1330,9 +1310,9 @@ something which "gets lost" is, unfortunately, Kropotkin's ideas.
Ultimately, Stack is simply showing his total ignorance of Kropotkin's ideas
by making such a statement. At least Avrich expanded upon his summary to
-mention that Kropotkin's positive evaluation of using modern technology and
-the need to apply it on an appropriate level to make work and the working
-environment as pleasant as possible. As Avrich summarises, _"[p]laced in small
+mention Kropotkin's positive evaluation of using modern technology and the
+need to apply it on an appropriate level to make work and the working
+environment as pleasant as possible. As Avrich summarises: _"placed in small
voluntary workshops, machinery would rescue human beings from the monotony and
toil of large-scale capitalist enterprise, allow time for leisure and cultural
pursuits, and remove forever the stamp of inferiority traditionally borne by
@@ -1350,14 +1330,14 @@ backward for his inspiration. Rather, he looked to trends within existing
society, trends he thought pointed in an anti-capitalist direction. This can
be seen from the fact he based his ideas on detailed analysis of current
developments in the economy and came to the conclusion that industry would
-spread across the global (which has happened) and that small industries will
+spread across the globe (which has happened) and that small industries will
continue to exist side by side with large ones (which also has been
confirmed). From these facts he argued that a socialist society would aim to
decentralise production, combining agriculture with industry and both using
modern technology to the fullest. This was possible only after a social
revolution which expropriated industry and the land and placed social wealth
into the hands of the producers. Until then, the positive trends he saw in
-modern society would remain circumcised by the workings of the capitalist
+modern society would remain circumscribed by the workings of the capitalist
market and the state.
As we discuss the fallacy that Kropotkin (or anarchists in general) have
@@ -1365,7 +1345,7 @@ argued for _"small autonomous communities, devoted to small scale production"_
in [section I.3.8](secI3.html#seci38), we will not do so here. Suffice to say,
he did not, as is often asserted, argue for _"small-scale production"_ (he
still saw the need for factories, for example) but rather for production
-geared to _**appropriate**_ levels, based on the objective needs of production
+geared to **_appropriate_** levels, based on the objective needs of production
(without the distorting effects generated by the needs of capitalist profits
and power) and, of necessity, the needs of those who work in and live
alongside industry (and today we would add, the needs of the environment). In
@@ -1384,16 +1364,14 @@ Workshops Tomorrow**, p. 197] Under capitalism, he argued, the whole discourse
of economics (like industrial development itself) was based on the logic and
rationale of the profit motive:
-> _ "Under the name of profits, rent and interest upon capital, surplus value,
+> _"Under the name of profits, rent and interest upon capital, surplus value,
and the like, economists have eagerly discussed the benefits which the owners
of land or capital, or some privileged nations, can derive, either from the
under-paid work of the wage-labourer, or from the inferior position of one
class of the community towards another class, or from the inferior economical
-development of one nation towards another nation. . .
-
->
+development of one nation towards another nation. . . _
-> "In the meantime the great question - 'What have we to produce, and how?'
+> _"In the meantime the great question - 'What have we to produce, and how?'
necessarily remained in the background . . . The main subject of social
economy - that is, the **economy of energy required for the satisfaction of
human needs** \- is consequently the last subject which one expects to find
@@ -1431,15 +1409,15 @@ this well known fact as well as anarchist theory, Marxists have constantly
repeated the falsehood that anarchists consider the state as the main enemy.
Indeed, Stack and Thomas are simply repeating an earlier assertion by Engels:
-> _ "Bakunin has a peculiar theory of his own, a medley of Proudhonism and
+> _"Bakunin has a peculiar theory of his own, a medley of Proudhonism and
communism. The chief point concerning the former is that he does not regard
capital, i.e. the class antagonism between capitalists and wage workers which
has arisen through social development, but the **state** as the main enemy to
be abolished . . . our view [is] that state power is nothing more than the
-organisation which the ruling classes - landowners and capitalists \- have
+organisation which the ruling classes - landowners and capitalists - have
provided for themselves in order to protect their social privileges, Bakunin
maintains that it is the **state** which has created capital, that the
-capitalist has his capital **only be the grace of the state.** As, therefore,
+capitalist has his capital **only by the grace of the state.** As, therefore,
the state is the chief evil, it is above all the state which must be done away
with and then capitalism will go to blazes of itself. We, on the contrary,
say: Do away with capital, the concentration of all means of production in the
@@ -1469,8 +1447,8 @@ with anarchist theory. For Bakunin, like all anarchists, the abolition of the
state occurs at the same time as the abolition of capital. This joint
abolition **is** precisely the social revolution. As one academic put it:
-> _ "In Bakunin's view, the struggle against the main concentration of power
-in society, the state, was **no less necessary** than the struggle against
+> _"In Bakunin's view, the struggle against the main concentration of power in
+society, the state, was **no less necessary** than the struggle against
capital. Engels, however, puts the matter somewhat differently, arguing that
for Bakunin the state was the main enemy, as if Bakunin had not held that
capital, too, was an enemy and that its expropriation was a necessary even if
@@ -1521,7 +1499,7 @@ it must at all times be vested in the people organised into a free federation
of agricultural and industrial associations . . . organised from the bottom
up."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 152-6]
-As these the words of a person who considered the state as the _"chief evil"_
+Are these the words of a person who considered the state as the _"chief evil"_
or _"that the state is the main enemy"_? Of course not, rather Bakunin clearly
identified the state as one aspect of a class society that has to be
destroyed. As he put it, the _"State, which has never had any task other than
@@ -1562,7 +1540,7 @@ mission: the abolition of property-owning and of the State."_ This revolution,
he re-iterated, would be a _"mass rising up against property and the State."_
Indeed, Kropotkin always stressed that _"there is one point to which all
socialists adhere: the expropriation of capital must result from the coming
-revolution."_ This mean that _"the area of struggle against capital, and
+revolution."_ This meant that _"the area of struggle against capital, and
against the sustainer of capital - government"_ could be one in which
_"various groups can act in agreement"_ and so _"any struggle that prepares
for that expropriation should be sustained in unanimity by all the socialist
@@ -1570,9 +1548,9 @@ groups, to whatever shading they belong."_ [**Words of a Rebel**, p. 75 and p.
204] Little wonder Kropotkin wrote his famous article _"Expropriation"_ on
this subject! As he put it:
-> _ "Expropriation - that is the guiding word of the coming revolution,
-without which it will fail in its historic mission: the complete expropriation
-of all those who have the means of exploiting human beings; the return to the
+> _"Expropriation - that is the guiding word of the coming revolution, without
+which it will fail in its historic mission: the complete expropriation of all
+those who have the means of exploiting human beings; the return to the
community of the nation of everything that in the hands of anyone can be used
to exploit others."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 207-8]
@@ -1583,7 +1561,7 @@ and communists."_ [**Selected Writings on Anarchism and Revolution**, p. 305]
For Kropotkin, _"the task we impose ourselves"_ is to acquire _"sufficient
influence to induce the workmen to avail themselves of the first opportunity
of taking possession of land and the mines, of railways and factories,"_ to
-bring working class people _"to the conviction that they must reply on
+bring working class people _"to the conviction that they must rely on
themselves to get rid of the oppression of Capital."_ [**Act for Yourselves**,
p. 32] Strange words if Marxist assertions were true. As can be seen,
Kropotkin is simply following Bakunin's ideas on the matter. He, like Bakunin,
@@ -1593,25 +1571,25 @@ evils.
Unsurprisingly, he called anarchism _"the no-government system of socialism."_
[**Anarchism**, p. 46] For Kropotkin, the _"State is there to protect
exploitation, speculation and private property; it is itself the by-product of
-the rapine of the people. The proletariat must rely on his own hands; he can
+the rapine of the people. The proletarian must rely on his own hands; he can
expect nothing of the State. It is nothing more than an organisation devised
to hinder emancipation at all costs."_ [**Words of a Rebel**, p. 27] Rather
than see the state as the main evil, he clearly saw it as the protector of
-capitalism \- in other words, as one aspect of a class system which needed to
+capitalism - in other words, as one aspect of a class system which needed to
be replaced by a better society:
-> _ "The very words Anarchist-Communism show in what direction society, in our
-opinion, is already going, and one what lines it can get rid of the oppressive
+> _"The very words Anarchist-Communism show in what direction society, in our
+opinion, is already going, and on what lines it can get rid of the oppressive
powers of Capital and Government . . . The first conviction to acquire is that
nothing short of expropriation on a vast scale, carried out by the workmen
themselves, can be the first step towards a reorganisation of our production
on Socialist principles."_ [Kropotkin, **Act for Yourselves**, pp. 32-3]
-Similarly with all other anarchists. Emma Goldman, for example, summarised for
-all anarchists when she argued that anarchism _"really stands for"_ the
-_"liberation of the human body from the domination of property; liberation
-from the shackles and restraint of government."_ Goldman was well aware that
-wealth _"means power; the power to subdue, to crush, to exploit, the power to
+Similarly with other anarchists. Emma Goldman summarised the libertarian
+position when she argued that anarchism _"really stands for"_ the _"liberation
+of the human body from the domination of property; liberation from the
+shackles and restraint of government."_ Goldman was well aware that wealth
+_"means power; the power to subdue, to crush, to exploit, the power to
enslave, to outrage, to degrade."_ She considered property _"not only a
hindrance to human well-being, but an obstacle, a deadly barrier, to all
progress."_ A key problem of modern society was that _"man must sell his
@@ -1649,7 +1627,7 @@ it has the _"perception that private capital is a source of tyranny by certain
individuals over others."_ [**Roads to Freedom**, p. 40] Russell was, of
course, simply pointing out the obvious. As Brian Morris correctly summarises:
-> _ "Another criticism of anarchism is that it has a narrow view of politics:
+> _"Another criticism of anarchism is that it has a narrow view of politics:
that it sees the state as the fount of all evil, ignoring other aspects of
social and economic life. This is a misrepresentation of anarchism. It partly
derives from the way anarchism has been defined, and partly because Marxist
@@ -1679,7 +1657,7 @@ are at all familiar with the anarchist movement and its theory. As one
historian notes, we have never been purely anti-state, but also anti-
capitalist and opposed to all forms of oppression:
-> _ "Anarchism rejected capitalism . . . not only because it viewed it as
+> _"Anarchism rejected capitalism . . . not only because it viewed it as
inimical to social equality, but also because it saw it as a form of
domination detrimental to individual freedom. Its basic tenet regarded
hierarchical authority - be it the state, the church, the economic elite, or
@@ -1701,11 +1679,11 @@ society, in other words) can be created _"overnight."_ As Marxist Bertell
Ollman puts it, _"[u]nlike anarcho-communists, none of us [Marxists] believe
that communism will emerge full blown from a socialist revolution. Some kind
of transition and period of indeterminate length for it to occur are
-required."_ [Bertell Ollman (ed.), **Market Socialism: The Debate among
-Socialists**, p. 177] This assertion, while it is common, fails to understand
-the anarchist vision of revolution. We consider it a **process** and not an
-event: _"By revolution we do not mean just the insurrectionary act."_
-[Malatesta, **Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, p. 156]
+required."_ [**Market Socialism: The Debate among Socialists**, Bertell Ollman
+(ed.), p. 177] This assertion, while it is common, fails to understand the
+anarchist vision of revolution. We consider it a **process** and not an event:
+_"By revolution we do not mean just the insurrectionary act."_ [Malatesta,
+**Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, p. 156]
Once this is understood, the idea that anarchists think a _"full blown"_
anarchist society will be created _"overnight"_ is a fallacy. As Murray
@@ -1753,7 +1731,7 @@ different countries and regions will probably try out various methods, and by
practical experience learn the best way. The revolution is at the same time
the opportunity and justification for it."_ Rather than _"dictate to the
future, to prescribe its mode of conduct"_, Berkman argued that his _"purpose
-is to suggest, in board outline the principles which must animate the
+is to suggest, in broad outline the principles which must animate the
revolution, the general lines of action it should follow if it is to
accomplish its aim - the reconstruction of society on a foundation of freedom
and equality."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 215 and p. 230]
@@ -1793,17 +1771,17 @@ created overnight is simply a distortion of their ideas. Rather, they are
aware that the development towards communism is dependent on local conditions,
conditions which can only be overcome in time and by the liberated community
re-organising production and extending it as required. Thus we find Malatesta
-arguing 1884 that communism could be brought about immediately only in a very
-limited number of areas and, _"for the rest,"_ collectivism would have to be
-accepted _"for a transitional period."_ This was because, _"[f]or communism to
-be possible, a high stage of moral development is required of the members of
-society, a sense of solidarity both elevated and profound, which the upsurge
-of the revolution may not suffice to induce. This doubt is the more justified
-in that material conditions favourable to this development will not exist at
-the beginning."_ [quoted by Daniel Gurin, **Anarchism**, p. 51]
+arguing in 1884 that communism could be brought about immediately only in a
+very limited number of areas and, _"for the rest,"_ collectivism would have to
+be accepted _"for a transitional period."_ This was because, _"[f]or communism
+to be possible, a high stage of moral development is required of the members
+of society, a sense of solidarity both elevated and profound, which the
+upsurge of the revolution may not suffice to induce. This doubt is the more
+justified in that material conditions favourable to this development will not
+exist at the beginning."_ [quoted by Daniel Guérin, **Anarchism**, p. 51]
Clearly, our argument contradicts the widely held view that anarchists
-believed an utopian world would be created instantly after a revolution. Of
+believed a utopian world would be created instantly after a revolution. Of
course, by asserting that anarchists think _"full blown communism"_ will occur
without some form of transitional period, Marxists paint a picture of
anarchism as simply utopian, a theory which ignores objective reality in
@@ -1828,15 +1806,15 @@ always noted the difficulties facing a social revolution. Kropotkin, for
example, continually stressed that a revolution would face extensive economic
disruption. In his words:
-> _ "A political revolution can be accomplished without shaking the
-foundations of industry, but a revolution where the people lay hands upon
-property will inevitably paralyse exchange and production . . . This point
-cannot be too much insisted upon; the reorganisation of industry on a new
-basis . . . cannot be accomplished in a few days; nor, on the other hand, will
-people submit to be half starved for years in order to oblige the theorists
-who uphold the wage system. To tide over the period of stress they will demand
-what they have always demanded in such cases - communisation of supplies - the
-giving of rations."_ [**The Conquest of Bread**, pp. 72-3]
+> _"A political revolution can be accomplished without shaking the foundations
+of industry, but a revolution where the people lay hands upon property will
+inevitably paralyse exchange and production . . . This point cannot be too
+much insisted upon; the reorganisation of industry on a new basis . . . cannot
+be accomplished in a few days; nor, on the other hand, will people submit to
+be half starved for years in order to oblige the theorists who uphold the wage
+system. To tide over the period of stress they will demand what they have
+always demanded in such cases - communisation of supplies - the giving of
+rations."_ [**The Conquest of Bread**, pp. 72-3]
The basic principles of this "transition" period would, therefore, be based on
the _"socialising of production, consumption and exchange."_ The state would
@@ -1845,7 +1823,7 @@ capitalism would be achieved by the _"expropriation"_ of _"everything that
enables any man - be he financier, mill-owner, or landlord - - to appropriate
the product of others' toil."_ Distribution of goods would be based on _"no
stint or limit to what the community possesses in abundance, but equal sharing
-and dividing of those commodities which are scare or apt to run short."_
+and dividing of those commodities which are scarce or apt to run short."_
[**Op. Cit.**, p. 136, p. 61 and p. 76] Clearly, while not _"full blown"_
communism by any means, such a regime does lay the ground for its eventual
arrival. As Max Nettlau summarised, _"[n]othing but a superficial
@@ -1860,13 +1838,13 @@ communism, some a combination of rationing and communism, others introduced
equal pay, others equalised pay as much as possible and so on. Over time, as
economic conditions changed and difficulties developed the collectives changed
their mode of distribution to take them into account. These collectives
-indicate well the practical aspects of anarchist and its desire to accommodate
+indicate well the practical aspects of anarchism and its desire to accommodate
and not ignore reality.
-Lastly, and as an aside, it this anarchist awareness of the disruptive effects
-of a revolution on a country's economy which, in part, makes anarchists
-extremely sceptical of pro-Bolshevik rationales that blame the difficult
-economic conditions facing the Russian Revolution for Bolshevik
+Lastly, and as an aside, it is this anarchist awareness of the disruptive
+effects of a revolution on a country's economy which, in part, makes
+anarchists extremely sceptical of pro-Bolshevik rationales that blame the
+difficult economic conditions facing the Russian Revolution for Bolshevik
authoritarianism (see [section H.6.1](secH6.html#sech61) for a fuller
discussion of this). If, as Kropotkin argued, a social revolution inevitably
results in massive economic disruption then, clearly, Bolshevism should be
@@ -1908,7 +1886,7 @@ incorrect that it is either a product of ignorance or a desire to deceive (and
as we shall indicate, it is probably the latter). Here is Stack's account of
Kropotkin's ideas:
-> _ "And the anarchist Peter Kropotkin, far from seeing class conflict as the
+> _"And the anarchist Peter Kropotkin, far from seeing class conflict as the
dynamic for social change as Marx did, saw co-operation being at the root of
the social process. He believed the co-operation of what he termed 'mutual
aid' was the natural order, which was disrupted by centralised states. Indeed
@@ -1941,7 +1919,7 @@ other works (notably his essay **Anarchist-Communism: Its Basis and
Principles**) and he does **not** use them as examples of mutual aid. Here are
Kropotkin's own words on these examples:
-> _ "We maintain, moreover, not only that communism is a desirable state of
+> _"We maintain, moreover, not only that communism is a desirable state of
society, but that the growing tendency of modern society is precisely towards
communism - free communism - notwithstanding the seemingly contradictory
growth of individualism. In the growth of individualism . . . we see merely
@@ -1960,12 +1938,10 @@ disregarding the exact amount of it used by the individual; tramways and
railways which have already begun to introduce the season ticket or the
uniform tax, and will surely go much further in this line when they are no
longer private property: all these are tokens showing in what direction
-further progress is to be expected.
-
->
+further progress is to be expected. _
-> "It is in the direction of putting the wants of the individual **above** the
-valuation of the service he has rendered, or might render, to society; in
+> _"It is in the direction of putting the wants of the individual **above**
+the valuation of the service he has rendered, or might render, to society; in
considering society as a whole, so intimately connected together that a
service rendered to any individual is a service rendered to the whole
society."_ [**Anarchism**, pp. 59-60]
@@ -2007,7 +1983,7 @@ _"manifesting itself 'in the thousands of developments of modern life.'"_ This
did not mean that Kropotkin did not see the need for a social revolution,
quite the reverse. As Avrich noted, Kropotkin _"did not shrink from the
necessity of revolution"_ as he _"did not expect the propertied classes to
-give up their privileges and possession without a fight."_ This _"was to be a
+give up their privileges and possessions without a fight."_ This _"was to be a
**social** revolution, carried out by the masses themselves"_ achieved by
means of _"expropriation"_ of social wealth. [**Anarchist Portraits**, p. 58,
p. 62 and p. 66]
@@ -2047,7 +2023,7 @@ _"despises the collectivity"_ and _"dismiss[es] the importance of the
collective nature of change"_ (see [section H.2.2](secH2.html#sech22)). How
can you have co-operation without forming a collective? And, equally, surely
support for co-operation clearly implies the recognition of the _"collective
-nature of change"_? Moreover, had Stack bothered to _**read**_ Kropotkin's
+nature of change"_? Moreover, had Stack bothered to **_read_** Kropotkin's
classic he would have been aware that both unions and strikes are listed as
expressions of _"mutual aid"_ (a fact, of course, which would undermine
Stack's silly assertion that anarchists reject collective working class
@@ -2119,9 +2095,9 @@ exploits? Between the head of an army and the soldier? Between the governing
and the governed?"_ [**Words of a Rebel**, p. 30]
In summary, Stack's assertions about Kropotkin's theory of _"Mutual Aid"_ are
-simply false. He simply distorts the source material and shows a total
-ignorance of Kropotkin's work (which he obviously has not bothered to read
-before criticising it). A truthful account of _"Mutual Aid"_ would involve
+simply false. He distorts the source material and shows a total ignorance of
+Kropotkin's work (which he obviously has not bothered to read before
+criticising it). A truthful account of _"Mutual Aid"_ would involve
recognising that Kropotkin showed it being expressed in both strikes and
labour unions and that he saw solidarity between working people as the means
of not only surviving within the hostile environment of capitalism but also as
@@ -2208,9 +2184,9 @@ hard to find a greater distortion of Bakunin's ideas. Rather than dismiss
_"skilled artisans"_ and _"organised factory workers"_ Bakunin desired to
organise them along with agricultural workers into unions and get these unions
to affiliate to the **International Workers' Association**. He argued again
-and again that the working class, organised in union, were the means of making
-a revolution (i.e. _"the source of the destruction of capitalism,"_ to use
-Stack's words).
+and again that the working class, organised in unions, were the means of
+making a revolution (i.e. _"the source of the destruction of capitalism,"_ to
+use Stack's words).
Only in **this** context can we understand Bakunin's comments which Stack
(selectively) quotes. Any apparent contradiction generated by Stack's quoting
@@ -2219,7 +2195,7 @@ to the _"uncivilised, disinherited, illiterate"_ comes from a polemic against
Marx. From the context, it can quickly be seen that by these terms Bakunin
meant the bulk of the working class. In his words:
-> _ "To me the flower of the proletariat is not, as it is to the Marxists, the
+> _"To me the flower of the proletariat is not, as it is to the Marxists, the
upper layer, the aristocracy of labour, those who are the most cultured, who
earn more and live more comfortably that all the other workers. Precisely this
semi-bourgeois layer of workers would, if the Marxists had their way,
@@ -2229,11 +2205,9 @@ relative well-being and semi-bourgeois position, this upper layer of workers
is unfortunately only too deeply saturated with all the political and social
prejudices and all the narrow aspirations and pretensions of the bourgeoisie.
Of all the proletariat, this upper layer is the least socialist, the most
-individualist.
+individualist. _
->
-
-> "By the **flower of the proletariat**, I mean above all that great mass,
+> _"By the **flower of the proletariat**, I mean above all that great mass,
those millions of the uncultivated, the disinherited, the miserable, the
illiterates . . . I mean precisely that eternal 'meat' (on which governments
thrive), that great **rabble of the people** (underdogs, 'dregs of society')
@@ -2306,7 +2280,7 @@ means to fight capitalism but also the framework of an anarchist society.
Clearly, Sam Dolgoff's summary of Bakunin's ideas on this subject is the
correct one:
-> _ "Bakunin's **Lumpenproletariat** . . . was broader than Marx's, since it
+> _"Bakunin's **Lumpenproletariat** . . . was broader than Marx's, since it
included all the submerged classes: unskilled, unemployed, and poor workers,
poor peasant proprietors, landless agricultural labourers, oppressed racial
minorities, alienated and idealistic youth, declasse intellectuals, and
@@ -2340,9 +2314,9 @@ Bakunin called himself a revolutionary socialist and argued that by class
struggle, the worker would soon _"recognise himself [or herself] to be a
revolutionary socialist, and he [or she] will act like one."_ [**The Basic
Bakunin**, p. 103] As such, the argument that the social position workers are
-placed makes them _"socialist without knowing"_ does not, in fact, imply that
-Bakunin thought they would become Marxists (_"scientific socialism"_) and,
-therefore, he turned against them. Rather, it meant that, for Bakunin,
+placed in makes them _"socialist without knowing"_ does not, in fact, imply
+that Bakunin thought they would become Marxists (_"scientific socialism"_)
+and, therefore, he turned against them. Rather, it meant that, for Bakunin,
anarchist ideas were a product of working class life and it was a case of
turning instinctive feelings into conscious thought by collective struggle. As
noted above, Bakunin did not _"turn away"_ from these ideas nor the
@@ -2401,10 +2375,10 @@ _"Marx's Last Battle: Bakunin and the First International"_, pp. 853-884,
**Theory and Society**, Vol. 11, No. 6, p. 871, p. 869 and p. 869] This flowed
from Bakunin's materialist politics:
-> _ "Not restricting the revolution to those societies in which an advanced
+> _"Not restricting the revolution to those societies in which an advanced
industrialism had produced a massive urban proletariat, Bakunin observed
sensibly that the class composition of the revolution was bound to differ in
-industrially advanced Western Europe and in Eastern European where the economy
+industrially advanced Western Europe and in Eastern Europe where the economy
was still largely agricultural . . . This is a far cry, then, from the Marxist
stereotype of Bakunin-the-anarchist who relied exclusively on the backward
peasantry and ignored the proletariat."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 870]
@@ -2491,7 +2465,7 @@ been accused of promoting this section above others. This standard marxist
interpretation of anarchism is inaccurate; anarchists simply include the
lumpenproletariat as part of the working class, rather than exclude or exalt
it."_ [**Rebel Alliances**, p. 168] Ultimately, for anyone to claim that
-Bakunin, for any social anarchist, rejects the working class as an agent of
+Bakunin, or any social anarchist, rejects the working class as an agent of
social change simply shows their ignorance of the politics they are trying to
attack.
@@ -2552,18 +2526,16 @@ which meant _"workers' solidarity in their struggle against the bosses"_ by _
Like the syndicalists, Bakunin stressed working class self-activity and
control over the class struggle:
-> _ "Toilers count no longer on anyone but yourselves. Do not demoralise and
+> _"Toilers count no longer on anyone but yourselves. Do not demoralise and
paralyse your growing strength by being duped into alliances with bourgeois
Radicalism . . . Abstain from all participation in bourgeois Radicalism and
organise outside of it the forces of the proletariat. The bases of this
organisation are already completely given: they are the workshops and the
federation of workshops, the creation of fighting funds, instruments of
struggle against the bourgeoisie, and their federation, not only national, but
-international.
-
->
+international. _
-> "And when the hour of revolution sounds, you will proclaim the liquidation
+> _"And when the hour of revolution sounds, you will proclaim the liquidation
of the State and of bourgeois society, anarchy, that is to say the true, frank
people's revolution . . . and the new organisation from below upwards and from
the circumference to the centre."_ [quoted by K.J. Kenafick, **Michael Bakunin
@@ -2639,8 +2611,8 @@ example, summarises the anarchist perspective when he commented that
_"Bakunin's collectivist anarchism . . . ultimately formed the ideological and
theoretical basis of anarcho-syndicalism."_ [_"Introduction"_, **Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings**, p. 29] Anarchist academic David Berry also notes
-that _"anarchist syndicalist were keen to establish a lineage with Bakunin . .
-. the anarchist syndicalism of the turn of the century was a revival of a
+that _"anarchist syndicalists were keen to establish a lineage with Bakunin .
+. . the anarchist syndicalism of the turn of the century was a revival of a
tactic"_ associated with _"the Bakuninist International."_ [**A History of the
French Anarchist Movement, 1917-1945**, p. 17] Another, Mark Leier, points out
that _"the Wobblies drew heavily on anarchist ideas pioneered by Bakunin."_
@@ -2658,7 +2630,7 @@ and most strongly held by the libertarian wing of the great workers'
alliance."_ [**Anarcho-Syndicalism**, p. 54] Murray Bookchin just stated the
obvious:
-> _ "Long before syndicalism became a popular term in the French labour
+> _"Long before syndicalism became a popular term in the French labour
movement of the late [eighteen]nineties, it already existed in the Spanish
labour movement of the early seventies. The anarchist-influenced Spanish
Federation of the old IWMA was . . . distinctly syndicalist."_ [_"Looking Back
@@ -2680,13 +2652,13 @@ dispose all the authorities, abolish the state and replace it with the
organisation of the International."_ [Marx, Engels and Lenin, **Anarchism and
Anarcho-Syndicalism**, p. 48, p. 132, p. 133 and p. 72] Ignoring the
misrepresentations of Marx and Engels about the ideas of their enemies, we can
-state that they got the basic point of Bakunin's ideas \- the centrality of
+state that they got the basic point of Bakunin's ideas - the centrality of
trade union organisation and struggle as well as the use of strikes and the
general strike. Therefore, you do not have to read Bakunin to find out the
similarities between his ideas and syndicalism, you can read Marx and Engels.
Clearly, most Marxist critiques of anarchism have not even done that!
-Latter anarchists, needless to say, supported the syndicalist movement and,
+Later anarchists, needless to say, supported the syndicalist movement and,
moreover, drew attention to its anarchist roots. Emma Goldman noted that in
the First International _"Bakunin and the Latin workers"_ forged ahead _"along
industrial and Syndicalist lines"_ and stated that syndicalism _"is, in
@@ -2707,7 +2679,7 @@ the workingmen to realise their solidarity and to feel the community of their
interests better than any election, prepare the way for these conceptions."_
[**Anarchism**, p. 174] His support for anarchist participation in the labour
movement was strong, considering it a key method of preparing for a revolution
-and spreading anarchist ideas amongst the working classes: _ "The **syndicat**
+and spreading anarchist ideas amongst the working classes: _"The **syndicat**
is absolutely necessary. It is the sole force of the workers which continues
the direct struggle against capital without turning to parliamentarism."_
[quoted by Miller, **Op. Cit.**, p. 177]
@@ -2726,8 +2698,8 @@ This resulted in Kropotkin advocating a _"remarkable fusion of anarchist
communist ideas with both the bakuninist [sic!] internationalist views adopted
by the Spanish Federation and the syndicalist ideas developed in the Jura
Federation in the 1870s."_ This included seeing the importance of
-revolutionary labour unions, the value of the strikes as a mode of direct
-action and syndicalist action developing solidarity. _"For Kropotkin,"_ she
+revolutionary labour unions, the value of strikes as a mode of direct action
+and syndicalist action developing solidarity. _"For Kropotkin,"_ she
summarises, _"revolutionary syndicalism represented a revival of the great
movement of the Anti-authoritarian International . . . It seems likely that he
saw in it the [strikers International] which he had advocated earlier."_
@@ -2770,7 +2742,7 @@ Legacy of Hal Draper,"_ pp. 137-49, **International Socialism**, no. 52, p.
That Howl is totally distorting Bakunin's ideas can quickly be seen by looking
at the whole of the programme. The passage quoted is from item 2 of the
-_"Programme of the Alliance."_ Strangely Howle fails to quote the end of that
+_"Programme of the Alliance."_ Strangely Howl fails to quote the end of that
item, namely when it states this _"equalisation"_ was _"in pursuance of the
decision reached by the last working men's Congress in Brussels, the land, the
instruments of work and all other capital may become the collective property
@@ -2790,22 +2762,21 @@ Equally as dishonest as this quoting out of context is Howl's non-mention of
the history of the expression _"political, economic and social equalisation of
classes and individuals of both sexes."_ After Bakunin sent the Alliance
programme to the General Council of the **International Workingmen's
-Association**, he received a letter date March 9, 1869 from Marx which stated
+Association**, he received a letter dated March 9, 1869 from Marx which stated
that the term _"the equalisation of classes"_ _"literally interpreted"_ would
mean _"harmony of capital and labour"_ as _"persistently preached by the
-bourgeois socialists."_ The letter argued that it was _"not the logically
-impossible 'equalisation of classes', but the historically necessary,
-superseding 'abolition of classes'"_ which was the _"true secret of the
-proletarian movement"_ and which _"forms the great aim of the International
-Working Men's Association."_ Significantly, the letter adds the following:
-
-> _ "Considering, however, the context in which that phrase 'equalisation of
-classes' occurs, it seems to be a mere slip of the pen, and the General
-Council feels confident that you will be anxious to remove from your program
-an expression which offers such a dangerous misunderstanding."_ [**Collected
-Works**, vol. 21, p. 46]
-
-And, given the context, Marx was right. The phrase _"equalisation of classes"_
+bourgeois socialists."_ Marx argued that it was _"not the logically impossible
+'equalisation of classes', but the historically necessary, superseding
+'abolition of classes'"_ which was the _"true secret of the proletarian
+movement"_ and which _"forms the great aim of the International Working Men's
+Association."_ Significantly, the letter adds the following: _"Considering,
+however, the context in which that phrase 'equalisation of classes' occurs, it
+seems to be a mere slip of the pen, and the General Council feels confident
+that you will be anxious to remove from your program an expression which
+offers such a dangerous misunderstanding."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 21, p.
+46]
+
+Given the context, Marx was right. The phrase _"equalisation of classes"_
placed in the context of the political, economic and social equalisation of
individuals obviously implies the abolition of classes. The logic is simple.
If both worker and capitalist shared the same economic and social position
@@ -2825,7 +2796,7 @@ is done.
Simply put, anarchists are **not** liberals. We are well aware of the fact
that without equality, liberty is impossible except for the rich. As Nicolas
-Walter put it, _"[l]ike liberals, anarchists want freedom; like socialists,
+Walter put it: _"Like liberals, anarchists want freedom; like socialists,
anarchists want equality. But we are not satisfied by liberalism alone or by
socialism alone. Freedom without equality means that the poor and weak are
less free than the rich and strong, and equality without freedom means that we
@@ -2836,7 +2807,7 @@ more equality equals less freedom - anarchists point out that in practice you
cannot have one without the other. Freedom is not genuine if some people are
too poor or too weak to enjoy it, and equality is not genuine is some people
are ruled by others."_ [**About Anarchism**, p. 29] Clearly, anarchists do
-**not** have liberal politics. Quite the reverse, as we subject it to
+**not** have liberal politics. Quite the reverse, as we subject these to
extensive critique from a working class perspective.
To the claim that anarchism _"combines a socialist critique of capitalism with
@@ -2940,7 +2911,7 @@ is also generally understood to imply that anarchists do not see the need for
revolutionaries to organise together to influence the class struggle in the
here and now. Hence the British SWP's Duncan Hallas:
-> _ "That an organisation of socialist militants is necessary is common ground
+> _"That an organisation of socialist militants is necessary is common ground
on the left, a few anarchist purists apart. But what kind of organisation? One
view, widespread amongst newly radicalised students and young workers, is that
of the libertarians . . . [They have] hostility to centralised, co-ordinated
@@ -2969,15 +2940,15 @@ influence. We will discuss each issue in turn.
The first argument is the least important. For Marxists, co-ordination equals
centralism and to reject centralisation means to reject co-ordination of joint
-activity. For anarchists, co-ordination does not each centralism or
+activity. For anarchists, co-ordination does not mean centralism or
centralisation. This is why anarchism stresses federation and federalism as
the means of co-ordinating joint activity. Under a centralised system, the
-affairs of all are handed over to a handful of people at the centre. Their
+affairs of all are given over to a handful of people at the centre. Their
decisions are then binding on the mass of the members of the organisation
whose position is simply that of executing the orders of those whom the
majority elect. This means that power rests at the top and decisions flow from
the top downwards. As such, the "revolutionary" party simply mimics the very
-society it claims to oppose (see [ section H.5.6](secH5.html#sech56)) as well
+society it claims to oppose (see [section H.5.6](secH5.html#sech56)) as well
as being extremely ineffective (see [section H.5.8](secH5.html#sech58))
In a federal structure, in contrast, decisions flow from the bottom up by
@@ -3027,9 +2998,9 @@ critical of certain aspects, others (usually a minority) are consciously
seeking a better society (and are anarchists, ecologists, Marxists, etc.) and
so on. Only constant discussion, the clash of ideas, combined with collective
struggle can develop political awareness and narrow the unevenness of ideas
-within the oppressed. As Malatesta argued, _"[o]nly freedom or the struggle
-for freedom can be the school for freedom."_ [**Errico Malatesta: His Life and
-Ideas**, p. 59]
+within the oppressed: _"Only freedom or the struggle for freedom can be the
+school for freedom."_ [Malatesta, **Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, p.
+59]
From this perspective, it follows that any attempt to create an
institutionalised leadership structure means the end of the revolutionary
@@ -3042,7 +3013,7 @@ a specific party hierarchy) who do so and the masses role becomes, yet again,
simply that of selecting which boss tells them what to do.
So the anarchist federation does not reject the need of "leadership" in the
-sense of giving a led, of arguing its ideas and trying to win people to them.
+sense of giving a lead, of arguing its ideas and trying to win people to them.
It does reject the idea that "leadership" should become separated from the
mass of the people. Simply put, no party, no group of leaders have all the
answers and so the active participation of all is required for a successful
@@ -3066,7 +3037,7 @@ Kropotkin recognised that the former would be a prescription for the latter."_
[**Hatta Shuzo and Pure Anarchism in Interwar Japan**, p. 9] In Kropotkin's
own words:
-> _ "The idea of anarchist communism, today represented by feeble minorities,
+> _"The idea of anarchist communism, today represented by feeble minorities,
but increasingly finding popular expression, will make its way among the mass
of the people. Spreading everywhere, the anarchist groups . . . will take
strength from the support they find among the people, and will raise the red
@@ -3152,7 +3123,7 @@ democratic"_ (or _"elitist"_). For example, a member of the British
**Socialist Workers Party** denounces anarchism for being _"necessarily deeply
anti-democratic"_ due to its _"thesis of the absolute sovereignty of the
individual ego as against the imposition of **any** 'authority' over it,"_
-which, its is claimed, is the _"distinctly anarchist concept."_ This position
+which, it is claimed, is the _"distinctly anarchist concept."_ This position
is an _"idealist conception"_ in which _"**any** authority is seen as
despotic; 'freedom' and 'authority' (and therefore 'freedom' and 'democracy')
are opposites. This presumption of opposition to 'authority' was fostered by
@@ -3170,12 +3141,12 @@ fundamentally anti-democratic in principle, since it is not only unalterably
hostile to democracy in general but particularly to any socialist democracy of
the most ideal kind that could be imagined."_
-Such as argument is, of course, just ridiculous. Indeed, it is flawed on so
-many levels its hard to know where to start. The obvious place is the claim
-that anarchism is the most _"fundamentally anti-democratic in principle."_
-Now, given that there are fascists, monarchists, supporters (like Trotsky) of
-_"party dictatorship"_ and a host of others who advocate minority rule (even
-by one person) over everyone else, can it be argued with a straight face that
+Such an argument is just ridiculous. Indeed, it is flawed on so many levels
+its hard to know where to start. The obvious place is the claim that anarchism
+is the most _"fundamentally anti-democratic in principle."_ Now, given that
+there are fascists, monarchists, supporters (like Trotsky) of _"party
+dictatorship"_ and a host of others who advocate minority rule (even by one
+person) over everyone else, can it be argued with a straight face that
anarchism is the most _"anti-democratic"_ because it argues for the liberty of
all? Is the idea and practice of absolute monarchy and fascism **really** more
democratic than anarchism? Clearly not, although this does indicate the
@@ -3199,7 +3170,7 @@ conceptions of society"_ and stressed that anarchism _"refuses all
hierarchical organisation."_ [**Anarchism**, p. 158 and p. 137]
This means, just to state the obvious, that making and sticking by collective
-decisions are **not** acts of authority. Rather they simply expressions of
+decisions are **not** acts of authority. Rather they are simply expressions of
individual autonomy. Clearly in most activities there is a need to co-operate
with other people. Indeed, **living** involves the _"absolute sovereignty of
the individual ego"_ (as if anarchists like Bakunin used such terms!) being
@@ -3214,7 +3185,7 @@ ideas on this matter, like of many others, is poverty stricken.
And, unsurprisingly enough, we find anarchist thinkers like Bakunin and
Kropotkin attacking this idea of _"the absolute sovereignty of the individual
-ego"_ in the most severe terms. Indeed, they thought was a bourgeois theory
+ego"_ in the most severe terms. Indeed, they thought it was a bourgeois theory
which simply existed to justify the continued domination and exploitation of
working class people by the ruling class. Kropotkin quite clearly recognised
its anti-individual and unfree nature by labelling it _"the authoritarian
@@ -3282,13 +3253,13 @@ liberty (_"The belief in freedom assumes that human beings can co-operate."_
association must be one of equality between the associating individuals. This
can only be done when everyone involved takes a meaningful role in the
decision making process and because of this anarchists stress the need for
-**self-government** (usually called _**self-management**_) of both individuals
+**self-government** (usually called **_self-management_**) of both individuals
and groups. Self-management within free associations and decision making from
the bottom-up is the only way domination can be eliminated. This is because,
by making our own decisions ourselves, we automatically end the division of
society into governors and governed (i.e. end hierarchy). As Anarchism clearly
means support for freedom and equality, it automatically implies opposition to
-all forms of hierarchical organisation and authoritarian social relationship.
+all forms of hierarchical organisation and authoritarian social relationships.
This means that anarchist support for individual liberty does not end, as many
Marxists assert, in the denial of organisation or collective decision making
but rather in support for **self-managed** groups. Only this form of
@@ -3305,10 +3276,10 @@ act as they see fit, i.e. as politicians or bureaucrats, and not as the people
who elected them desire). This way people directly govern themselves and
control their own lives, allowing those affected by a decision to have a say
in it and so they manage their own affairs directly and without hierarchy.
-Rather than imply an "individualism"_ which denies the importance of
+Rather than imply an "individualism" which denies the importance of
association and the freedom it can generate, anarchism implies an opposition
-to hierarchy in all its forms and the support free association of equals. In
-other words, anarchism can generally be taken to mean support for self-
+to hierarchy in all its forms and support for the free association of equals.
+In other words, anarchism can generally be taken to mean support for self-
government or self-management, both by individuals and by groups.
In summary, anarchist support for individual liberty incurs a similar support
@@ -3332,22 +3303,22 @@ _"higher type of democracy"_ of the soviets was ignored by the Bolshevik party
once it was in power. As we discuss in [section H.6.1](secH6.html#sech61),
faced with the election of non-Bolshevik majorities to the soviets, Bolshevik
armed force was used to overthrow the results. In addition, they also
-gerrymanderd soviets once they could not longer count on an electoral
+gerrymandered soviets once they could no longer count on an electoral
majority. In the workplace, the Bolsheviks replaced workers' economic
democracy with _"one-man management"_ appointed from above, by the state,
armed with _"dictatorial power"_ (see [section H.3.14](secH3.html#sech314)).
As discussed in [section H.3.8](secH3.html#sech38), the Bolsheviks generalised
their experiences exercising power into explicit support for party
dictatorship. Throughout the 1920s and 30s, Trotsky repeated this conclusion
-and repeated advocated party dictatorship, urging the party to use its power
+and repeatedly advocated party dictatorship, urging the party to use its power
to crush opposition in the working class to its rule. For the Bolshevik
tradition, the power of the party to ignore the wishes of the class it claims
to represent is a fundamental ideological position.
-So, remember when Lenin or Trotsky argue for _"party dictatorship"_, the over-
+So remember, when Lenin or Trotsky argue for _"party dictatorship"_, the over-
riding of the democratic decisions of the masses by the party, the elimination
of workers factory committees in favour of appointed managers armed with
-_"dictatorial"_ power or when the Bolshevik disbanded soviets with non-
+_"dictatorial"_ power or when the Bolsheviks disbanded soviets with non-
Bolshevik majorities, it is **anarchism** which is fundamentally _"anti-
democratic"_! All in all, that anyone can claim that anarchism is more _"anti-
democratic"_ than Leninism is a joke.
@@ -3366,7 +3337,7 @@ that anarchists called themselves _"anti-authoritarians."_
Even if we ignore all the anti-democratic acts of Bolshevism (or justify them
in terms of the problems facing the Russian Revolution, as most Leninists do),
-the anti-democratic nature of Leninist ideas still come to the fore. The
+the anti-democratic nature of Leninist ideas still comes to the fore. The
Leninist support for centralised state power brings their attack on anarchism
as being _"anti-democratic"_ into clear perspective and, ultimately, results
in the affairs of millions being decided upon by a handful of people in the
@@ -3423,7 +3394,7 @@ taken for granted that the minority should subject themselves to the will of
the majority before that will is even decided upon. Does that mean, for
example, that Marxists refuse minorities the right of civil disobedience if
the majority acts in a way which harms their liberties and equality? If, for
-example, the majority in community decides to implement race laws, does that
+example, the majority in a community decides to implement race laws, does that
mean that Marxists would **oppose** the discriminated minority taking direct
action to undermine and abolish them? Or, to take an example closer to
Marxism, in 1914 the leaders of the Social Democratic Party in the German
@@ -3451,19 +3422,19 @@ Equally, if the majority make a decision which harms the liberty and equality
of a non-oppressive and non-exploitative minority, then that minority has the
right to reject the "authority" of the majority. Hence Carole Pateman:
-> _ "The essence of liberal social contract theory is that individuals ought
-to promise to, or enter an agreement to, obey representatives, to whom they
-have alienated their right to make political decisions . . . Promising . . .
-is an expression of individual freedom and equality, yet commits individuals
-for the future. Promising also implies that individuals are capable of
-independent judgement and rational deliberation, and of evaluating and
-changing their own actions and relationships; promises may sometimes
-justifiably be broken. However, to promise to obey is to deny or limit, to a
-greater or lesser degree, individuals' freedom and equality and their ability
-to exercise these capacities. To promise to obey is to state that, in certain
-areas, the person making the promise is no longer free to exercise her
-capacities and decide upon her own actions, and is no longer equal, but
-subordinate."_ [**The Problem of Political Obligation**, p. 19]
+> _"The essence of liberal social contract theory is that individuals ought to
+promise to, or enter an agreement to, obey representatives, to whom they have
+alienated their right to make political decisions . . . Promising . . . is an
+expression of individual freedom and equality, yet commits individuals for the
+future. Promising also implies that individuals are capable of independent
+judgement and rational deliberation, and of evaluating and changing their own
+actions and relationships; promises may sometimes justifiably be broken.
+However, to promise to obey is to deny or limit, to a greater or lesser
+degree, individuals' freedom and equality and their ability to exercise these
+capacities. To promise to obey is to state that, in certain areas, the person
+making the promise is no longer free to exercise her capacities and decide
+upon her own actions, and is no longer equal, but subordinate."_ [**The
+Problem of Political Obligation**, p. 19]
Thus, for anarchists, a democracy which does not involve individual rights to
dissent, to disagree and to practice civil disobedience would violate freedom
@@ -3516,7 +3487,7 @@ does, needless to say, misrepresent them.
The aim of Goldman's essay was to state the obvious - that the mass is not the
source for new ideas. Rather, new, progressive, ideas are the product of
-minorities and which then spread to the majority by the actions of those
+minorities, which then spread to the majority by the actions of those
minorities. Even social movements and revolutions start when a minority takes
action. Trade unionism, for example, was (and still is) a minority movement in
most countries. Support for racial and sexual equality was long despised (or,
@@ -3614,7 +3585,7 @@ because to fail in it would be to fail in the solidarity between the oppressed
and would mean betrayal in face of the enemy. But when one is convinced that
the organisation is pursuing a course which threatens the future and makes it
difficult to remedy the harm done, then it is a duty to rebel and to resist
-even at the risk of providing a split . . . What is essential is that
+even at the risk of provoking a split . . . What is essential is that
individuals should develop a sense of organisation and solidarity, and the
conviction that fraternal co-operation is necessary to fight oppression and to
achieve a society in which everyone will be able to enjoy his [or her] own
@@ -3624,15 +3595,13 @@ This means that anarchists are not against majority decision making as such.
We simply recognise it has limitations. In practice, the need for majority and
minority to come to an agreement is one most anarchists would recognise:
-> _ "But such an adaptation [of the minority to the decisions of the majority]
+> _"But such an adaptation [of the minority to the decisions of the majority]
on the one hand by one group must be reciprocal, voluntary and must stem from
an awareness of need and of goodwill to prevent the running of social affairs
from being paralysed by obstinacy. It cannot be imposed as a principle and
-statutory norm. . .
+statutory norm. . . _
->
-
-> "So . . . anarchists deny the right of the majority to govern in human
+> _"So . . . anarchists deny the right of the majority to govern in human
society in general . . . how is it possible . . . to declare that anarchists
should submit to the decisions of the majority before they have even heard
what those might be?"_ [Malatesta, **The Anarchist Revolution**, pp. 100-1]
@@ -3644,17 +3613,15 @@ decision reached simply because the majority is not always right. We must
balance the need for solidarity in the common struggle and needs of common
life with critical analysis and judgement. As Malatesta argued:
-> _ "In any case it is not a question of being right or wrong; it is a
-question of freedom, freedom for all, freedom for each individual so long as
-he [or she] does not violate the equal freedom of others. No one can judge
-with certainty who is right and who is wrong, who is closer to the truth and
-which is the best road for the greatest good for each and everyone. Experience
+> _"In any case it is not a question of being right or wrong; it is a question
+of freedom, freedom for all, freedom for each individual so long as he [or
+she] does not violate the equal freedom of others. No one can judge with
+certainty who is right and who is wrong, who is closer to the truth and which
+is the best road for the greatest good for each and everyone. Experience
through freedom is the only means to arrive at the truth and the best
-solutions; and there is no freedom if there is not the freedom to be wrong.
-
->
+solutions; and there is no freedom if there is not the freedom to be wrong. _
-> "In our opinion, therefore, it is necessary that majority and minority
+> _"In our opinion, therefore, it is necessary that majority and minority
should succeed in living together peacefully and profitably by mutual
agreement and compromise, by the intelligent recognition of the practical
necessities of communal life and of the usefulness of concessions which
@@ -3697,7 +3664,7 @@ automatically from a love of freedom for all. Given this, the typical Leninist
attacks against anarchism for being "individualism" simply exposes the state
capitalist nature of Bolshevism:
-> _ "capitalism promotes egotism, not individuality or 'individualism.' . . .
+> _"capitalism promotes egotism, not individuality or 'individualism.' . . .
the ego it created . . . [is] shrivelled . . . The term 'bourgeois
individualism,' an epithet widely used by the left today against libertarian
elements, reflects the extent to which bourgeois ideology permeates the
@@ -3742,7 +3709,7 @@ people."_ [_"The Legacy of Hal Draper,"_ pp. 137-49, **International
Socialism**, no. 52, p. 148]
Ignoring the obvious contradiction of _"newly proletarianised peasants"_ being
-_"non-proletarians,"_ we have the standard Marxist _"class analysis"_ of
+_"non-proletarians,"_ we have the standard Marxist "class analysis" of
anarchism. This is to assert that anarchism is _"non-proletarian"_ while
Marxism is _"proletarian."_ On the face of it, such an assertion seems to fly
in the face of historical facts. After all, when Marx and Engels were writing
@@ -3818,7 +3785,7 @@ As we noted in [section A.5.5](secA5.html#seca55), the role of the anarchists
and syndicalists compared to the Marxists during the 1920 near revolution
suggested that the real _"proletarian"_ revolutionaries were, in fact, the
former and **not** the latter. All in all, the history of the Italian labour
-movement clearly show that, for most Marxists, whether a group represents the
+movement clearly shows that, for most Marxists, whether a group represents the
_"proletariat"_ is simply dependent on their ideological commitment, **not**
their actual class.
@@ -3868,7 +3835,7 @@ rested on _"non-proletarian"_ elements?
Moreover, the logic of dismissing anarchism as _"non-proletarian"_ because it
organised _"newly proletarianised peasants"_ is simply laughable. After all,
-capitalism needed landless labours in order to start. This meant that the
+capitalism needed landless labourers in order to start. This meant that the
first proletarians lived in rural areas and were made up of ex-peasants. When
these ex-peasants arrived in the towns and cities, they were still _"newly
proletarianised peasants."_ To ignore these groups of workers would mean
@@ -3881,7 +3848,7 @@ peasant industrial _"raw recruits"_ and not from the genuine working class.
because it gained converts from similar social strata as the Bolsheviks seems,
on the face of it, a joke.
-As can be seen Howl's attempts to subject anarchism to a _"class analysis"_
+As can be seen, Howl's attempt to subject anarchism to a _"class analysis"_
simply fails. He selects the evidence which fits his theory and ignores that
which does not. However, looking at the very examples he bases his case on
shows how nonsensical it is. Simply put, anarchist ideas appealed to many
@@ -3889,9 +3856,9 @@ types of workers, including typically _"proletarian"_ ones who worked in
large-scale industries. What they seem to have in common is a desire for
radical social change, organised by themselves in their own combative class
organs (such as unions). Moreover, like the early British workers movement,
-they considered these unions, as well as being organs of class struggle, could
-also be the framework of a free socialist society. Such a perspective is
-hardly backward (indeed, since 1917 most Marxists pay lip-service to this
+they considered that these unions, as well as being organs of class struggle,
+could also be the framework of a free socialist society. Such a perspective is
+hardly backward (indeed, since 1917 Leninists pay lip-service to this
vision!).
Which brings us to the next major problem with Howl's argument, namely the
@@ -3924,9 +3891,9 @@ militant times, the effects of bourgeois society and the role of unions within
the capitalist economy can de-radicalise the labour movement and lead to the
rise of bureaucracy within it. It is then, during periods when the class
struggle is low, that reformist ideas spread. Sadly, Marxism aided that spread
-by its tactics - the role of electioneering focused struggle away from direct
-action and into the ballot-box and so onto leaders rather than working class
-self-activity.
+by its tactics - electioneering focused struggle away from direct action and
+into the ballot-box and so onto leaders rather than working class self-
+activity.
Moreover, if we look at the current state of the labour movement, then we
would have to conclude that Marxism is _"an ideology alien to the life of
@@ -3944,13 +3911,12 @@ themselves on who is the **real** vanguard of the proletariat, but **no**
Marxist labour movement.
Which, of course, brings us to the next point, namely the ideological problems
-for Leninists themselves by such an assertion. After all, Lenin himself argued
-that _"the life of modern working people"_ could only produce _"trade-union
-consciousness."_ According to him, socialist ideas were developed
-independently of working people by the socialist (middle-class)
-_"intelligentsia."_ As we discuss in [section H.5.1](secH5.html#sech51), for
-Lenin, socialism was an ideology which was alien to the life of modern working
-class people.
+for Leninists themselves created by such an assertion. After all, Lenin
+himself argued that _"the life of modern working people"_ could only produce _
+"trade-union consciousness"_ as socialist ideas were developed independently
+of working people by the socialist (middle-class) _"intelligentsia."_ As we
+discuss in [section H.5.1](secH5.html#sech51), for Lenin, socialism was an
+ideology which was alien to the life of modern working class people.
Lastly, there is the question of whether Marx and Engels can seriously be
thought of as being able to decree once and for all what is and is not
@@ -3986,14 +3952,14 @@ the sections guided by the needs of the practical struggle, Marx imposed what
what Marx considered as necessary might be another sectarian position imposed
on the workers' movement did not enter his head nor those of his followers:
-> _ "Marx had indeed insisted, in the earlier years of the First
-International, on the need for building on actual movements rather than
-constructing a dogma which movements were then required to fit. But when the
-actual movements took forms which he disliked, as they largely did in Spain
-and Italy, in Germany under Lassalle's influence, and in Great Britain as soon
-as the Trade Unions' most immediate demands had been met, he was apt to forget
-his own precepts and to become the grand inquisitor into heretical misdeeds."_
-[G.D.H. Cole, **A History of Socialist Thought**, vol. 2, p. 256]
+> _"Marx had indeed insisted, in the earlier years of the First International,
+on the need for building on actual movements rather than constructing a dogma
+which movements were then required to fit. But when the actual movements took
+forms which he disliked, as they largely did in Spain and Italy, in Germany
+under Lassalle's influence, and in Great Britain as soon as the Trade Unions'
+most immediate demands had been met, he was apt to forget his own precepts and
+to become the grand inquisitor into heretical misdeeds."_ [G.D.H. Cole, **A
+History of Socialist Thought**, vol. 2, p. 256]
That support for _"political action"_ was just as "sectarian" as support for
non-participation in elections can be seen from Engels 1895 comment that
@@ -4046,7 +4012,7 @@ reason that the anarcho-syndicalist Augustin Souchy said he referred _"to the
tendencies that exist in the modern workers' movement"_ when he argued at the
Second Congress of the Communist International:
-> _ "It must be granted that among revolutionary workers the tendency toward
+> _"It must be granted that among revolutionary workers the tendency toward
parliamentarism is disappearing more and more. On the contrary, a strong anti-
parliamentary tendency is becoming apparent in the ranks of the most advanced
part of the proletariat. Look at the Shop Stewards' movement [in Britain] or
@@ -4132,7 +4098,7 @@ action. Moreover, we are aware that any social or economic struggle has its
political aspects and that such struggles bring the role of the state as
defender of capitalism and the need to struggle against it into focus:
-> _ "There is no serious strike that occurs today without the appearance of
+> _"There is no serious strike that occurs today without the appearance of
troops, the exchange of blows and some acts of revolt. Here they fight with
the troops; there they march on the factories; . . . in Pittsburgh in the
United States, the strikers found themselves masters of a territory as large
@@ -4188,7 +4154,7 @@ so as to hide their turnabout, the label of socialism."_ [**Words of a
Rebel**, p. 181 and p. 180] The differences in results between direct action
and electioneering were obvious:
-> _ "However moderate the war cry - provided it is in the domain of relations
+> _"However moderate the war cry - provided it is in the domain of relations
between capital and labour - as soon as it proceeds to put it into practice by
revolutionary methods, it ends by increasing it and will be led to demand the
overthrow of the regime of property. On the other hand a party which confines
@@ -4207,10 +4173,10 @@ into a reformist party which betrayed the promise of socialism in favour of
making existing society better (so it can last longer). This process confirmed
Bakunin's predictions. As Kropotkin put it:
-> _ "The middle class will not give up its power without a struggle. It will
+> _"The middle class will not give up its power without a struggle. It will
resist. And in proportion as Socialists will become part of the Government and
share power with the middle class, their Socialism will grow paler and paler.
-This is, indeed, what Socialism is rapidly doing. Were this no so, the middle
+This is, indeed, what Socialism is rapidly doing. Were this not so, the middle
classes . . . would not share their power with the Socialists."_ [**Evolution
and Environment**, p. 102]
@@ -4255,11 +4221,11 @@ years and letting leaders fight your struggles for you.
## H.2.14 Are anarchist organisations _"ineffective,"_ _"elitist"_ or
_"downright bizarre"_?
-Marxists often accuse anarchist organisations of being _"elitist"_ or
-_"secret."_ Pat Stack (of the British SWP) ponders the history of anarchist
-organisation (at least the SWP version of that history):
+Marxists often accuse anarchist organisations of being "elitist" or "secret."
+Pat Stack (of the British SWP) ponders the history of anarchist organisation
+(at least the SWP version of that history):
-> _ "how otherwise [than Leninist vanguard political parties] do
+> _"how otherwise [than Leninist vanguard political parties] do
revolutionaries organise? Apart from the serious efforts of anarcho-
syndicalists to grapple with this problem, anarchists have failed to pose any
serious alternative. In as much as they do, they have produced either the
@@ -4275,11 +4241,9 @@ the "permanent delegation of the permanent Central Committee", and, finally,
within the central Geneva section a "Central Bureau", which was to be both the
"executive power . . . composed of three, or five, or even seven members" of
the secret organisation and the executive directory of the public
-organisation.'
+organisation.' _
->
-
-> "That this was far more elitist and less democratic than Lenin's model is
+> _"That this was far more elitist and less democratic than Lenin's model is
clear."_ [_"Anarchy in the UK?"_, **Socialist Review**, no. 246]
There are, as is obvious, numerous problems with Stack's assertions. Firstly,
@@ -4310,7 +4274,7 @@ their ideas and by their example, be _"elitist"_ or _"downright bizarre"_?
Little wonder, then, that Stack used an example from 1868 to attack anarchism
in the twenty-first century! If he actually presented an honest account of
anarchist ideas then his claims would quickly be seen to be nonsense. And as
-for the claim of being _"ineffective,"_ well, given that Stack's article is an
+for the claim of being _"ineffective"_ well, given that Stack's article was an
attempt to combat anarchist influence in the anti-globalisation movement it
would suggest the opposite.
@@ -4340,8 +4304,8 @@ and Anarcho-Syndicalism**, p. 163] In reality, the Spanish Socialist Party was
bureaucratic and reformist to the core while it was the anarchists who made
the Spanish labour movement the most dynamic and revolutionary in the world.
-As regards Stack's summary of Bakunin's organisation goes, we must note that
-Stack is quoting an unnamed source on Bakunin's views on this subject. We,
+As regards Stack's summary of Bakunin's organisation, we must note that Stack
+is quoting an unnamed source on Bakunin's views on this subject. We,
therefore, have no way of evaluating whether this is a valid summary of
Bakunin's ideas on this matter. As we indicate elsewhere (see [section
J.3.7](secJ3.html#secj37)) Leninist summaries of Bakunin's ideas on secret
@@ -4365,7 +4329,7 @@ or its organisation from below according to its own customs and instincts
because it acts on the people only by the natural personal influence of its
members who are not invested with any power."_ Thus the revolutionary group
would be the _"helper"_ of the masses, with an "organisation within the people
-itself."_ [quoted by Michael Confino, **Daughter of a Revolutionary**, p. 259,
+itself." [quoted by Michael Confino, **Daughter of a Revolutionary**, p. 259,
p. 261, p. 256 and p. 261] The revolution itself would see _"an end to all
masters and to domination of every kind, and the free construction of popular
life in accordance with popular needs, not from above downward, as in the
@@ -4468,7 +4432,7 @@ For anarchists, the similarity in structure between Bakunin and Lenin is no
source of embarrassment. Rather, we argue that it is due to a similarity in
political conditions in Russia and **not** similarities in political ideas. If
we look at Bakunin's ideas on social revolution and the workers' movement we
-see a fully libertarian perspective \- of a movement from the bottom-up, based
+see a fully libertarian perspective - of a movement from the bottom-up, based
on the principles of direct action, self-management and federalism. Anarchists
since his death have applied **these** ideas to the specific anarchist
organisation as well, rejecting the non-libertarian elements of Bakunin's
@@ -4557,7 +4521,7 @@ along confederal lines . . . Almost as a matter of second nature, dissidents
were permitted a considerable amount of freedom in voicing and publishing
material against the leadership and established policies."_ The FAI _"was more
loosely jointed as an organisation than many of its admirers and critics seem
-to recognise. It has no bureaucratic apparatus, no membership cards or dues,
+to recognise. It had no bureaucratic apparatus, no membership cards or dues,
and no headquarters with paid officials, secretaries, and clerks. . . They
jealously guarded the autonomy of their affinity groups from the authority of
higher organisational bodies - a state of mind hardly conducive to the
@@ -4583,11 +4547,11 @@ anarchist militant asked, _"[i]f it was secret, how come I was able to attend
F.A.I. meetings without ever having joined or paid dues to the 'specific'
organisation?"_ [Francesco Carrasquer, quoted by Christie, **Op. Cit.**, p.
24] The organisation held public meetings, attended by thousands, as well as
-journals and newspapers. Its most notable members, such as Durruti, hardly
-kept their affiliation secret. Moreover, given the periods of repression
-suffered by the Spanish libertarian movement throughout its history (including
-being banned and forced underground during the Republic) being an illegal
-organisation made perfect sense. The SWP, like most Marxists, ignore
+publishing journals and newspapers. Its most notable members, such as Durruti,
+hardly kept their affiliation secret. Moreover, given the periods of
+repression suffered by the Spanish libertarian movement throughout its history
+(including being banned and forced underground during the Republic) being an
+illegal organisation made perfect sense. The SWP, like most Marxists, ignore
historical context and so mislead the reader.
Did the F.A.I. ignore _"open debate and common struggle."_ No, of course not.
@@ -4632,7 +4596,11 @@ note the similarities between his ideas and Lenin's and, equally
significantly, the key areas in which they differ. All in all, anarchists
would argue that it is Leninist ideas on the vanguard party which are
_"elitist,"_ _"ineffective"_ and _"downright bizarre."_ As we discuss in
-[section H.5](secH5.html), the only thing the Leninist "revolutionary"_ party
+[section H.5](secH5.html), the only thing the Leninist "revolutionary" party
is effective for is replacing one set of bosses with a new set (the leaders of
the party).
+[‹ H.1 Have anarchists always opposed state socialism?](/afaq/secH1.html "Go
+to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secHcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [H.3 What
+are the myths of state socialism? ›](/afaq/secH3.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secH3.md b/markdown/secH3.md
index 7b987acefec5e6047700e0553478df09583a6b33..971330224802ccf8a8f6b02538c1645abcda1df3 100644
--- a/markdown/secH3.md
+++ b/markdown/secH3.md
@@ -8,16 +8,16 @@ that they have successfully alienated millions of working class people from
the very idea of socialism. Indeed, the supporters of capitalism simply had to
describe the "socialist paradises" as they really are in order to put people
off socialism. The Stalinist regimes and their various apologists (and even
-"opponents", like the Trotskyists, who defended them as _"degenerated workers'
+"opponents", like the Trotskyists, who defend them as _"degenerated workers'
states"_) let the bourgeoisie have an easy time in dismissing all working-
class demands and struggles as so many attempts to set up similar party
dictatorships.
-The association of _"socialism"_ or _"communism"_ with these dictatorships has
+The association of "socialism" or "communism" with these dictatorships has
often made anarchists wary of calling themselves socialists or communists in
case our ideas are associated with them. As Errico Malatesta argued in 1924:
-> _ "I foresee the possibility that the communist anarchists will gradually
+> _"I foresee the possibility that the communist anarchists will gradually
abandon the term 'communist': it is growing in ambivalence and falling into
disrepute as a result of Russian 'communist' despotism. If the term is
eventually abandoned this will be a repetition of what happened with the word
@@ -38,13 +38,13 @@ to portray anarchism as being primarily against the state and not being as
equally opposed to capitalism, hierarchy and inequality (as we argue in
[section H.2.4](secH2.html#sech24), anarchists have opposed the state as just
one aspect of class and hierarchical society). Secondly, extreme right-wingers
-tried to appropriate the names _"libertarian"_ and _"anarchist"_ to describe
-their vision of extreme capitalism as _"anarchism,"_ they claimed, was simply
-_"anti-government"_ (see [section F](secFcon.html) for discussion on why
+tried to appropriate the names "libertarian" and "anarchist" to describe their
+vision of extreme capitalism as "anarchism," they claimed, was simply "anti-
+government" (see [section F](secFcon.html) for discussion on why
"anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist). To counter these distortions of
anarchist ideas, many anarchists have re-appropriated the use of the words
-_"socialist"_ and _"communist,"_ although always in combination with the words
-_"anarchist"_ and _"libertarian."_
+"socialist" and "communist," although always in combination with the words
+"anarchist" and "libertarian."
Such combination of words is essential as the problem Malatesta predicted
still remains. If one thing can be claimed for the 20th century, it is that it
@@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ considered it _"characteristic and unfortunate that the lesson that was drawn
from Marx and Lenin for the later period was the authoritarian lesson. That
is, it's the authoritarian power of the vanguard party and destruction of all
popular forums in the interests of the masses. That's the Lenin who became
-know to later generations. Again, not very surprisingly, because that's what
+known to later generations. Again, not very surprisingly, because that's what
Leninism really was in practice."_ [**Language and Politics**, p. 152]
Ironically, given Marx's own comments on the subject, a key hindrance to such
@@ -147,8 +147,9 @@ one system of domination and hierarchy by another."_ [**Post-Scarcity
Anarchism**, p. 108 and p. 109] In Marx's words, the _"tradition of all the
dead generations weighs down like a nightmare on the brain of the living."_
Yet his own work, and the movements it inspired, now add to this dead-weight.
-In order to ensure, as Marx put it, the social revolution draws is poetry from
-the future rather than the past, Marxism itself must be transcended.
+In order to ensure, as Marx (echoing Proudhon) put it, the social revolution
+draws its poetry from the future rather than the past, Marxism itself must be
+transcended.
Which, of course, means evaluating both the theory **and** practice of
Marxism. For anarchists, it seems strange that for a body of work whose
@@ -162,17 +163,15 @@ in the interpretation of the message not in the message itself, anarchists
reply that the reason these numerous, allegedly false, interpretations exist
at all simply suggests that there are limitations within Marxism **as such**
rather than the readings it has been subjected to. When something repeatedly
-fails and produces such terrible results in the progress then there has to be
-a fundamental flaw somewhere. Thus Cornelius Castoriadis:
+fails and produces such terrible results in the process then there has to be a
+fundamental flaw somewhere. Thus Cornelius Castoriadis:
-> _ "Marx was, in fact, the first to stress that the significance of a theory
+> _"Marx was, in fact, the first to stress that the significance of a theory
cannot be grasped independently of the historical and social practice it
inspires and initiates, to which it gives rise, in which it prolongs itself
-and under cover of which a given practice seeks to justify itself.
+and under cover of which a given practice seeks to justify itself. _
->
-
-> "Who, today, would dare proclaim that the only significance of Christianity
+> _"Who, today, would dare proclaim that the only significance of Christianity
for history is to be found in reading unaltered versions of the Gospels or
that the historical practice of various Churches over a period of some 2,000
years can teach us nothing fundamental about the significance of this
@@ -210,7 +209,7 @@ contribution to it.
As noted above, there are minority trends in Marxism which are libertarian in
nature (i.e. close to anarchism). As such, it would be simplistic to say that
-anarchists are _"anti-Marxist"_ and we generally do differentiate between the
+anarchists are "anti-Marxist" and we generally do differentiate between the
(minority) libertarian element and the authoritarian mainstream of Marxism
(i.e. Social-Democracy and Leninism in its many forms). Without doubt, Marx
contributed immensely to the enrichment of socialist ideas and analysis (as
@@ -247,11 +246,11 @@ the details of such a society are somewhat different. This, perhaps, is to be
expected given the differences in means. As is obvious from Bakunin's
argument, anarchists stress the unity of means and goals, that the means which
are used affect the goal reached. This unity between means and ends is
-expressed well by Martin Buber's observation that _"[o]ne cannot in the nature
-of things expect a little tree that has been turned into a club to put forth
-leaves."_ [**Paths in Utopia**, p. 127] In summary, we cannot expect to reach
-our end destination if we take a path going in the opposite direction. As
-such, the agreement on ends may not be as close as often imagined.
+expressed well by Martin Buber: _"One cannot in the nature of things expect a
+little tree that has been turned into a club to put forth leaves."_ [**Paths
+in Utopia**, p. 127] In summary, we cannot expect to reach our end destination
+if we take a path going in the opposite direction. As such, the agreement on
+ends may not be as close as often imagined.
So when it is stated that anarchists and state socialists want the same thing,
the following should be borne in mind. Firstly, there are key differences on
@@ -331,7 +330,7 @@ words, _"political power"_ simply means the ability to nominate a government
(see [section H.3.10](secH3.html#sech310)).
While Marxists like to portray this new government as _"the dictatorship of
-the proletariat,"_ anarchist argue that, in fact, it will be the dictatorship
+the proletariat,"_ anarchists argue that, in fact, it will be the dictatorship
**over** the proletariat. This is because if the working class **is** the
ruling class (as Marxists claim) then, anarchists argue, how can they delegate
their power to a government and remain so? Either the working class directly
@@ -496,14 +495,14 @@ wealth, agriculture, the establishment and development of factories, the
organisation and control of trade, and lastly the injection of capital into
production by a single banker, the State."_ Such a system would be, in
reality, _"the reign of the **scientific mind,** the most aristocratic,
-despotic, arrogant and contemptuous of all regimes"_ base on _"a new class, a
+despotic, arrogant and contemptuous of all regimes"_ based on _"a new class, a
new hierarchy of real or bogus learning, and the world will be divided into a
dominant, science-based minority and a vast, ignorant majority."_ [**Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings**, p. 266]
George Barrett's words also seem appropriate:
-> _ "The modern Socialist . . . have steadily worked for centralisation, and
+> _"The modern Socialist . . . have steadily worked for centralisation, and
complete and perfect organisation and control by those in authority above the
people. The anarchist, on the other hand, believes in the abolition of that
central power, and expects the free society to grow into existence from below,
@@ -515,7 +514,7 @@ everything, we can be making a step towards the abolition of that power."_
Indeed, by giving the state increased economic activities it ensures that this
so-called "transitional" state grows with the implementation of the Marxist
programme. Moreover, given the economic tasks the state now does it hardly
-makes much sense to assert it will "wither away" \- unless you think that the
+makes much sense to assert it will "wither away" - unless you think that the
centralised economic planning which this regime does also "withers away." Marx
argued that once the _"abolition of classes"_ has _"been attained"_ then _"the
power of the State . . . disappears, and the functions of government are
@@ -561,23 +560,19 @@ simply because the state is designed to create and protect minority rule (see
nationalising the means of production does not end class society. As Malatesta
argued:
-> _ "When F. Engels, perhaps to counter anarchist criticisms, said that once
-classes disappear the State as such has no **raison d'tre** and transforms
-itself from a government of men into an administration of thing, he was merely
-playing with words. Whoever has power over things has power over men; whoever
-governs production also governs the producers; who determines consumption is
-master over the consumer.
-
->
+> _"When F. Engels, perhaps to counter anarchist criticisms, said that once
+classes disappear the State as such has no **raison d'être** and transforms
+itself from a government of men into an administration of things, he was
+merely playing with words. Whoever has power over things has power over men;
+whoever governs production also governs the producers; who determines
+consumption is master over the consumer. _
-> "This is the question; either things are administered on the basis of free
+> _"This is the question; either things are administered on the basis of free
agreement of the interested parties, and this is anarchy; or they are
administered according to laws made by administrators and this is government,
-it is the State, and inevitably it turns out to be tyrannical.
+it is the State, and inevitably it turns out to be tyrannical. _
->
-
-> "It is not a question of the good intentions or the good will of this or
+> _"It is not a question of the good intentions or the good will of this or
that man, but of the inevitability of the situation, and of the tendencies
which man generally develops in given circumstances."_ [**Errico Malatesta:
His Life and Ideas**, p. 145]
@@ -593,7 +588,7 @@ _"state capitalism"_ were basically identical. Even in **State and
Revolution**, allegedly Lenin's most libertarian work, we discover this
particularly unvisionary and uninspiring vision of "socialism":
-> _ "**All** citizens are transformed into the salaried employees of the state
+> _"**All** citizens are transformed into the salaried employees of the state
. . . **All** citizens become employees and workers of a **single** national
state 'syndicate' . . . The whole of society will have become a single office
and a single factory with equality of work and equality of pay."_ [**Essential
@@ -607,11 +602,11 @@ vision of the lack of freedom in the workplace.
For these reasons anarchists reject the simplistic Marxist analysis of
inequality being rooted simply in economic class. Such an analysis, as the
-comments of Lenin and Engels prove, show that social inequality can be
+comments of Lenin and Engels prove, shows that social inequality can be
smuggled in by the backdoor of a proposed classless and stateless society.
Thus Bookchin:
-> _ "Basic to anti-authoritarian Socialism --specifically, to Anarchist
+> _"Basic to anti-authoritarian Socialism - specifically, to Anarchist
Communism - is the notion that hierarchy and domination cannot be subsumed by
class rule and economic exploitation, indeed, that they are more fundamental
to an understanding of the modern revolutionary project . . . Power of human
@@ -688,7 +683,7 @@ below"_ with _"socialism from above,"_ in which they place reformist socialism
who wanted educated and liberal members of the middle classes to liberate the
working class) and Stalinism (bureaucratic dictatorship over the working
class). Anarchism, it is argued, should be placed in the latter camp, with
-Proudhon and Bakunin showing that anarchist libertarianism simply a _"myth"_.
+Proudhon and Bakunin showing that anarchist libertarianism is a _"myth"_.
For those who uphold this idea, _"Socialism from below"_ is simply the self-
emancipation of the working class by its own efforts. To anarchist ears, the
@@ -698,31 +693,32 @@ onwards have used the imagery of socialism being created and run from below
upwards. They have been doing so for far longer than Marxists have. As such,
_"socialism from below"_ simply sums up the **_anarchist_** ideal!
-Thus we find Proudhon in 1848 talking about being a _"revolutionary **from
-below**"_ and that every _"serious and lasting Revolution"_ was _"made **from
-below,** by the people."_ A _"Revolution **from above**"_ was _"pure
-governmentalism,"_ _"the negation of collective activity, of popular
-spontaneity"_ and is _"the oppression of the wills of those below."_ [quoted
-by George Woodcock, **Pierre-Joseph Proudhon**, p. 143] For Proudhon, the
-means of this revolution _"from below"_ would be federations of working class
-associations for both credit (mutual banks) and production (workers'
+Thus we find Proudhon in 1846 arguing that socialism _"springs up and grows
+from below"_ and a few years later how _"**from below** signifies the people .
+. . the initiative of the masses."_ Every _"serious and lasting Revolution"_
+was _"made **from below,** by the people."_ A _"Revolution **from above**"_
+was _"pure governmentalism,"_ _"the negation of collective activity, of
+popular spontaneity"_ and is _"the oppression of the wills of those below."_
+The means of this revolution _"from below"_ would be federations of working
+class associations for both credit (mutual banks) and production (workers'
associations or co-operatives) as well as federations of communes
-(democratically organised communities). The workers, _"organised among
-themselves, without the assistance of the capitalist"_ would march by _"[w]ork
-to the conquest of the world"_ by the _"force of principle."_ Thus capitalism
+(democratically organised communities). He _"had always thought that the
+proletariat must emancipate itself without the help of the government" _and so
+the _"revolutionary power . . . is in you. The people alone, acting upon
+themselves without intermediary, can achieve the economic Revolution . . . The
+people alone can save civilisation and advance humanity!" _Thus capitalism
would be reformed away by the actions of the workers themselves. The _"problem
-of association,"_ Proudhon argued, _"consists in organising . . . the
-**producers,** and by this subjecting capital and subordinating power. Such is
-the war of liberty against authority, a war of the producer against the non-
-producer; a war of equality against privilege . . . An agricultural and
-industrial combination must be found by means of which power, today the ruler
-of society, shall become its slave."_ [quoted by K. Steven Vincent, **Pierre-
-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism**, p. 148 and p.
-157] Ultimately, _"any revolution, to be effective, must be spontaneous and
-emanate, not from the heads of authorities, but from the bowels of the people
-. . . the only connection between government and labour is that labour, in
-organising itself, has the abrogation of governments as its mission."_
-[Proudhon, **No Gods, No Masters**, vol. 1, p. 52]
+of association,"_ he argued, _"consists in organising . . . the producers**,**
+and by this subjecting capital and subordinating power. Such is the war of
+liberty against authority, a war of the producer against the non-producer; a
+war of equality against privilege . . . An agricultural and industrial
+combination must be found by means of which power, today the ruler of society,
+shall become its slave."_ Ultimately, _"any revolution, to be effective, must
+be spontaneous and emanate, not from the heads of authorities, but from the
+bowels of the people . . . the only connection between government and labour
+is that labour, in organising itself, has the abrogation of governments as its
+mission."_ [**Property is Theft!**, p. 205, p. 398, pp. 26-7, p. 306, p. 336,
+p. 225 and p. 26]
Similarly, Bakunin saw an anarchist revolution as coming _"from below."_ As he
put it, _"liberty can be created only by liberty, by an insurrection of all
@@ -762,9 +758,9 @@ Therefore, the idea of _"socialism from below"_ is a distinctly anarchist
notion, one found in the works of Proudhon and Bakunin and repeated by
anarchists ever since. As such, to hear Marxists appropriate this obviously
anarchist terminology and imagery appears to many anarchists as opportunistic
-and attempt to cover the authoritarian reality of mainstream Marxism with
+and an attempt to cover the authoritarian reality of mainstream Marxism with
anarchist rhetoric. Moreover, the attempt to suggest that anarchism is part of
-the elitist _"socialism from above"_ school rests on little more that
+the elitist _"socialism from above"_ school rests on little more than
selective quoting of Proudhon and Bakunin (including from Bakunin's pre-
anarchist days) to present a picture of their ideas distinctly at odds with
reality. However, there are "libertarian" strains of Marxism which are close
@@ -828,10 +824,10 @@ the tools of production, the raw materials and means of subsistence"_ or
_"whether it will redeem property therein by instalments spread over a long
period."_ To attempt to predict this _"for all cases would be utopia-making."_
[**Collected Works**, vol. 23, p. 386] However, Engels is assuming that the
-social revolution (the proletariat _"com[ing] to power"_) comes **before** the
-social revolution (the seizure of the means of production). In this, we can
-assume that it is the "revolutionary" government which does the seizing (or
-redeeming) rather than rebel workers.
+political revolution (the proletariat _"com[ing] to power"_) comes **before**
+the social revolution (the seizure of the means of production). In this, we
+can assume that it is the "revolutionary" government which does the seizing
+(or redeeming) rather than rebel workers.
This vision of revolution as the party coming to power can be seen from
Engels' warning that the _"worse thing that can befall the leader of an
@@ -859,7 +855,7 @@ proletariat is**, and what, consequent on that **being**, it will be compelled
to do."_ [quoted by Murray Bookchin, **The Spanish Anarchists**, p. 280] As
Murray Bookchin argued:
-> _ "These lines and others like them in Marx's writings were to provide the
+> _"These lines and others like them in Marx's writings were to provide the
rationale for asserting the authority of Marxist parties and their armed
detachments over and even against the proletariat. Claiming a deeper and more
informed comprehension of the situation than 'even the whole of the
@@ -950,7 +946,7 @@ and why anarchists reject electioneering).
By the 1890s, the top-down and essentially reformist nature of these tactics
had made their mark in both Engels' politics and the practical activities of
-the Social-Democratic parties. Engels _"introduction"_ to Marx's **The Class
+the Social-Democratic parties. Engels introduction to Marx's **The Class
Struggles in France** indicated how far Marxism had progressed and undoubtedly
influenced by the rise of Social-Democracy as an electoral power, it stressed
the use of the ballot box as the ideal way, if not the only way, for the party
@@ -989,7 +985,7 @@ socialism as involving party power was not alien to the mainstream social-
democracy Leninism split from. The leading left-wing Menshevik Martov argued
as follows:
-> _ "In a class struggle which has entered the phase of civil war, there are
+> _"In a class struggle which has entered the phase of civil war, there are
bound to be times when the advance guard of the revolutionary class,
representing the interests of the broad masses but ahead of them in political
consciousness, is obliged to exercise state power by means of a dictatorship
@@ -1131,10 +1127,10 @@ cook cannot immediately get on with the job of state administration . . . We
demand that **training** in th[is] work . . . be conducted by the class-
conscious workers and soldiers."_ The _"class-conscious workers must lead, but
for the work of administration they can enlist the vast mass of the working
-and oppressed people."_ Thus democratic sounding rhetoric, in reality, hide
-the fact that the party would govern (i.e., have power) and working people
-would simply administer the means by which its decisions would be implemented.
-Lenin also indicated that once in power, the Bolsheviks _"shall be fully and
+and oppressed people."_ Thus democratic sounding rhetoric, in reality, hid the
+fact that the party would govern (i.e., have power) and working people would
+simply administer the means by which its decisions would be implemented. Lenin
+also indicated that once in power, the Bolsheviks _"shall be fully and
unreservedly in favour of a strong state power and of centralism."_ [**Op.
Cit.**, vol. 26, p. 111, p. 179, p. 113, p. 114 and p. 116]
@@ -1159,12 +1155,12 @@ _"claiming to draw 'all people' into [the state] administration, the
Bolsheviks claimed also that they were providing a greater degree of democracy
than the parliamentary state."_ [Frederick I. Kaplan, **Bolshevik Ideology and
the Ethics of Soviet Labor**, p. 212] The difference is important. Ante
-Ciliga, once a political prisoner under Stalin, once noted how the secret
-police _"liked to boast of the working class origin of its henchmen."_ He
-quoted a fellow prisoner, and ex-Tsarist convict, who retorted: _"You are
-wrong if you believe that in the days of the Tsar the gaolers were recruited
-from among dukes and the executioners from among the princes!"_ [**The Russian
-Enigma**, pp. 255-6]
+Ciliga, a political prisoner under Stalin, once noted how the secret police
+_"liked to boast of the working class origin of its henchmen."_ He quoted a
+fellow prisoner, and ex-Tsarist convict, who retorted: _"You are wrong if you
+believe that in the days of the Tsar the gaolers were recruited from among
+dukes and the executioners from among the princes!"_ [**The Russian Enigma**,
+pp. 255-6]
All of which explains the famous leaflet addressed to the workers of Petrograd
immediately after the October Revolution, informing them that _"the revolution
@@ -1182,7 +1178,7 @@ taken power. Now it was the concrete situation of a "revolutionary" government
exercising power _"from above"_ onto the very class it claimed to represent.
As Lenin explained to his political police, the Cheka, in 1920:
-> _ "Without revolutionary coercion directed against the avowed enemies of the
+> _"Without revolutionary coercion directed against the avowed enemies of the
workers and peasants, it is impossible to break down the resistance of these
exploiters. On the other hand, revolutionary coercion is bound to be employed
towards the wavering and unstable elements among the masses themselves."_
@@ -1205,8 +1201,8 @@ H.3.8](secH3.html#sech38) on how the Bolsheviks modified the Marxist theory of
the state in line with this). Rather than the result of the problems facing
Russia at the time, Lenin's comments simply reflect the unfolding of certain
aspects of his ideology when his party held power (as we make clear in
-[section H.6"](secH6.html) the ideology of the ruling party and the ideas held
-by the masses are also factors in history).
+[section H.6.2](secH6.html#sech62) the ideology of the ruling party and the
+ideas held by the masses are also factors in history).
To show that Lenin's comments were not caused by circumstantial factors, we
can turn to his infamous work **Left-Wing Communism**. In this 1920 tract,
@@ -1219,8 +1215,8 @@ in that work that it was _"ridiculously absurd, and stupid"_ to _"a contrast,
the leaders."_ [**The Lenin Anthology**, p. 568] Here we provide his
description of the _"top-down"_ nature of Bolshevik rule:
-> _ "In Russia today, the connection between leaders, party, class and masses
-. . . are concretely as follows: the dictatorship is exercised by the
+> _"In Russia today, the connection between leaders, party, class and masses .
+. . are concretely as follows: the dictatorship is exercised by the
proletariat organised in the Soviets and is guided by the Communist Party . .
. The Party, which holds annual congresses . . ., is directed by a Central
Committee of nineteen elected at the congress, while the current work in
@@ -1229,11 +1225,9 @@ elected at the plenary sessions of the Central Committee, five members of the
Central Committee to each bureau. This, it would appear, is a full-fledged
'oligarchy.' No important political or organisational question is decided by
any state institution in our republic [sic!] without the guidance of the
-Party's Central Committee.
-
->
+Party's Central Committee. _
-> "In its work, the Party relies directly on the **trade unions**, which . .
+> _"In its work, the Party relies directly on the **trade unions**, which . .
.have a membership of over four million and are formally **non-Party**.
Actually, all the directing bodies of the vast majority of the unions . . .
are made up of Communists, and carry out of all the directives of the Party.
@@ -1264,7 +1258,7 @@ p. 152] Trotsky also universalised Lenin's argument when he pondered the
important decisions of the revolution and who would make them in his reply to
the delegate from the Spanish anarcho-syndicalist union the CNT:
-> _ "Who decides this question [and others like it]? We have the Council of
+> _"Who decides this question [and others like it]? We have the Council of
People's Commissars but it has to be subject to some supervision. Whose
supervision? That of the working class as an amorphous, chaotic mass? No. The
Central Committee of the party is convened to discuss . . . and to decide . .
@@ -1320,13 +1314,13 @@ Anarchism**, p. 338]
So when Leninists argue that they stand for the _"principles of socialism from
below"_ and state that this means the direct and democratic control of society
by the working class then, clearly, they are being less than honest. Looking
-at the tradition they place themselves, the obvious conclusion which must be
-reached is that Leninism is **not** based on _"socialism from below"_ in the
-sense of working class self-management of society (i.e. the only condition
+at the tradition they place themselves in, the obvious conclusion which must
+be reached is that Leninism is **not** based on _"socialism from below"_ in
+the sense of working class self-management of society (i.e. the only condition
when the majority can _"rule"_ and decisions truly flow from below upwards).
At best, they subscribe to the distinctly bourgeois vision of _"democracy"_ as
being simply the majority designating (and trying to control) its rulers. At
-worse, they defend politics which have eliminated even this form of democracy
+worst, they defend politics which have eliminated even this form of democracy
in favour of party dictatorship and _"one-man management"_ armed with
_"dictatorial"_ powers in industry (most members of such parties do not know
how the Bolsheviks gerrymandered and disbanded soviets to maintain power,
@@ -1356,7 +1350,7 @@ critique rooted in the ideology and its practice or whether it presents a
picture at odds with both. As Maurice Brinton put it in the introduction to
his classic account of workers' control in the Russian Revolution:
-> _ "Other charges will also be made. The quotations from Lenin and Trotsky
+> _"Other charges will also be made. The quotations from Lenin and Trotsky
will not be denied but it will be stated that they are 'selective' and that
'other things, too' were said. Again, we plead guilty. But we would stress
that there are hagiographers enough in the trade whose 'objectivity' . . . is
@@ -1374,14 +1368,14 @@ rather what they do. Unfortunately while many self-proclaimed Marxists (like
Trotsky) may quote these comments, fewer apply them to their own ideology or
actions (again, like Trotsky).
-This can be seen from the almost ritualistic way many Marxists response to
+This can be seen from the almost ritualistic way many Marxists respond to
anarchist (or other) criticisms of their ideas. When they complain that
anarchists _"selectively"_ quote from the leading proponents of Marxism, they
are usually at pains to point people to some document which they have selected
as being more _"representative"_ of their tradition. Leninists usually point
to Lenin's **State and Revolution**, for example, for a vision of what Lenin
_"really"_ wanted. To this anarchists reply by, as we discussed in [section
-H.1.7](secH1.html#sech17), pointing out that much of that passes for 'Marxism'
+H.1.7](secH1.html#sech17), pointing out that much of what passes for 'Marxism'
in **State and Revolution** is anarchist and, equally important, it was not
applied in practice. This explains an apparent contradiction. Leninists point
to the Russian Revolution as evidence for the democratic nature of their
@@ -1476,8 +1470,8 @@ marginalised and became little more than a fig-leaf for party rule.
This confusion between what was promised and what was done is a common feature
of Leninism. Felix Morrow, for example, wrote what is usually considered the
definitive Trotskyist work on the Spanish Revolution (in spite of it being, as
-we discuss in the appendix _["Marxists and Spanish
-Anarchism,"](append32.html)_ deeply flawed). Morrow stated that the
+we discuss in the appendix [_"Marxists and Spanish
+Anarchism,"_](append32.html) deeply flawed). Morrow stated that the
_"essential points of a revolutionary program [are] all power to the working
class, and democratic organs of the workers, peasants and combatants, as the
expression of the workers' power."_ [**Revolution and Counter-Revolution in
@@ -1567,7 +1561,7 @@ Similarly with the libertarian idea of the _"militant minority."_ By this,
anarchists and syndicalists meant groups of workers who gave an example by
their direct action which their fellow workers could imitate (for example by
leading wildcat strikes which would use flying pickets to get other workers to
-join in). This "militant minority"_ would be at the forefront of social
+join in). This "militant minority" would be at the forefront of social
struggle and would show, by example, practice and discussion, that their ideas
and tactics were the correct ones. After the Russian Revolution of 1917,
Bolsheviks argued that this idea was similar to their idea of a vanguard
@@ -1689,8 +1683,8 @@ general strike set for a specific date exists only in Marxist heads, nowhere
else. Once we remove the distortions promulgated by Engels and repeated by
Luxemburg, we see that the 1905 revolution and _"historical dialectics"_ did
not, as Luxemburg claim, validate Engels and disprove anarchism. Quite the
-reverse as the general strikes in Russia followed the anarchist ideas of a
-what a general strike would be like quite closely. Little wonder, then, that
+reverse as the general strikes in Russia followed the anarchist ideas of what
+a general strike would be like quite closely. Little wonder, then, that
Kropotkin argued that the 1905 general strike _"demonstrated"_ that the Latin
workers who had been advocating the general strike _"as a weapon which would
irresistible in the hands of labour for imposing its will"_ had been
@@ -1721,7 +1715,7 @@ workers' councils). Marxists (who had previously quoted Engels to dismiss such
things) found themselves repudiating aspect upon aspect of their dogma to
remain relevant. Luxemburg, as Bookchin noted, _"grossly misrepresented the
anarchist emphasis on the general strike after the 1905 revolution in Russia
-in order to make it acceptable to Social Democracy."_ (he added that Lenin
+in order to make it acceptable to Social Democracy."_ (He added that Lenin
_"was to engage in the same misrepresentation on the issue of popular control
in **State and Revolution**"_). [**Towards an Ecological Society**, p. 227fn]
@@ -1799,7 +1793,7 @@ support for such bodies by decades, yet Marxists argue that Bakunin's ideas
have nothing to teach us. Or, the Paris Commune being praised by Marxists as
the first _"dictatorship of the proletariat"_ when it implements federalism,
delegates being subjected to mandates and recall and raises the vision of a
-socialism of associations while anarchism is labelled "petit-bourgeois"_ in
+socialism of associations while anarchism is labelled "petit-bourgeois" in
spite of the fact that these ideas can be found in works of Proudhon and
Bakunin which predate the 1871 revolt!
@@ -1819,7 +1813,7 @@ being somehow alien to the working class and its struggle for freedom,
anarchism in fact bases itself on the class struggle. This means that it
should come as no surprise when the ideas of anarchism are developed and
applied by those in struggle, for those ideas are just generalisations derived
-from past working class struggles! If anarchism ideas are applied
+from past working class struggles! If anarchist ideas are applied
spontaneously by those in struggle, it is because those involved are
themselves drawing similar conclusions from their own experiences.
@@ -1835,15 +1829,14 @@ that libertarian ideas cannot be transplanted selectively into an
authoritarian ideology and be expected to blossom.
Significantly, those Marxists who **do** apply anarchist ideas honestly are
-usually labelled by their orthodox comrades as _"anarchists."_ As an example
-of Marxists appropriating libertarian ideas honestly, we can point to the
-council communist and currents within Autonomist Marxism. The council
-communists broke with the Bolsheviks over the question of whether the party
-would exercise power or whether the workers' councils would. Needless to say,
-Lenin labelled them an _"anarchist deviation."_ Currents within Autonomist
-Marxism have built upon the council communist tradition, stressing the
-importance of focusing analysis on working class struggle as the key dynamic
-in capitalist society.
+usually labelled by their orthodox comrades as "anarchists." As an example of
+Marxists appropriating libertarian ideas honestly, we can point to the council
+communist and currents within Autonomist Marxism. The council communists broke
+with the Bolsheviks over the question of whether the party would exercise
+power or whether the workers' councils would. Needless to say, Lenin labelled
+them an _"anarchist deviation."_ Currents within Autonomist Marxism have built
+upon the council communist tradition, stressing the importance of focusing
+analysis on working class struggle as the key dynamic in capitalist society.
In this they go against the mainstream Marxist orthodoxy and embrace a
libertarian perspective. As libertarian socialist Cornelius Castoriadis
@@ -1875,39 +1868,34 @@ syndicalists at the start of the twentieth century. This insight predated the
work of Castoriadis and the development of Autonomist Marxism by over 50 years
and is worth quoting at length:
-> _ "the keystone of socialism . . . proclaimed that 'as a general rule, the
+> _"the keystone of socialism . . . proclaimed that 'as a general rule, the
average wage would be no more than what the worker strictly required for
survival'. And it was said: 'That figure is governed by capitalist pressure
alone and this can even push it below the minimum necessary for the working
man's subsistence . . . The only rule with regard to wage levels is the
-plentiful or scarce supply of man-power . . .'
+plentiful or scarce supply of man-power . . .' _
->
-
-> "By way of evidence of the relentless operation of this law of wages,
+> _"By way of evidence of the relentless operation of this law of wages,
comparisons were made between the worker and a commodity: if there is a glut
of potatoes on the market, they are cheap; if they are scarce, the price rises
. . . It is the same with the working man, it was said: his wages fluctuate in
-accordance with the plentiful supply or dearth of labour!
-
->
+accordance with the plentiful supply or dearth of labour! _
-> "No voice was raised against the relentless arguments of this absurd
+> _"No voice was raised against the relentless arguments of this absurd
reasoning: so the law of wages may be taken as right . . . for as long as the
working man [or woman] is content to be a commodity! For as long as, like a
sack of potatoes, she remains passive and inert and endures the fluctuations
of the market . . . For as long as he bends his back and puts up with all of
-the bosses' snubs, . . . the law of wages obtains.
+the bosses' snubs, . . . the law of wages obtains. _
->
-
-> "But things take a different turn the moment that a glimmer of consciousness
-stirs this worker-potato into life. When, instead off dooming himself to
-inertia, spinelessness, resignation and passivity, the worker wakes up to his
-worth as a human being and the spirit of revolt washes over him: when he
-bestirs himself, energetic, wilful and active . . . [and] once the labour bloc
-comes to life and bestirs itself . . . then, the laughable equilibrium of the
-law of wages is undone."_ [Emile Pouget, **Direct Action**, pp. 9-10]
+> _"But things take a different turn the moment that a glimmer of
+consciousness stirs this worker-potato into life. When, instead of dooming
+himself to inertia, spinelessness, resignation and passivity, the worker wakes
+up to his worth as a human being and the spirit of revolt washes over him:
+when he bestirs himself, energetic, wilful and active . . . [and] once the
+labour bloc comes to life and bestirs itself . . . then, the laughable
+equilibrium of the law of wages is undone."_ [Emile Pouget, **Direct Action**,
+pp. 9-10]
And Marx, indeed, had compared the worker to a commodity, stating that labour
power _"is a commodity, neither more nor less than sugar. The former is
@@ -1918,16 +1906,14 @@ struggle in which half the time, so to speak, the capitalists turn out to be
losers."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 248] A fact which Pouget stressed in his critique
of the mainstream socialist position:
-> _ "A novel factor has appeared on the labour market: the will of the worker!
+> _"A novel factor has appeared on the labour market: the will of the worker!
And this factor, not pertinent when it comes to setting the price of a bushel
of potatoes, has a bearing upon the setting of wages; its impact may be large
or small, according to the degree of tension of the labour force which is a
product of the accord of individual wills beating in unison - but, whether it
-be strong or weak, there is no denying it.
-
->
+be strong or weak, there is no denying it. _
-> "Thus, worker cohesion conjures up against capitalist might a might capable
+> _"Thus, worker cohesion conjures up against capitalist might a might capable
of standing up to it. The inequality between the two adversaries - which
cannot be denied when the exploiter is confronted only by the working man on
his own - is redressed in proportion with the degree of cohesion achieved by
@@ -1946,7 +1932,7 @@ vanguard party and instead, like the council communists, stress the need for
**autonomist** working class self-organisation and self-activity (hence the
name!). They agree with Pouget when he argued that direct action _"spells
liberation for the masses of humanity"_, it _"puts paid to the age of miracles
-\- miracles from Heaven, miracles from the State - and, in contraposition to
+- miracles from Heaven, miracles from the State - and, in contraposition to
hopes vested in 'providence' (no matter what they may be) it announces that it
will act upon the maxim: salvation lies within ourselves!"_ [**Op. Cit.**, p.
3] As such, they draw upon anarchistic ideas and rhetoric (for many,
@@ -1977,21 +1963,20 @@ being raised, the question becomes one of whether they are being used simply
to gain influence or whether they signify a change of heart. As Bookchin
argued:
-> _ "Ultimately, a line will have to be drawn that, by definition, excludes
-any project that can tip decentralisation to the side of centralisation,
-direct democracy to the side of delegated power, libertarian institutions to
-the side of bureaucracy, and spontaneity to the side of authority. Such a
-line, like a physical barrier, must irrevocably separate a libertarian zone of
-theory and practice from the hybridised socialisms that tend to denature it.
-This zone must build its anti-authoritarian, utopian, and revolutionary
-commitments into the very recognition it has of itself, in short, into the
-very way it defines itself. . . . to admit of domination is to cross the line
-that separates the libertarian zone from the [state] socialist."_ [**Op.
-Cit.**, pp. 223-4]
+> _"Ultimately, a line will have to be drawn that, by definition, excludes any
+project that can tip decentralisation to the side of centralisation, direct
+democracy to the side of delegated power, libertarian institutions to the side
+of bureaucracy, and spontaneity to the side of authority. Such a line, like a
+physical barrier, must irrevocably separate a libertarian zone of theory and
+practice from the hybridised socialisms that tend to denature it. This zone
+must build its anti-authoritarian, utopian, and revolutionary commitments into
+the very recognition it has of itself, in short, into the very way it defines
+itself. . . . to admit of domination is to cross the line that separates the
+libertarian zone from the [state] socialist."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 223-4]
Unless we know exactly what we aim for, how to get there and who our **real**
-allies are we will get a nasty surprise once our self-proclaimed "allies" take
-power. As such, any attempt to appropriate anarchist rhetoric into an
+allies are, we will get a nasty surprise once our self-proclaimed "allies"
+take power. As such, any attempt to appropriate anarchist rhetoric into an
authoritarian ideology will simply fail and become little more than a mask
obscuring the real aims of the party in question. As history shows.
@@ -2006,15 +1991,15 @@ determines validity. Whether something is true or not is not decided
intellectually in wordy publications and debates, but in reality.
For Anarchists, such arguments simply show the ideological nature of most
-forms of Marxism. The fact is, of course, that there has been many anarchistic
-revolutions which, while ultimately defeated, show the validity of anarchist
-theory (the ones in Spain and in the Ukraine being the most significant).
-Moreover, there have been serious revolutionary anarchist movements across the
-world, the majority of them crushed by state repression (usually fascist or
-communist based). However, this is not the most important issue, which is the
-fate of these "successful" Marxist movements and revolutions. The fact that
-there has never been a "Marxist" revolution which has not become a party
-dictatorship proves the need to critique Marxism.
+forms of Marxism. The fact is, of course, that there have been many
+anarchistic revolutions which, while ultimately defeated, show the validity of
+anarchist theory (the ones in Spain and in the Ukraine being the most
+significant). Moreover, there have been serious revolutionary anarchist
+movements across the world, the majority of them crushed by state repression
+(usually fascist or communist based). However, this is not the most important
+issue, which is the fate of these "successful" Marxist movements and
+revolutions. The fact that there has never been a "Marxist" revolution which
+has not become a party dictatorship proves the need to critique Marxism.
So, given that Marxists argue that Marxism is **the** revolutionary working
class political theory, its actual track record has been appalling. After all,
@@ -2042,16 +2027,16 @@ Engels glowing predictions for these parties and their actual performance (in
the case of Spain and Italy, his comments seem particularly ironic).
As regards Bolshevism itself, the one "revolutionary" party in the world, it
-avoided the fate of its sister parties simply because there no question of
+avoided the fate of its sister parties simply because there was no question of
applying social democratic tactics within bourgeois institutions as these did
not exist in Tsarist Russia. Moreover, the net result of its seizure of power
was, first, a party dictatorship and state capitalism under Lenin, then their
intensification under Stalin and the creation of a host of Trotskyist sects
who spend a considerable amount of time justifying and rationalising the
ideology and actions of the Bolsheviks which helped create the Stalinism.
-Given the fate of Bolshevism in power, Bookchin simply stated the obviously:
+Given the fate of Bolshevism in power, Bookchin simply stated the obvious:
-> _ "None of the authoritarian technics of change has provided successful
+> _"None of the authoritarian technics of change has provided successful
'paradigms', unless we are prepared to ignore the harsh fact that the Russian,
Chinese, and Cuban 'revolutions' were massive counterrevolutions that blight
our entire century."_ [**The Ecology of Freedom**, p. 446]
@@ -2066,7 +2051,7 @@ Social-Democratic parties became reformist and the _"dictatorship of the
proletariat"_ became the _"dictatorship **over** the proletariat."_ With
"victories" like these, Marxism does not need failures! Thus Murray Bookchin:
-> _ "A theory which is so readily 'vulgarised,' 'betrayed,' or, more
+> _"A theory which is so readily 'vulgarised,' 'betrayed,' or, more
sinisterly, institutionalised into bureaucratic power by nearly all its
adherents may well be one that lends itself to such 'vulgarisations,'
'betrayals,' and bureaucratic forms **as a normal condition of its
@@ -2151,7 +2136,7 @@ participation and free federation from below upwards, it is not a state. If a
social system is, however, marked by delegated power and centralisation it is
a state and cannot be, therefore, a instrument of social liberation. Rather it
will become, slowly but surely, _"whatever title it adopts and whatever its
-origin and organisation may be"_ what the state has always been, a instrument
+origin and organisation may be"_ what the state has always been, an instrument
for _"oppressing and exploiting the masses, of defending the oppressors and
the exploiters."_ [Malatesta, **Anarchy**, p. 23] Which, for obvious reasons,
is why anarchists argue for the destruction of the state by a free federation
@@ -2179,7 +2164,7 @@ that of the anarchists, who demand _"the abolition of the state out of hand."_
For anarchists, this argument has deep flaws. Simply put, unlike the anarchist
one, this is not an empirically based theory of the state. Rather, we find
such a theory mixed up with a metaphysical, non-empirical, a-historic
-definition which is based not on what the state **is** but rather what it
+definition which is based not on what the state **is** but rather what is
**could** be. Thus the argument that the state _"is nothing but a machine for
the oppression of one class by another"_ is trying to draw out an abstract
essence of the state rather than ground what the state is on empirical
@@ -2222,7 +2207,7 @@ To explain why, we need only to study the works of Engels himself. Engels, in
his famous account of the **Origin of the Family, Private Property and the
State**, defined the state as follows:
-> _ "The state is . . . by no means a power forced on society from without . .
+> _"The state is . . . by no means a power forced on society from without . .
. Rather, it is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is
an admission . . . that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms . . . in
order that these antagonisms and classes with conflicting economic interests
@@ -2290,7 +2275,7 @@ sense of the word."_ However, this comment does not mean that Engels sought to
remove any possible confusion on the matter, for he still talked of _"the
state"_ as _"only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in
the revolution, to hold down's one's adversaries by force . . . so long as the
-proletariat still **uses** the state, it does not use it the interests of
+proletariat still **uses** the state, it does not use it in the interests of
freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes
possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist."_ [**Op.
Cit.**, p. 335] Thus the state would still exist and, furthermore, is **not**
@@ -2384,7 +2369,7 @@ By confusing two radically different things, Marxism ensures that popular
power is consumed and destroyed by the state, by a new ruling elite. In the
words of Murray Bookchin:
-> _ "Marx, in his analysis of the Paris Commune of 1871, has done radical
+> _"Marx, in his analysis of the Paris Commune of 1871, has done radical
social theory a considerable disservice. The Commune's combination of
delegated policy-making with the execution of policy by its own
administrators, a feature of the Commune which Marx celebrated, is a major
@@ -2475,7 +2460,7 @@ working class based on its own class organisations (such as factory
committees, workers' councils, unions, neighbourhood assemblies and so on). As
Murray Bookchin put it:
-> _ "the slogan 'Power to the people' can only be put into practice when the
+> _"the slogan 'Power to the people' can only be put into practice when the
power exercised by social elites is dissolved into the people. Each individual
can then take control of his [or her] daily life. If 'Power to the people'
means nothing more than power to the 'leaders' of the people, then the people
@@ -2507,7 +2492,7 @@ This issue is fudged by Marx. When Bakunin, in _"Statism and Anarchy"_, asked
the question _"Will the entire proletariat head the government?"_, Marx argued
in response:
-> _ "Does in a trade union, for instance, the whole union constitute the
+> _"Does in a trade union, for instance, the whole union constitute the
executive committee? Will all division of labour in a factory disappear and
also the various functions arising from it? And will everybody be at the top
in Bakunin's construction built from the bottom upwards? There will in fact be
@@ -2553,7 +2538,7 @@ of course, the desire of Marx and Engels but this result flows from their
theory of the state and its fundamental flaws. These flaws can be best seen
from their repeated assertion that the capitalist democratic state could be
captured via universal suffrage and used to introduce socialism (see [section
-H.3.10](secH3.html#sech310)) but it equally applies to notions of creating new
+H.3.10](secH3.html#sech310) but it equally applies to notions of creating new
states based on the centralisation of power favoured by ruling elites since
class society began.
@@ -2567,27 +2552,26 @@ to lead minds astray by accustoming them to servitude"_. [**The State: Its
Historic Role**, pp. 57-8] A social revolution needs new, non-statist, forms
of social organisation to succeed:
-> _ "To give full scope to socialism entails rebuilding from top to bottom a
+> _"To give full scope to socialism entails rebuilding from top to bottom a
society dominated by the narrow individualism of the shopkeeper. It is not as
has sometimes been said by those indulging in metaphysical wooliness just a
question of giving the worker 'the total product of his labour'; it is a
-question of completely reshaping all relationships . . . In ever street, in
+question of completely reshaping all relationships . . . In every street, in
every hamlet, in every group of men gathered around a factory or along a
section of the railway line, the creative, constructive and organisational
spirit must be awakened in order to rebuild life - in the factory, in the
village, in the store, in production and in distribution of supplies. All
relations between individuals and great centres of population have to be made
all over again, from the very day, from the very moment one alters the
-existing commercial or administrative organisation.
+existing commercial or administrative organisation. _
->
-
-> "And they expect this immense task, requiring the free expression of popular
-genius, to be carried out within the framework of the State and the pyramidal
-organisation which is the essence of the State! They expect the State . . . to
-become the lever for the accomplishment of this immense transformation. They
-want to direct the renewal of a society by means of decrees and electoral
-majorities... How ridiculous!"_ [Kropotkin, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 58-9]
+> _"And they expect this immense task, requiring the free expression of
+popular genius, to be carried out within the framework of the State and the
+pyramidal organisation which is the essence of the State! They expect the
+State . . . to become the lever for the accomplishment of this immense
+transformation. They want to direct the renewal of a society by means of
+decrees and electoral majorities... How ridiculous!"_ [Kropotkin, **Op.
+Cit.**, pp. 58-9]
Ultimately, the question, of course, is one of power. Does the _"executive
committee"_ have the fundamental decision making power in society, or does
@@ -2601,24 +2585,23 @@ signifies the key issue of social transformation, an issue which Marxism tends
to ignore or confuse matters about when discussing. Bookchin clarified what is
at stake:
-> _ "To some neo-Marxists who see centralisation and decentralisation merely
-as difference of degree, the word 'centralisation' may merely be an awkward
-way of denoting means for **co-ordinating** the decisions made by
-decentralised bodies. Marx, it is worth noting, greatly confused this
-distinction when he praised the Paris Commune as a 'working, not a
-parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time.' In point of
-fact, the consolidation of 'executive and legislative' functions in a single
-body was regressive. It simply identified the process of policy-making, a
-function that rightly should belong to the people in assembly, with the
-technical execution of these policies, a function that should be left to
-strictly administrative bodies subject to rotation, recall, limitations of
-tenure . . . Accordingly, the melding of policy formation with administration
-placed the institutional emphasis of classical [Marxist] socialism on
-centralised bodies, indeed, by an ironical twist of historical events,
-bestowing the privilege of formulating policy on the 'higher bodies' of
-socialist hierarchies and their execution precisely on the more popular
-'revolutionary committees' below."_ [**Toward an Ecological Society**, pp.
-215-6]
+> _"To some neo-Marxists who see centralisation and decentralisation merely as
+difference of degree, the word 'centralisation' may merely be an awkward way
+of denoting means for **co-ordinating** the decisions made by decentralised
+bodies. Marx, it is worth noting, greatly confused this distinction when he
+praised the Paris Commune as a 'working, not a parliamentary body, executive
+and legislative at the same time.' In point of fact, the consolidation of
+'executive and legislative' functions in a single body was regressive. It
+simply identified the process of policy-making, a function that rightly should
+belong to the people in assembly, with the technical execution of these
+policies, a function that should be left to strictly administrative bodies
+subject to rotation, recall, limitations of tenure . . . Accordingly, the
+melding of policy formation with administration placed the institutional
+emphasis of classical [Marxist] socialism on centralised bodies, indeed, by an
+ironical twist of historical events, bestowing the privilege of formulating
+policy on the 'higher bodies' of socialist hierarchies and their execution
+precisely on the more popular 'revolutionary committees' below."_ [**Toward an
+Ecological Society**, pp. 215-6]
By confusing co-ordination with the state (i.e. with delegation of power),
Marxism opens the door wide open to the _"dictatorship of the proletariat"_
@@ -2639,15 +2622,13 @@ section](secH3.html#sech38), was developed under the Bolsheviks and became
_"the dictatorship of the party"_ (i.e. the dictatorship **over** the
proletariat):
-> _ "since Marx vigorously opposed Bakunin's efforts to ensure that only
+> _"since Marx vigorously opposed Bakunin's efforts to ensure that only
libertarian and decentralist means were employed by revolutionaries so as to
facilitate the revolution remaining in the hands of the mass of workers, he
must accept a fair measure of culpability for the authoritarian outcome of the
-Russian Revolution . . .
-
->
+Russian Revolution . . . _
-> "Bakunin was not satisfied with trusting revolutionary leaders to liberate
+> _"Bakunin was not satisfied with trusting revolutionary leaders to liberate
the oppressed . . . The oppressed people had to made aware that the only
security against replacing one repressive structure with another was the
deliberate retaining of control of the revolution by the whole of the working
@@ -2657,7 +2638,7 @@ A Radical Critique** pp. 218-9]
It is for this reason why anarchists are extremely critical of Marxist ideas
of social revolution. As Alan Carter argues:
-> _ "It is to argue not against revolution, but against 'revolutionary' praxis
+> _"It is to argue not against revolution, but against 'revolutionary' praxis
employing central authority. It is to argue that any revolution must remain in
the hands of the mass of people and that they must be aware of the dangers of
allowing power to fall into the hands of a minority in the course of the
@@ -2692,7 +2673,7 @@ offshoot, Leninism. As we discuss in the [next section](secH3.html#sech38),
this school has used the Marxist conception of the state to allow for rule
over the working class by the _"revolutionary"_ party. The minority has become
increasingly and explicitly anti-state, recognising that the Marxist legacy is
-contradictory and that for the proletarian to directly manage society then
+contradictory and that for the proletariat to directly manage society then
there can be no power above them. To this camp belongs the libertarian
Marxists of the council communist, Situationist and other schools of thought
which are close to anarchism.
@@ -2812,7 +2793,7 @@ Moreover, 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:
-> _ "The very same masses are at different times inspired by different moods
+> _"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 . . .
@@ -2834,7 +2815,7 @@ designed to ensure minority rule.
Thus the possibility of party dictatorship exists if popular support fades.
Which is, significantly, precisely what **had** happened when Lenin and
Trotsky were in power. In fact, these arguments built upon other, equally
-elitist statement which had been expressed by Trotsky when he held the reins
+elitist statements which had been expressed by Trotsky when he held the reins
of power. In 1920, for example, he argued that while the Bolsheviks have
_"more than once been accused of having substituted for the dictatorship of
the Soviets the dictatorship of the party,"_ in fact _"it can be said with
@@ -2847,7 +2828,7 @@ Communists express the fundamental interests of the working class."_
[**Terrorism and Communism**, p. 109] In early 1921, he argued again for Party
dictatorship at the Tenth Party Congress:
-> _ "The Workers' Opposition has come out with dangerous slogans, making a
+> _"The Workers' Opposition has come out with dangerous slogans, making a
fetish of democratic principles! They place the workers' right to elect
representatives above the Party, as if the party were not entitled to assert
its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the
@@ -2947,10 +2928,10 @@ men divorced from the people,"_ then Bolshevism in power quickly saw the need
for a state _"in the proper sense."_ [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 24, p. 85] While this
state _"in the proper sense"_ had existed from the start of Bolshevik rule, it
was only from early 1919 onwards (at the latest) that the leaders of
-Bolshevism had openly brought what they said into line with what they did. It
-was only by being a _"state in the proper sense"_ could the Bolshevik party
-rule and exercise _"the dictatorship of the party"_ over the _"wavering"_
-working class.
+Bolshevism had openly brought what they said into line with what they did.
+Only by being a _"state in the proper sense"_ could the Bolshevik party rule
+and exercise _"the dictatorship of the party"_ over the _"wavering"_ working
+class.
So when Lenin stated that _"Marxism differs from anarchism in that it
recognises **the need for a state** for the purpose of the transition to
@@ -2960,7 +2941,7 @@ own hands,"_ to become _"the governing party"_ and considers one of its key
tasks for _"our Party to capture political power"_ and to _"administer"_ a
country, then we can safely say that the state needed is a state _"in the
proper sense,"_ based on the centralisation and delegation of power into the
-hands of a few (see our discussion of Leninism as _**"socialism from above"**_
+hands of a few (see our discussion of Leninism as **_"socialism from above"_**
in [section H.3.3](secH3.html#sech33) for details).
This recreation of the state _"in the proper sense"_ did not come about by
@@ -2976,7 +2957,7 @@ power. The Leninist tradition builds on this confusion between party and class
power. It is clear that the _"dictatorship of the proletariat"_ is, in fact,
rule by the party. In Lenin's words:
-> _ "Engels speaks of **a government that is required for the domination of a
+> _"Engels speaks of **a government that is required for the domination of a
class** . . . Applied to the proletariat, it consequently means a government
**that is required for the domination of the proletariat,** i.e. the
dictatorship of the proletariat for the effectuation of the socialist
@@ -3001,7 +2982,7 @@ So much for _"workers' power,"_ _"socialism from below"_ and other such
rhetoric.
This vision of "socialism" being rooted in party power over the working class
-was the basis of the Communist International's resolution of the role of the
+was the basis of the Communist International's resolution on the role of the
party. This resolution is, therefore, important and worth discussing. It
argues that the Communist Party _"is **part** of the working class,"_ namely
its _"most advanced, most class-conscious, and therefore most revolutionary
@@ -3028,16 +3009,16 @@ institutions,"_ [**Marx: A Radical Critique**, p. 175]
The resolution stresses that before the revolution, the party _"will encompass
. . . only a minority of the workers."_ Even after the _"seizure of power,"_
it will still _"not be able to unite them all into its ranks
-organisationally."_ It is only after the _"final defeat of the bourgeois
-order"_ will _"all or almost all workers begin to join"_ it. Thus the party is
-a **minority** of the working class. The resolution then goes on to state that
-_"[e]very class struggle is a political struggle. This struggle, which
-inevitably becomes transformed into civil war, has as its goal the conquest of
-political power. Political power cannot be seized, organised, and directed
-other than by some kind of political party."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 192, p. 193]
-And as the party is a _"part"_ of the working class which cannot _"unite"_ all
-workers _"into its ranks,"_ this means that political power can only be
-_"seized, organised, and directed"_ by a **minority.**
+organisationally."_ Only after the _"final defeat of the bourgeois order"_
+will _"all or almost all workers begin to join"_ it. Thus the party is a
+**minority** of the working class. It then goes on to state that _"[e]very
+class struggle is a political struggle. This struggle, which inevitably
+becomes transformed into civil war, has as its goal the conquest of political
+power. Political power cannot be seized, organised, and directed other than by
+some kind of political party."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 192, p. 193] And as the
+party is a _"part"_ of the working class which cannot _"unite"_ all workers
+_"into its ranks,"_ this means that political power can only be _"seized,
+organised, and directed"_ by a **minority.**
Thus we have minority rule, with the party (or more correctly its leaders)
exercising political power. The idea that the party _"must **dissolve** into
@@ -3056,18 +3037,18 @@ resolution: the dictatorship of the party **was** the dictatorship of the
proletariat. Little wonder that Bertrand Russell, on his return from Lenin's
Russia in 1920, wrote that:
-> _ "Friends of Russia here [in Britain] think of the dictatorship of the
+> _"Friends of Russia here [in Britain] think of the dictatorship of the
proletariat as merely a new form of representative government, in which only
working men and women have votes, and the constituencies are partly
occupational, not geographical. They think that 'proletariat' means
'proletariat,' but 'dictatorship' does not quite mean 'dictatorship.' This is
-the opposite of the truth. When a Russian Communist speak of a dictatorship,
+the opposite of the truth. When a Russian Communist speaks of a dictatorship,
he means the word literally, but when he speaks of the proletariat, he means
the word in a Pickwickian sense. He means the 'class-conscious' part of the
proletariat, i.e. the Communist Party. He includes people by no means
proletarian (such as Lenin and Tchicherin) who have the right opinions, and he
excludes such wage-earners as have not the right opinions, whom he classifies
-as lackeys of the **bourgeoisie.**"_ [**The Practice and Theory of
+as lackeys of the bourgeoisie**.**"_ [**The Practice and Theory of
Bolshevism**, pp. 26-27]
Significantly, Russell pointed, like Lenin, to the Comintern resolution on the
@@ -3191,7 +3172,7 @@ the state, becomes also the politically dominant class."_ Thus the state can
be considered, in essence, as _"nothing but a machine for the oppression of
one class by another."_ _"At a certain stage of economic development"_, Engels
stressed, _"which was necessarily bound up with the split in society into
-classes, the state became a necessity owning to this split."_ [**Selected
+classes, the state became a necessity owing to this split."_ [**Selected
Works**, pp. 577-8, p. 579 and p. 258] For Lenin, this was _"the basic idea of
Marxism on the question of the historical role and meaning of the state,"_
namely that _"the state is an organ of class **rule**, the organ for the
@@ -3215,7 +3196,7 @@ that the mainstream Marxist position significantly misunderstands the nature
of the state and the needs of social revolution. However, we must stress that
anarchists would agree that the state generally does serve the interests of
the economically dominant classes. Bakunin, for example, argued that the State
-_"is authority, domination, and forced, organised by the property-owning and
+_"is authority, domination, and force, organised by the property-owning and
so-called enlightened classes against the masses."_ He saw the social
revolution as destroying capitalism and the state at the same time, that is
_"to overturn the State's domination, and that of the privileged classes whom
@@ -3228,14 +3209,14 @@ has interests of its own. The state, for anarchists, is the delegation of
power into the hands of a few. This creates, by its very nature, a privileged
position for those at the top of the hierarchy:
-> _ "A government [or state], that is a group of people entrusted with making
-the laws and empowered to use the collective force to oblige each individual
-to obey them, is already a privileged class and cut off from the people. As
-any constituted body would do, it will instinctively seek to extend its
-powers, to be beyond public control, to impose its own policies and to give
-priority to its special interests. Having been put in a privileged position,
-the government is already at odds with the people whose strength it disposes
-of."_ [Malatesta, **Anarchy**, p. 36]
+> _"A government, that is a group of people entrusted with making the laws and
+empowered to use the collective force to oblige each individual to obey them,
+is already a privileged class and cut off from the people. As any constituted
+body would do, it will instinctively seek to extend its powers, to be beyond
+public control, to impose its own policies and to give priority to its special
+interests. Having been put in a privileged position, the government is already
+at odds with the people whose strength it disposes of."_ [Malatesta,
+**Anarchy**, p. 36]
The Bolshevik regime during the Russia revolution proved the validity of this
analysis. The Bolsheviks seized power in the name of the soviets yet soon
@@ -3249,10 +3230,10 @@ around itself a privileged class, a bureaucracy, around it. The inequality in
power implied by the state is a source of privilege and oppression independent
of property and economic class. Those in charge of the state's institutions
would aim to protect (and expand) their area of operation, ensuring that they
-select individuals who share their perspectives and who they can pass on their
-positions. By controlling the flow of information, of personnel and resources,
-the members of the state's higher circles can ensure its, and their own,
-survival and prosperity. As such, politicians who are elected are at a
+select individuals who share their perspectives and to whom they can pass on
+their positions. By controlling the flow of information, of personnel and
+resources, the members of the state's higher circles can ensure its, and their
+own, survival and prosperity. As such, politicians who are elected are at a
disadvantage. The state is the permanent collection of institutions that have
entrenched power structures and interests. The politicians come and go while
the power in the state lies in its institutions due to their permanence. It is
@@ -3330,8 +3311,8 @@ from this specific case is wrong as the state bureaucracy is a class in itself
- and so trying to abolish classes without abolishing the state is doomed to
failure:
-> _ "The State has always been the patrimony of some privileged class: the
-sacerdotal class, the nobility, the bourgeoisie \- and finally, when all the
+> _"The State has always been the patrimony of some privileged class: the
+sacerdotal class, the nobility, the bourgeoisie - and finally, when all the
other classes have exhausted themselves, the class of the bureaucracy enters
upon the stage and then the State falls, or rises, if you please to the
position of a machine."_ [Bakunin, **The Political Philosophy of Bakunin**, p.
@@ -3353,11 +3334,11 @@ has been offered in support of it shows only that the primary states, not long
after their emergence, were economically stratified. But this is of course
consistent also with the simultaneous rise . . . of political and economic
stratification, or with the **prior** development of the state - i.e. of
-**political** stratification \- and the creation of economic stratification by
+**political** stratification - and the creation of economic stratification by
the ruling class."_ [**Community, Anarchy and Liberty**, p. 132] He quotes
Elman Service on this:
-> _ "In all of the archaic civilisations and historically known chiefdoms and
+> _"In all of the archaic civilisations and historically known chiefdoms and
primitive states the 'stratification' was . . . mainly of two classes, the
governors and the governed - political strata, not strata of ownership
groups."_ [quoted by Taylor, **Op. Cit.**, p. 133]
@@ -3371,7 +3352,7 @@ classes but rather an independent development based on inequalities of social
power. Harold Barclay, an anarchist who has studied anthropological evidence
on this matter, concurs:
-> _ "In Marxist theory power derives primarily, if not exclusively, from
+> _"In Marxist theory power derives primarily, if not exclusively, from
control of the means of production and distribution of wealth, that is, from
economic factors. Yet, it is evident that power derived from knowledge - and
usually 'religious' style knowledge - is often highly significant, at least in
@@ -3392,7 +3373,7 @@ the state **was** the ruling class. While the most obvious example is the
Stalinist regimes where the state bureaucracy ruled over a state capitalist
economy, there have been plenty of others, as Murray Bookchin pointed out:
-> _ "Each State is not necessarily an institutionalised system of violence in
+> _"Each State is not necessarily an institutionalised system of violence in
the interests of a specific ruling class, as Marxism would have us believe.
There are many examples of States that **were** the 'ruling class' and whose
own interests existed quite apart from - even in antagonism to - privileged,
@@ -3407,20 +3388,16 @@ Ptolemaic State in Hellenistic Egypt was an interest in its own right and
and the Inca States until they were replaced by Spanish invaders. Under the
Emperor Domitian, the Roman State became the principal 'interest' in the
empire, superseding the interests of even the landed aristocracy which held
-such primacy in Mediterranean society. . .
+such primacy in Mediterranean society. . . _
->
-
-> "Near-Eastern State, like the Egyptian, Babylonian, and Persian, were
+> _"Near-Eastern States, like the Egyptian, Babylonian, and Persian, were
virtually extended households of individual monarchs . . . Pharaohs, kings,
and emperors nominally held the land (often co-jointly with the priesthood) in
the trust of the deities, who were either embodied in the monarch or were
represented by him. The empires of Asian and North African kings were
-'households' and the population was seen as 'servants of the palace' . . .
-
->
+'households' and the population was seen as 'servants of the palace' . . . _
-> "These 'states,' in effect, were not simply engines of exploitation or
+> _"These 'states,' in effect, were not simply engines of exploitation or
control in the interests of a privileged 'class.' . . . The Egyptian State was
very real but it 'represented' nothing other than itself."_ [**Remaking
Society**, pp. 67-8]
@@ -3450,9 +3427,9 @@ danger (namely, the dismissal of warranted fears concerning political power)
is latent in the central features of Marx's approach to politics."_ [Alan
Carter, **Op. Cit.**, p. 219] To summarise the obvious conclusion:
-> _ "By focusing too much attention on the economic structure of society and
+> _"By focusing too much attention on the economic structure of society and
insufficient attention on the problems of political power, Marx has left a
-legacy we would done better not to inherit. The perceived need for
+legacy we would have done better not to inherit. The perceived need for
authoritarian and centralised revolutionary organisation is sanctioned by
Marx's theory because his theoretical subordination of political power to
economic classes apparently renders post-revolutionary political power
@@ -3462,16 +3439,13 @@ Many factors contributed to Stalinism, including Marxism's defective theory of
the state. In stressing that socialism meant nationalising property, it lead
to state management which, in turn, expropriated the working class as a vast
managerial bureaucracy was required to run it. Moreover, Marxism disguised
-this new ruling class as it argues that the state 'represents' a class and had
-no interests of itself. Thus we have Trotsky's utter inability to understand
-Stalinism and his insane formula that the proletariat remained the ruling
-class under Stalin (or, for that matter, under himself and Lenin)! Simply put,
-by arguing that the state was an instrument of class rule, Marxism ensured it
-presented a false theory of social change and could not analysis its resulting
-class rule when the inevitable consequences of this approach was implemented.
+this new ruling class as it argues that the state 'represents' an economic
+class and had no interests of itself. Hence Trotsky's utter inability to
+understand Stalinism and his insane formula that the proletariat remained the
+ruling class under Stalin (or, for that matter, under himself and Lenin)!
However, there is more to Marxism than its dominant theory of the state. Given
-this blindness of orthodox Marxism to this issue, it seems ironic that one of
+the blindness of orthodox Marxism to this issue, it seems ironic that one of
the people responsible for it also provides anarchists with evidence to back
up our argument that the state is not simply an instrument of class rule but
rather has interests of its own. Thus we find Engels arguing that proletariat,
@@ -3499,13 +3473,13 @@ a class in its entirety, held power for only two years, 1849 and 1850, under
the republic, it was able to continue its social existence only by abdicating
its political power to Louis Bonaparte and the army."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp.
577-8 and p. 238] So, in terms of French history, Engels argued that _"by way
-of exception"_ accounted for over 250 hundred years, the 17th and 18th
-centuries and most of the 19th, bar a two year period! Even if we are generous
-and argue that the 1830 revolution placed one section of the bourgeoisie
-(finance capital) into political power, we are still left with over 200
-hundred years of state "independence" from classes! Given this, it would be
-fair to suggest that the "exception" should be when it **is** an instrument of
-class rule, not when it is not!
+of exception"_ accounted for over 250 years, the 17th and 18th centuries and
+most of the 19th, bar a two year period! Even if we are generous and argue
+that the 1830 revolution placed one section of the bourgeoisie (finance
+capital) into political power, we are still left with over 200 hundred years
+of state "independence" from classes! Given this, it would be fair to suggest
+that the "exception" should be when it **is** an instrument of class rule, not
+when it is not!
This was no isolated case. In Prussia _"members of the bourgeoisie have a
majority in the Chamber . . . But where is their power over the state? . . .
@@ -3584,28 +3558,28 @@ bourgeoisie."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 62-3]
Somewhat ironically, then, a key example used by Marxists for the
"independence" of the state is no such thing. Bonapartism did not represent a
"balance" between the proletariat and bourgeoisie but rather the most naked
-form of state rule required in the fact of working class revolt. It was a
+form of state rule required in the face of working class revolt. It was a
counter-revolutionary regime which reflected a defeat for the working class,
not a "balance" between it and the capitalist class.
Marx's confusions arose from his belief that, for the bourgeoisie, the
parliamentary republic _"was the unavoidable condition of their **common**
rule, the sole form of state in which their general class interest subjected
-itself at the same time both the claims of their particular factions and all
-the remaining classes of society."_ [**Selected Works**, pp. 152-3] The
-abolition of the republic, the replacement of the government, was, for him,
-the end of the political rule of the bourgeoisie as he argued that _"the
-industrial bourgeoisie applauds with servile bravos the **coup dtat** of
-December 2, the annihilation of parliament, the downfall of its own rule, the
-dictatorship of Bonaparte."_ He repeated this identification: _"Passing of the
-parliamentary regime and of bourgeois rule. Victory of Bonaparte."_
-[**Selected Writings**, pp. 164-5 and p. 166] Political rule was equated to
-which party held power and so, logically, universal suffrage was _"the
-equivalent of political power for the working class . . . where the
-proletariat forms the large majority of the population."_ Its _"inevitable
-result_ would be _"**the political supremacy of the working class**."_
-[**Collected Works**, vol. 11, pp. 335-6] This was, of course, simply wrong
-(on both counts) as he, himself, seemed to became aware of two decades later.
+to itself at the same time both the claims of their particular factions and
+all the remaining classes of society."_ The abolition of the republic, the
+replacement of the government, was, for him, the end of the political rule of
+the bourgeoisie as he argued that _"the industrial bourgeoisie applauds with
+servile bravos the **coup d’état** of December 2, the annihilation of
+parliament, the downfall of its own rule, the dictatorship of Bonaparte."_ He
+repeated this identification: _"Passing of the parliamentary regime and of
+bourgeois rule. Victory of Bonaparte."_ [**Selected Works**, pp. 151-2, pp.
+164-5 and p. 166] Political rule was equated to which party held power and so,
+logically, universal suffrage was _"the equivalent of political power for the
+working class . . . where the proletariat forms the large majority of the
+population."_ Its _"inevitable result"_ would be _"**the political supremacy
+of the working class**."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 11, pp. 335-6] This was,
+of course, simply wrong (on both counts) as he, himself, seemed to became
+aware of two decades later.
In 1871 he argued that _"the State power assumed more and more the character
of the national power of capital over labour, of a public force organised for
@@ -3634,8 +3608,8 @@ own agenda.
This is not the only confirmation of the anarchist critique of the Marxist
theory of the state which can be found in Marxism itself. Marx, at times, also
admitted the possibility of the state **not** being an instrument of
-(economic) class rule. For example, he mentioned the so-called _**"Asiatic
-Mode of Production"**_ in which _"there are no private landowners"_ but rather
+(economic) class rule. For example, he mentioned the so-called **_"Asiatic
+Mode of Production"_** in which _"there are no private landowners"_ but rather
_"the state . . . which confronts"_ the peasants _"directly as simultaneously
landowner and sovereign, rent and tax coincide . . . Here the state is the
supreme landlord. Sovereignty here is landed property concentrated on a
@@ -3676,7 +3650,7 @@ October Revolution. He did not ponder too deeply the implications of admitting
that the _"means of production belong to the State. But the State, so to
speak, 'belongs' to the bureaucracy."_ [**The Revolution Betrayed**, p. 93, p.
136, p. 228, p. 235 and p. 236] If that is so, only ideology can stop the
-obvious confusion being drawn, namely that the state bureaucracy was the
+obvious conclusion being drawn, namely that the state bureaucracy was the
ruling class. But that is precisely what happened with Trotsky's confusion
expressing itself thusly:
@@ -3713,7 +3687,7 @@ which the working class is an oppressed class.
Significantly, Trotsky combated those of his followers who drew the same
conclusions as had anarchists and libertarian Marxists while he and Lenin held
-the reigns of power. Perhaps this ideological blindness is understandable,
+the reins of power. Perhaps this ideological blindness is understandable,
given Trotsky's key role in creating the bureaucracy in the first place. So
Trotsky did criticise, if in a confused manner, the Stalinist regime for its
_"injustice, oppression, differential consumption, and so on, even if he had
@@ -3731,15 +3705,15 @@ Moreover, Engels also presented another analysis of the state which suggested
that it arose **before** economic classes appeared. In 1886 he wrote of how
society _"creates for itself an organ for the safeguarding of its common
interests against internal and external attacks. This organ is the state
-power. Hardly come into being, this organ makes itself independent **vis--
-vis** society: and, indeed, the more so, the more it becomes the organ of a
-particular class, the more it directly enforces the supremacy of that class."_
-_"Society",_ he argued four years later, _"gives rise to certain common
-function which it cannot dispense with. The persons appointed for this purpose
-form a new branch of the division of labour **within society**. This gives
-them particular interests, distinct, too, from the interests of those who
-empowered them; they make themselves independent of the latter and - the state
-is in being."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 617 and pp. 685-6] In this schema, the
+power. Hardly come into being, this organ makes itself independent
+**vis-à-vis** society: and, indeed, the more so, the more it becomes the organ
+of a particular class, the more it directly enforces the supremacy of that
+class."_ _"Society",_ he argued four years later, _"gives rise to certain
+common function which it cannot dispense with. The persons appointed for this
+purpose form a new branch of the division of labour **within society**. This
+gives them particular interests, distinct, too, from the interests of those
+who empowered them; they make themselves independent of the latter and - the
+state is in being."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 617 and pp. 685-6] In this schema, the
independence of the state comes **first** and is then captured by rising
economically powerful class.
@@ -3797,10 +3771,10 @@ argued that the state has some 'relative autonomy' and is not a direct, simple
reflex of a given economic system."_ [**Bakunin: The Constructive Passion**,
p. 275] The reason why the more sophisticated Marxist analysis of the state is
forgotten when it comes to attacking anarchism should be obvious - it
-undermines the both the Marxist critique of anarchism and its own theory of
-the state. Ironically, arguments and warnings about the _"independence"_ of
-the state by Marxists imply that the state has interests of its own and cannot
-be considered simply as an instrument of class rule. They suggest that the
+undermines both the Marxist critique of anarchism and its own theory of the
+state. Ironically, arguments and warnings about the _"independence"_ of the
+state by Marxists imply that the state has interests of its own and cannot be
+considered simply as an instrument of class rule. They suggest that the
anarchist analysis of the state is correct, namely that any structure based on
delegated power, centralisation and hierarchy must, inevitably, have a
privileged class in charge of it, a class whose position enables it to not
@@ -3820,7 +3794,7 @@ Marxists). According to John Rees (of the British Socialist Workers Party) it
has been a _"cornerstone of revolutionary theory"_ that _"the soviet is a
superior form of democracy because it unifies political and economic power."_
This _"cornerstone"_ has, apparently, existed _"since Marx's writings on the
-Paris Commune."_ [_"In Defence of October,"_, pp. 3-82, **International
+Paris Commune."_ [_"In Defence of October"_, pp. 3-82, **International
Socialism**, no. 52, p. 25] In fact, nothing could be further from the truth,
as Marx's writings on the Paris Commune prove beyond doubt.
@@ -3839,7 +3813,7 @@ shock to his fellow Marxists. Unsurprisingly, given the long legacy of
anarchist calls to smash the state and their vision of a socialist society
built from below by workers councils, many Marxists called Lenin an anarchist!
Therefore, the idea that Marxists have always supported workers councils' is
-untrue and any attempt to push this support back to 1871 simply a farcical.
+untrue and any attempt to push this support back to 1871 simply farcical.
Not all Marxists are as ignorant of their political tradition as Rees. As his
fellow party member Chris Harman recognised, _"[e]ven the 1905 [Russian]
@@ -3919,7 +3893,7 @@ whether the councils or the party had power, Lenin's analysis, while flawed in
parts, is in the general spirit of Marx and they stress the need to smash the
state and replace it with workers' councils. In this, they express the best in
Marx. When faced with the Paris Commune and its libertarian influences he
-embraced it, distancing himself (for a while at least) with many of his
+embraced it, distancing himself (for a while at least) from many of his
previous ideas.
So what was the original (orthodox) Marxist position? It can be seen from
@@ -3954,7 +3928,7 @@ newly conquered power."_ [our emphasis, **Op. Cit.**, vol. 47, p. 10]
Obviously the only institution which the working class _"finds ready-made for
use"_ is the democratic (i.e., bourgeois) state, although, as Engels stressed,
-it _"may require adaptation."_ In Engels' 1871 introduction to Marx's _"The
+it _"may require adaptation."_ In Engels 1871 introduction to Marx's _"The
Civil War in France"_, this analysis is repeated when Engels asserted that the
state _"is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another"_
and that it is _"at best an evil inherited by the proletariat after its
@@ -3978,7 +3952,7 @@ to _"entrust socialist tasks to it while it is dominated by the bourgeoisie."_
significantly, simply repeating Engels 1891 argument from his critique of the
draft of the Erfurt program of the German Social Democrats:
-> _ "If one thing is certain it is that our Party and the working class can
+> _"If one thing is certain it is that our Party and the working class can
only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the
specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat, as the Great French
Revolution has already shown."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 27, p. 227]
@@ -4093,7 +4067,7 @@ enough, he lamented that _"[e]verywhere the labourer struggles for political
power, for direct representation of his class in the legislature - everywhere
but in Great Britain."_ [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 24, p. 405] For Engels:
-> _ "In every struggle of class against class, the next end fought for is
+> _"In every struggle of class against class, the next end fought for is
political power; the ruling class defends its political supremacy, that is to
say its safe majority in the Legislature; the inferior class fights for, first
a share, then the whole of that power, in order to become enabled to change
@@ -4146,7 +4120,7 @@ state via elections. [**Selected Works**, p. 287, p. 285, p. 287 and p. 285]
Indeed, this is precisely what **was** meant, as confirmed by Engels in a
letter written in 1884 clarifying what Marx meant:
-> _ "It is simply a question of showing that the victorious proletariat must
+> _"It is simply a question of showing that the victorious proletariat must
first refashion the old bureaucratic, administrative centralised state power
before it can use it for its own purposes: whereas all bourgeois republicans
since 1848 inveighed against this machinery so long as they were in the
@@ -4155,7 +4129,7 @@ altering it and used it partly against the reaction but still more against the
proletariat."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 47, p. 74]
Interestingly, in the second outline of the **Civil War in France**, Marx used
-words almost identical to Engels latter explanation:
+words almost identical to Engels later explanation:
> _"But the proletariat cannot, as the ruling classes and their different
rival fractions have done in the successive hours of their triumph, simply lay
@@ -4168,7 +4142,7 @@ It is, of course, true that Marx expressed in his defence of the Commune the
opinion that new _"Communal Constitution"_ was to become a _"reality by the
destruction of the State power"_ yet he immediately argues that _"the merely
repressive organs of the old government power were to be amputated"_ and _"its
-legitimate functions were to be wrestles from"_ it and _"restored to the
+legitimate functions were to be wrestled from"_ it and _"restored to the
responsible agents of society."_ [**Selected Works**, pp. 288-9] This
corresponds to Engels arguments about removing aspects from the state
inherited by the proletariat and signifies the _"destruction"_ of the state
@@ -4264,14 +4238,14 @@ a few months after the Commune, Marx argued that in Britain, _"the way to show
would be madness where peaceful agitation would more swiftly and surely do the
work."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 22, p. 602] The following year, saw him
suggest that America could join it as _"the workers can achieve their aims by
-peaceful means"_ there as well [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 23, p. 255] How if Marx
-**had** concluded that the capitalist state had to be destroyed rather than
-captured and refashioned then he quickly changed his mind! In fact, during the
-Commune itself, in April 1871, Marx had written to his friend Ludwig Kugelman
-_"[i]f you look at the last chapter of my **Eighteenth Brumaire** you will
-find that I say that the next attempt of the French revolution will be no
-longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic military machine from one hand
-to another, but to break it, and that is essential for every real peoples
+peaceful means"_ there as well [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 23, p. 255] If Marx **had**
+concluded that the capitalist state had to be destroyed rather than captured
+and refashioned then he quickly changed his mind! In fact, during the Commune
+itself, in April 1871, Marx had written to his friend Ludwig Kugelman _"[i]f
+you look at the last chapter of my **Eighteenth Brumaire** you will find that
+I say that the next attempt of the French revolution will be no longer, as
+before, to transfer the bureaucratic military machine from one hand to
+another, but to break it, and that is essential for every real people’s
revolution on the Continent. And this is what our heroic Party [sic!] comrades
in Paris are attempting."_ [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 44, p. 131] As noted above,
Marx explicitly noted that the bureaucratic military machine predated the
@@ -4299,21 +4273,21 @@ strikes in the 1870s and 1880s in America (such as the Great Upheaval of 1877
or the crushing of the 8 hour day movement after the Haymarket police riot of
1886). As Martov argued correctly:
-> _ "The theoretic possibility [of peaceful reform] has not revealed itself in
+> _"The theoretic possibility [of peaceful reform] has not revealed itself in
reality. But the sole fact that he admitted such a possibility shows us
-clearly Marxs opinion, leaving no room for arbitrary interpretation. What Marx
-designated as the 'destruction of the State machine' . . . was the destruction
-of the **military and bureaucratic apparatus** that the bourgeois democracy
-had inherited from the monarchy and perfected in the process of consolidating
-the rule of the bourgeois class. There is nothing in Marxs reasoning that even
-suggests the destruction of the **State organisation as such** and the
-replacement of the State during the revolutionary period, that is during the
-dictatorship of the proletariat, with a social bond formed on a **principle
-opposed to that of the State.** Marx and Engels foresaw such a substitution
-only at the end of a process of 'a progressive withering away' of the State
-and all the functions of social **coercion**. They foresaw this atrophy of the
-State and the functions of social coercion to be the result of the prolonged
-existence of the socialist regime."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 31]
+clearly Marx’s opinion, leaving no room for arbitrary interpretation. What
+Marx designated as the 'destruction of the State machine' . . . was the
+destruction of the **military and bureaucratic apparatus** that the bourgeois
+democracy had inherited from the monarchy and perfected in the process of
+consolidating the rule of the bourgeois class. There is nothing in Marx’s
+reasoning that even suggests the destruction of the **State organisation as
+such** and the replacement of the State during the revolutionary period, that
+is during the dictatorship of the proletariat, with a social bond formed on a
+**principle opposed to that of the State.** Marx and Engels foresaw such a
+substitution only at the end of a process of 'a progressive withering away' of
+the State and all the functions of social **coercion**. They foresaw this
+atrophy of the State and the functions of social coercion to be the result of
+the prolonged existence of the socialist regime."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 31]
It should also be remembered that Marx's comments on smashing the state
machine were made in response to developments in France, a regime that Marx
@@ -4328,14 +4302,14 @@ genuine capitalist state."_ [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 24, p. 499] Significantly, it
was precisely these states in which Marx had previously stated a peaceful
revolution could occur:
-> _ "We know that the institutions, customs and traditions in the different
+> _"We know that the institutions, customs and traditions in the different
countries must be taken into account; and we do not deny the existence of
countries like America, England, and if I knew your institutions better I
might add Holland, where the workers may achieve their aims by peaceful means.
-That being the true, we must admit that in most countries on the continent it
-is force which must be the lever of our revolution; it is force which will
-have to be resorted to for a time in order to establish the rule of the
-workers."_ [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 23, p. 255]
+That being true, we must admit that in most countries on the continent it is
+force which must be the lever of our revolution; it is force which will have
+to be resorted to for a time in order to establish the rule of the workers."_
+[**Op. Cit.**, vol. 23, p. 255]
Interestingly, in 1886, Engels expanded on Marx's speculation as regards
Holland and confirmed it. Holland, he argued, as well as _"a residue of local
@@ -4366,7 +4340,7 @@ Marx's defence of it took on a libertarian twist. As noted by Bakunin, who
argued that its _"general effect was so striking that the Marxists themselves,
who saw their ideas upset by the uprising, found themselves compelled to take
their hats off to it. They went further, and proclaimed that its programme and
-purpose where their own, in face of the simplest logic . . . This was a truly
+purpose were their own, in face of the simplest logic . . . This was a truly
farcical change of costume, but they were bound to make it, for fear of being
overtaken and left behind in the wave of feeling which the rising produced
throughout the world."_ [**Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings**, p. 261]
@@ -4377,7 +4351,7 @@ before hand, did support the Commune once it began. His essay is primarily a
propaganda piece in defence of it and is, fundamentally, reporting on what the
Commune actually did and advocated. Thus, as well as reporting the Communal
Constitution's vision of a federation of communes, we find Marx noting, also
-without comment, that Commune decreed _"the surrender to associations of
+without comment, that the Commune decreed _"the surrender to associations of
workmen, under reserve of compensation, of all closed workshops and
factories."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 294] While Engels, at times, suggested that
this could be a possible policy for a socialist government, it is fair to say
@@ -4386,7 +4360,7 @@ Commune as being a key aspect of his ideology. As Marx's account reports on
the facts of the Commune it could hardly **not** reflect the libertarian ideas
which were so strong in both it and the French sections of the International -
ideas he had spent much time and energy opposing. Moreover, given the frenzy
-of abuse the Communards were subject to it by the bourgeoisie, it was unlikely
+of abuse the Communards were subject to by the bourgeoisie, it was unlikely
that Marx would have aided the reaction by being overly critical. Equally,
given how positively the Commune had been received in working class and
radical circles Marx would have been keen to gain maximum benefit from it for
@@ -4410,7 +4384,7 @@ programme, and the best political programme they could wish for was the
People's Charter."_ [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 23, p. 614] The Commune was not
mentioned and, significantly, Marx had previously defined this programme in
1855 as being _"to increase and extend the omnipotence of Parliament by
-elevating it to peoples power. They [the Chartists] are not breaking up
+elevating it to people’s power. They [the Chartists] are not breaking up
parliamentarism but are raising it to a higher power."_ [**Op. Cit.**, vol.
14, p. 243]
@@ -4441,8 +4415,8 @@ numerous similar comments. It explains the repeated suggestion by Marx that
there were countries like America and Britain _"where the workers can achieve
their aims by peaceful means."_ There is Engels:
-> _ "One can imagine that the old society could peacefully grow into the new
-in countries where all power is concentrated in the people's representatives,
+> _"One can imagine that the old society could peacefully grow into the new in
+countries where all power is concentrated in the people's representatives,
where one can constitutionally do as one pleases as soon as a majority of the
people give their support; in democratic republics like France and America, in
monarchies such as England, where the dynasty is powerless against the popular
@@ -4506,7 +4480,7 @@ social-democracy became. Marx and Engels were well aware that a revolution
would be needed to create and defend a republic. Engels, for example, noted
_"how totally mistaken is the belief that a republic, and not only a republic,
but also a communist society, can be established in a cosy, peaceful way."_
-Thus violent revolution was required to create a republic \- Marx and Engels
+Thus violent revolution was required to create a republic - Marx and Engels
were revolutionaries, after all. Within a republic, both recognised that
insurrection would be required to defend democratic government against
attempts by the capitalist class to maintain its economic position. Universal
@@ -4602,8 +4576,8 @@ been seen, and used, simply as a means by which the party can seize power.
Once this is achieved, the soviets can be marginalised and ignored without
affecting the "proletarian" nature of the revolution in the eyes of the party:
-> _ "while it is true that Lenin recognised the different functions and
-democratic raison d'tre for both the soviets and his party, in the last
+> _"while it is true that Lenin recognised the different functions and
+democratic raison d'être for both the soviets and his party, in the last
analysis it was the party that was more important than the soviets. In other
words, the party was the final repository of working-class sovereignty. Thus,
Lenin did not seem to have been reflected on or have been particularly
@@ -4649,10 +4623,10 @@ anarchists, these Marxists see a social revolution as being based on working
class self-management and, indeed, criticised (and broke with) Bolshevism
precisely on this question. Some Marxists, like the **Socialist Party of Great
Britain**, stay true to Marx and Engels and argue for using the ballot box
-(see [last section](secH3.html#sech310)) although this not exclude utilising
-such organs once political power is seized by those means. However, if we look
-at the mainstream Marxist tradition (namely Leninism), the answer has to be an
-empathic "no."
+(see [last section](secH3.html#sech310)) although this does not exclude
+utilising such organs once political power is seized by those means. However,
+if we look at the mainstream Marxist tradition (namely Leninism), the answer
+has to be an empathic "no."
As we noted in [section H.1.4](secH1.html#sech14), anarchists have long argued
that the organisations created by the working class in struggle would be the
@@ -4690,10 +4664,10 @@ to understand.
As Oscar Anweiler summarises in his account of the soviets during the two
Russian Revolutions:
-> _ "The drawback of the new 'soviet democracy' hailed by Lenin in 1906 is
-that he could envisage the soviets only as **controlled** organisations; for
-him they were instruments by which the party controlled the working masses,
-rather than true forms of a workers democracy. The basic contradiction of the
+> _"The drawback of the new 'soviet democracy' hailed by Lenin in 1906 is that
+he could envisage the soviets only as **controlled** organisations; for him
+they were instruments by which the party controlled the working masses, rather
+than true forms of a workers democracy. The basic contradiction of the
Bolshevik soviet system - which purports to be a democracy of all working
people but in reality recognises only the rule of one party - is already
contained in Lenin's interpretation of the soviets during the first Russian
@@ -4710,7 +4684,7 @@ being based upon the empowerment of working class organisation and the
socialist society being based on this, Leninists see workers organisations in
purely instrumental terms as the means of achieving a Leninist government:
-> _ "With all the idealised glorification of the soviets as a new, higher, and
+> _"With all the idealised glorification of the soviets as a new, higher, and
more democratic type of state, Lenin's principal aim was revolutionary-
strategic rather than social-structural . . . The slogan of the soviets was
primarily tactical in nature; the soviets were in theory organs of mass
@@ -4722,20 +4696,20 @@ examination of the actual give-and-take between Bolsheviks and soviets during
the revolution allows a correct understanding of their relationship."_ [Oscar
Anweiler, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 160-1]
-Simply out, Leninism confuses the party power and workers' power. An example
-of this "confusion" can be found in most Leninist works. For example, John
-Rees argues that _"the essence of the Bolsheviks' strategy . . . was to take
-power from the Provisional government and put it in the hands of popular
-organs of working class power - a point later made explicit by Trotsky in his
-**Lessons of October**."_ [_"In Defence of October"_, pp. 3-82,
-**International Socialism**, no. 52, p. 73] However, in reality Lenin had
-always been clear that the essence of the Bolsheviks' strategy was the taking
-of power by the Bolshevik party **itself.** He explicitly argued for Bolshevik
-power during 1917, considering the soviets as the best means of achieving
-this. He constantly equated Bolshevik rule with working class rule. Once in
-power, this identification did not change. As such, rather than argue for
-power to be placed into _"the hands of popular organs of working class power"_
-Lenin argued this only insofar as he was sure that these organs would then
+Simply put, Leninism confuses party power and workers' power. An example of
+this "confusion" can be found in most Leninist works. For example, John Rees
+argues that _"the essence of the Bolsheviks' strategy . . . was to take power
+from the Provisional government and put it in the hands of popular organs of
+working class power - a point later made explicit by Trotsky in his **Lessons
+of October**."_ [_"In Defence of October"_, pp. 3-82, **International
+Socialism**, no. 52, p. 73] However, in reality Lenin had always been clear
+that the essence of the Bolsheviks' strategy was the taking of power by the
+Bolshevik party **itself.** He explicitly argued for Bolshevik power during
+1917, considering the soviets as the best means of achieving this. He
+constantly equated Bolshevik rule with working class rule. Once in power, this
+identification did not change. As such, rather than argue for power to be
+placed into _"the hands of popular organs of working class power"_ Lenin
+argued this only insofar as he was sure that these organs would then
**immediately** pass that power into the hands of a Bolshevik government.
This explains his turn against the soviets after July 1917 when he considered
@@ -4776,7 +4750,7 @@ references. When studying Trotsky's work we find the same instrumentalist
approach to the question of the _"popular organs of working class power."_
Yes, there is some discussion on whether soviets or _"some of form of
organisation"_ like factory committees could become _"organs of state power"_
-but this is always within the context of party power. This is stated quite
+but this is always within the context of party power. This was stated quite
clearly by Trotsky in his essay when he argued that the _"essential aspect"_
of Bolshevism was the _"training, tempering, and organisation of the
proletarian vanguard as enables the latter to seize power, arms in hand."_
@@ -4784,7 +4758,7 @@ proletarian vanguard as enables the latter to seize power, arms in hand."_
power, **not** _"popular organs of working class power."_ Indeed, the idea
that the working class can seize power itself is raised and dismissed:
-> _ "But the events have proved that without a party capable of directing the
+> _"But the events have proved that without a party capable of directing the
proletarian revolution, the revolution itself is rendered impossible. The
proletariat cannot seize power by a spontaneous uprising . . . there is
nothing else that can serve the proletariat as a substitute for its own
@@ -4827,7 +4801,7 @@ note that in 1917 the _"soviets had to either disappear entirely or take real
power into their hands."_ However, he immediately added that _"they could take
power . . . only as the dictatorship of the proletariat directed by a single
party."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 126] Clearly, the _"single party"_ has the real
-power, **not** the soviets an unsurprisingly the rule of _"a single party"_
+power, **not** the soviets and unsurprisingly the rule of _"a single party"_
also amounted to the soviets effectively disappearing as they quickly became
mere ciphers it. Soon the _"direction"_ by _"a single party"_ became the
dictatorship of that party **over** the soviets, which (it should be noted)
@@ -4909,7 +4883,7 @@ power or think that _"All power to the Soviets"_ is possible if they
immediately delegate that power to the leaders of the party. This is for
obvious reasons:
-> _ "If the revolutionary means are out of their hands, if they are in the
+> _"If the revolutionary means are out of their hands, if they are in the
hands of a techno-bureaucratic elite, then such an elite will be in a position
to direct to their own benefit not only the course of the revolution, but the
future society as well. If the proletariat are to **ensure** that an elite
@@ -4951,7 +4925,7 @@ subject to the _"socialised"_ production process within the workplace. The
conflict between the socialised means of production and their private
ownership is at the heart of the Marxist case for socialism:
-> _ "Then came the concentration of the means of production and of the
+> _"Then came the concentration of the means of production and of the
producers in large workshops and manufactories, their transformation into
actual socialised means of production and socialised producers. But the
socialised producers and means of production and their products were still
@@ -4962,11 +4936,9 @@ were not appropriated by those who actually set in motion the means of
production and actually produced the commodities, but by the **capitalists** .
. . The mode of production is subjected to this [individual or private] form
of appropriation, although it abolishes the conditions upon which the latter
-rests.
+rests. _
->
-
-> "This contradiction, which gives to the new mode of production its
+> _"This contradiction, which gives to the new mode of production its
capitalistic character, **contains the germ of the whole of the social
antagonisms of today.**"_ [Engels, **Marx-Engels Reader**, pp. 703-4]
@@ -4995,7 +4967,7 @@ It provides the objective grounding for socialism, and, in fact, this analysis
is what makes Marxism _"scientific socialism."_ This process explains how
human society develops through time:
-> _ "In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations
+> _"In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations
that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production
which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material
productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes
@@ -5003,7 +4975,7 @@ the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal
and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social
consciousness . . . At a certain stage of their development, the material
productive forces come in conflict with the existing relations of production
-or \- what is but a legal expression for the same thing \- with the property
+or - what is but a legal expression for the same thing - with the property
relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of
development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters.
Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic
@@ -5113,21 +5085,19 @@ based, initially, on the legacy of capitalism. Fortunately, the way a
workplace is managed is not predetermined by the technological base of
society. As is obvious, a steam-mill can be operated by a co-operative, so
making the industrial capitalist redundant. That a given technological basis
-(or productive forces) can produces many different social and political
-systems can easily be seen from history. Murray Bookchin gives one example:
+(or productive forces) can produce many different social and political systems
+can easily be seen from history. Murray Bookchin gives one example:
-> _ "Technics . . . does not fully or even adequately account for the
+> _"Technics . . . does not fully or even adequately account for the
institutional differences between a fairly democratic federation such as the
Iroquois and a highly despotic empire such as the Inca. From a strictly
instrumental viewpoint, the two structures were supported by almost identical
'tool kits.' Both engaged in horticultural practices that were organised
around primitive implements and wooden hoes. Their weaving and metalworking
techniques were very similar . . . At the **community** level, Iroquois and
-Inca populations were immensely similar . . .
-
->
+Inca populations were immensely similar . . . _
-> "Yet at the **political** level of social life, a democratic confederal
+> _"Yet at the **political** level of social life, a democratic confederal
structure of five woodland tribes obviously differs decisively from a
centralised, despotic structure of mountain Indian chiefdoms. The former, a
highly libertarian confederation . . . The latter, a massively authoritarian
@@ -5170,12 +5140,12 @@ argued that capitalism was evolving into a highly centralised economy, run by
big banks and big firms. All what was required to turn this into socialism
would be its nationalisation:
-> _ "Once finance capital has brought the most important branches of
-production under its control, it is enough for society, through its conscious
-executive organ - the state conquered by the working class - to seize finance
-capital in order to gain immediate control of these branches of production . .
-. taking possession of six large Berlin banks would . . . greatly facilitate
-the initial phases of socialist policy during the transition period, when
+> _"Once finance capital has brought the most important branches of production
+under its control, it is enough for society, through its conscious executive
+organ - the state conquered by the working class - to seize finance capital in
+order to gain immediate control of these branches of production . . . taking
+possession of six large Berlin banks would . . . greatly facilitate the
+initial phases of socialist policy during the transition period, when
capitalist accounting might still prove useful."_ [**Finance Capital**, pp.
367-8]
@@ -5247,7 +5217,7 @@ to us by capitalism is simply ridiculous. Capitalism has developed industry
and technology to further the ends of those with power, namely capitalists and
managers. Why should they use that power to develop technology and industrial
structures which lead to workers' self-management and power rather than
-technologies and structures which enhance their own position vis--vis their
+technologies and structures which enhance their own position vis-à-vis their
workers and society as a whole? As such, technological and industrial
development is not "neutral" or just the "application of science." They are
shaped by class struggle and class interest and cannot be used for different
@@ -5267,17 +5237,17 @@ mainstream Marxism is not. Rather, it sees the problem with capitalism is that
its institutions are not centralised and big enough. As Alexander Berkman
correctly argues:
-> _ "The role of industrial decentralisation in the revolution is
-unfortunately too little appreciated. . . Most people are still in the
-thraldom of the Marxian dogma that centralisation is 'more efficient and
-economical.' They close their eyes to the fact that the alleged 'economy' is
-achieved at the cost of the workers' limb and life, that the 'efficiency'
-degrades him to a mere industrial cog, deadens his soul, kills his body.
-Furthermore, in a system of centralisation the administration of industry
-becomes constantly merged in fewer hands, producing a powerful bureaucracy of
-industrial overlords. It would indeed be the sheerest irony if the revolution
-were to aim at such a result. It would mean the creation of a new master
-class."_ [**What is Anarchism?**, p. 229]
+> _"The role of industrial decentralisation in the revolution is unfortunately
+too little appreciated. . . Most people are still in the thraldom of the
+Marxian dogma that centralisation is 'more efficient and economical.' They
+close their eyes to the fact that the alleged 'economy' is achieved at the
+cost of the workers' limb and life, that the 'efficiency' degrades him to a
+mere industrial cog, deadens his soul, kills his body. Furthermore, in a
+system of centralisation the administration of industry becomes constantly
+merged in fewer hands, producing a powerful bureaucracy of industrial
+overlords. It would indeed be the sheerest irony if the revolution were to aim
+at such a result. It would mean the creation of a new master class."_ [**What
+is Anarchism?**, p. 229]
That mainstream Marxism is soaked in capitalist ideology can be seen from
Lenin's comments that when _"the separate establishments are amalgamated into
@@ -5292,20 +5262,19 @@ Russia had to learn from the advanced capitalist countries, that there was
only one way to develop production and that was by adopting capitalist methods
of "rationalisation" and management. Thus, for Lenin in early 1918 _"our task
is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare **no effort** in
-copying it and not to shrink from adopting **dictorial** methods to hasten the
-copying of it."_ [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 27, p. 340] In the words of Luigi Fabbri:
+copying it and not to shrink from adopting **dictatorial** methods to hasten
+the copying of it."_ [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 27, p. 340] In the words of Luigi
+Fabbri:
-> _ "Marxist communists, especially Russian ones, are beguiled by the distant
+> _"Marxist communists, especially Russian ones, are beguiled by the distant
mirage of big industry in the West or America and mistake for a system of
production what is only a typically capitalist means of speculation, a means
of exercising oppression all the more securely; and they do not appreciate
that that sort of centralisation, far from fulfilling the real needs of
production, is, on the contrary, precisely what restricts it, obstructs it and
-applies a brake to it in the interests of capital.
+applies a brake to it in the interests of capital. _
->
-
-> "Whenever [they] talk about 'necessity of production' they make no
+> _"Whenever [they] talk about 'necessity of production' they make no
distinction between those necessities upon which hinge the procurement of a
greater quantity and higher quality of products - this being all that matters
from the social and communist point of view - and the necessities inherent in
@@ -5350,7 +5319,7 @@ profit or loss."_ [**Seeing like a State**, p. 346] Whether a socialist
society could factor in all the important inputs which capitalism ignores
within an even more centralised planning structure is an important question.
It is extremely doubtful that there could be a positive answer to it. This
-does not mean, we just stress, that anarchists argue exclusively for "small-
+does not mean, we must stress, that anarchists argue exclusively for "small-
scale" production as many Marxists, like Lenin, assert (as we prove in
[section I.3.8](secI3.html#seci38), anarchists have always argued for
**appropriate** levels of production and scale). It is simply to raise the
@@ -5362,12 +5331,12 @@ and industrial structure, rejecting the whole capitalist notion of "progress"
which has always been part of justifying the inhumanities of the status quo.
Just because something is rewarded by capitalism it does not mean that it
makes sense from a human or ecological perspective. This informs our vision of
-a free society and the current struggle. We have long argued that that
-capitalist methods cannot be used for socialist ends. In our battle to
-democratise and socialise the workplace, in our awareness of the importance of
-collective initiatives by the direct producers in transforming their work
-situation, we show that factories are not merely sites of production, but also
-of reproduction - the reproduction of a certain structure of social relations
+a free society and the current struggle. We have long argued that capitalist
+methods cannot be used for socialist ends. In our battle to democratise and
+socialise the workplace, in our awareness of the importance of collective
+initiatives by the direct producers in transforming their work situation, we
+show that factories are not merely sites of production, but also of
+reproduction - the reproduction of a certain structure of social relations
based on the division between those who give orders and those who take them,
between those who direct and those who execute.
@@ -5375,11 +5344,11 @@ It goes without saying that anarchists recognise that a social revolution will
have to start with the industry and technology which is left to it by
capitalism and that this will have to be expropriated by the working class
(this expropriation will, of course, involve transforming it and, in all
-likelihood, rejecting of numerous technologies, techniques and practices
+likelihood, rejecting numerous technologies, techniques and practices
considered as "efficient" under capitalism). This is **not** the issue. The
issue is who expropriates it and what happens to it next. For anarchists, the
means of life are expropriated directly by society, for most Marxists they are
-expropriated by the state. For anarchists, such expropriation is based
+expropriated by the state. For anarchists, such expropriation is based on
workers' self-management and so the fundamental capitalist _"relation of
production"_ (wage labour) is abolished. For most Marxists, state ownership of
production is considered sufficient to ensure the end of capitalism (with, if
@@ -5409,25 +5378,25 @@ Bread**, pp. 21-23]
This means that anarchists also root our arguments for socialism in a
scientific analysis of tendencies within capitalism. However, in opposition to
the analysis of mainstream Marxism which focuses on the objective tendencies
-within capitalist development, anarchists emphasis the **oppositional** nature
-of socialism to capitalism. Both the _"law of value"_ and the _"law of
+within capitalist development, anarchists emphasise the **oppositional**
+nature of socialism to capitalism. Both the _"law of value"_ and the _"law of
planning"_ are tendencies **within** capitalism, that is aspects of
capitalism. Anarchists encourage class struggle, the direct conflict of
working class people against the workings of all capitalism's "laws". This
struggle produces **mutual aid** and the awareness that we can care best for
our own welfare if we **unite** with others - what we can loosely term the
_"law of co-operation"_ or _"law of mutual aid"_. This law, in contrast to the
-Marxian _"law of planning"_ is based on working class subjectively and
+Marxian _"law of planning"_ is based on working class subjectivity and
develops within society only in **opposition** to capitalism. As such, it
provides the necessary understanding of where socialism will come from, from
**below**, in the spontaneous self-activity of the oppressed fighting for
their freedom. This means that the basic structures of socialism will be the
organs created by working class people in their struggles against exploitation
-and oppress (see [section I.2.3](secI2.html#seci23) for more details). Gustav
-Landauer's basic insight is correct (if his means were not totally so) when he
-wrote that _"Socialism will not grow out of capitalism but away from it"_
-[**Op. Cit.**, p. 140] In other words, tendencies **opposed** to capitalism
-rather than ones which are part and parcel of it.
+and oppression (see [section I.2.3](secI2.html#seci23) for more details).
+Gustav Landauer's basic insight is correct (if his means were not totally so)
+when he wrote that _"Socialism will not grow out of capitalism but away from
+it"_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 140] In other words, tendencies **opposed** to
+capitalism rather than ones which are part and parcel of it.
Anarchism's recognition of the importance of these tendencies towards mutual
aid within capitalism is a key to understanding what anarchists do in the here
@@ -5435,7 +5404,7 @@ and now, as will be discussed in [section J](secJcon.html). In addition, it
also laid the foundation of understanding the nature of an anarchist society
and what creates the framework of such a society in the here and now.
Anarchists do not abstractly place a better society (anarchy) against the
-current, oppressive one. Instead, we analysis what tendencies exist within
+current, oppressive one. Instead, we analyse what tendencies exist within
current society and encourage those which empower and liberate people. Based
on these tendencies, anarchists propose a society which develops them to their
logical conclusion. Therefore an anarchist society is created not through the
@@ -5481,17 +5450,16 @@ The idea that socialism simply equals state ownership (nationalisation) is
easy to find in the works of Marxism. The **Communist Manifesto**, for
example, states that the _"proletariat will use its political supremacy to
wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all
-instruments of production into the hands of the State."_ This meant the
-_"[c]entralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national
-bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly,"_ the _"[c]entralisation of
-the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State,"_
-_"[e]xtension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State"_
-and the _"[e]stablishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture."_
-[Marx and Engels, **Selected Works**, pp. 52-3] Thus _"feudal estates . . .
-mines, pits, and so forth, would become property of the state"_ as well as
-_"[a]ll means of transport,"_ with _"the running of large-scale industry and
-the railways by the state."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 7, p. 3, p. 4 and p.
-299]
+instruments of production into the hands of the State."_ This meant:
+_"Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national
+bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly"_; _"Centralisation of the
+means of communication and transport in the hands of the State"_; _"Extension
+of factories and instruments of production owned by the State"_;
+_"Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture."_ [Marx and
+Engels, **Selected Works**, pp. 52-3] Thus _"feudal estates . . . mines, pits,
+and so forth, would become property of the state"_ as well as _"[a]ll means of
+transport,"_ with _"the running of large-scale industry and the railways by
+the state."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 7, p. 3, p. 4 and p. 299]
Engels repeats this formula thirty-two years later in **Socialism: Utopian and
Scientific** by asserting that capitalism itself _"forces on more and more the
@@ -5540,11 +5508,11 @@ terrible results.
This vision of society in which the lives of the population are controlled by
_"authorities"_ in a _"social central organ"_ which tells the workers what to
-do, while in line with the **Communist Manifesto**, seems less that appealing.
+do, while in line with the **Communist Manifesto**, seems less than appealing.
It also shows why state socialism is not socialism at all. Thus George
Barrett:
-> _ "If instead of the present capitalist class there were a set of officials
+> _"If instead of the present capitalist class there were a set of officials
appointed by the Government and set in a position to control our factories, it
would bring about no revolutionary change. The officials would have to be
paid, and we may depend that, in their privileged positions, they would expect
@@ -5564,19 +5532,19 @@ Anarchist Revolution**, pp. 8-9]
The key to seeing why state socialism is simply state capitalism can be found
in the lack of change in the social relationships at the point of production.
The workers are still wage slaves, employed by the state and subject to its
-orders. As Lenin stressed in **State and Revolution**, under Marxist Socialism
-_"**[a]ll** citizens are transformed into hired employees of the state . . .
-**All** citizens become employees and workers of a single country-wide state
-'syndicate' . . . The whole of society will have become a single office and a
-single factory, with equality of labour and pay."_ [**Collected Works**, vol.
-25, pp. 473-4] Given that Engels had argued, against anarchism, that a factory
-required subordination, authority, lack of freedom and _"a veritable despotism
+orders. As Lenin stressed in **State and Revolution**:_"**All** citizens are
+transformed into hired employees of the state . . . **All** citizens become
+employees and workers of a single country-wide state 'syndicate' . . . The
+whole of society will have become a single office and a single factory, with
+equality of labour and pay."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 25, pp. 473-4] Given
+that Engels had argued, against anarchism, that a factory required
+subordination, authority, lack of freedom and _"a veritable despotism
independent of all social organisation,"_ Lenin's idea of turning the world
into one big factory takes on an extremely frightening nature. [**Marx-Engels
Reader**, p. 731] A reality which one anarchist described in 1923 as being the
case in Lenin's Russia:
-> _ "The nationalisation of industry, removing the workers from the hands of
+> _"The nationalisation of industry, removing the workers from the hands of
individual capitalists, delivered them to the yet more rapacious hands of a
single, ever-present capitalist boss, the State. The relations between the
workers and this new boss are the same as earlier relations between labour and
@@ -5590,7 +5558,7 @@ Arshinov, **History of the Makhnovist Movement**, p. 71]
All of which makes Bakunin's comments seem justified (as well as stunningly
accurate):
-> _ "**Labour financed by the State** \- such is the fundamental principle of
+> _"**Labour financed by the State** \- such is the fundamental principle of
**authoritarian Communism,** of State Socialism. The State, **having become
the sole proprietor** . . . will have become sole capitalist, banker, money-
lender, organiser, director of all national work, and the distributor of its
@@ -5693,7 +5661,7 @@ capitalists were not the only ones who disliked _"workers' control,"_ the
Bolsheviks did so as well, and they ensured that it was marginalised within a
centralised system of state control based on nationalisation.
-As such, anarchists think that a utterly false dichotomy has been built up in
+As such, anarchists think that an utterly false dichotomy has been built up in
discussions of socialism, one which has served the interests of both
capitalists and state bureaucrats. This dichotomy is simply that the economic
choices available to humanity are "private" ownership of productive means
@@ -5733,18 +5701,18 @@ production and land of a state "socialist" regime are **not** publicly owned -
rather, they are owned by a bureaucratic elite, **in the name of the people**,
a subtle but important distinction. As one Chinese anarchist put it:
-> _ "Marxian socialism advocates the centralisation not only of political
-power but also of capital. The centralisation of political power is dangerous
-enough in itself; add to that the placing of all sources of wealth in the
-hands of the government, and the so-called state socialism becomes merely
-state capitalism, with the state as the owner of the means of production and
-the workers as its labourers, who hand over the value produced by their
-labour. The bureaucrats are the masters, the workers their slaves. Even though
-they advocate a state of the dictatorship of workers, the rulers are
-bureaucrats who do not labour, while workers are the sole producers.
-Therefore, the suffering of workers under state socialism is no different from
-that under private capitalism."_ [Ou Shengbai, quoted by Arif Dirlik,
-**Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution**, p. 224]
+> _"Marxian socialism advocates the centralisation not only of political power
+but also of capital. The centralisation of political power is dangerous enough
+in itself; add to that the placing of all sources of wealth in the hands of
+the government, and the so-called state socialism becomes merely state
+capitalism, with the state as the owner of the means of production and the
+workers as its labourers, who hand over the value produced by their labour.
+The bureaucrats are the masters, the workers their slaves. Even though they
+advocate a state of the dictatorship of workers, the rulers are bureaucrats
+who do not labour, while workers are the sole producers. Therefore, the
+suffering of workers under state socialism is no different from that under
+private capitalism."_ [Ou Shengbai, quoted by Arif Dirlik, **Anarchism in the
+Chinese Revolution**, p. 224]
In this fashion, decisions about the allocation and use of the productive
assets are not made by the people themselves, but by the administration, by
@@ -5775,7 +5743,7 @@ control/own things which are used by other people. This means, unsurprising,
that state ownership is just a form of property rather than the negation of
it. If you have a highly centralised structure (as the state is) which plans
and decides about all things within production, then this central
-administrative would be the real owner because it has the exclusive right to
+administration would be the real owner because it has the exclusive right to
decide how things are used, **not** those using them. The existence of this
central administrative strata excludes the abolition of property, replacing
socialism or communism with state owned "property," i.e. **state** capitalism.
@@ -5799,7 +5767,7 @@ capitalism."_ Simply put, common ownership _"demands common control. This is
possible only in a condition of industrial democracy by workers' control."_
[**Syndicalism**, p. 94] In summary:
-> _ "Nationalisation is not Socialisation, but State Capitalism . . .
+> _"Nationalisation is not Socialisation, but State Capitalism . . .
Socialisation . . . is not State ownership, but the common, social ownership
of the means of production, and social ownership implies control by the
producers, not by new bosses. It implies Workers' Control of Industry - and
@@ -5867,26 +5835,27 @@ wide Stalinist regime and concluded it would **not** be state capitalist, it
would _"be a system of exploitation not subject to the law of value and all
its implications."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 225] As Fernandez correctly summarises:
-> _ "Cliff's position appears untenable when it is remembered that whatever
-capitalism may or may not entail, what it **is** a mode of production, defined
-by a certain type of social production relations. If the USSR is capitalist
-simply because it produces weaponry to compete with those countries that
-themselves would have been capitalist even without such competition, then one
-might as well say the same about tribes whose production is directed to the
-provision of tomahawks in the fight against colonialism."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p.
-65]
-
-Strangely, as Marxist, Cliff seemed unaware that, for Marx, "competition" did
-not define capitalism. As far as trade goes, the _"character of the production
-process from which [goods] derive is immaterial"_ and so on the market
-commodities come _"from all modes of production"_ (for example, they could be
-_"the produce of production based on slavery, the product of peasants . . .,
-of a community . . . , of state production (such as existed in earlier epochs
-of Russian history, based on serfdom) or half-savage hunting peoples"_).
-[**Capital**, vol. 2, pp. 189-90] This means that trade _"exploits a given
-mode of production but does not create it"_ and so relates _"to the mode of
-production from outside."_ [**Capital**, vol. 3, p. 745] Much the same can be
-said of military competition - it does not define the mode of production.
+> _"Cliff's position appears untenable when it is remembered that whatever
+capitalism may or may not entail, what it **is** is a mode of production,
+defined by a certain type of social production relations. If the USSR is
+capitalist simply because it produces weaponry to compete with those countries
+that themselves would have been capitalist even without such competition, then
+one might as well say the same about tribes whose production is directed to
+the provision of tomahawks in the fight against colonialism."_ [**Op. Cit.**,
+p. 65]
+
+Strangely, as a Marxist, Cliff seemed unaware that, for Marx, "competition"
+did not define capitalism. As far as trade goes, the _"character of the
+production process from which [goods] derive is immaterial"_ and so on the
+market commodities come _"from all modes of production"_ (for example, they
+could be _"the produce of production based on slavery, the product of peasants
+. . ., of a community . . . , of state production (such as existed in earlier
+epochs of Russian history, based on serfdom) or half-savage hunting
+peoples"_). [**Capital**, vol. 2, pp. 189-90] This means that trade _"exploits
+a given mode of production but does not create it"_ and so relates _"to the
+mode of production from outside."_ [**Capital**, vol. 3, p. 745] Much the same
+can be said of military competition - it does not define the mode of
+production.
There are other problems with Cliff's argument, namely that it implies that
Lenin's regime was also state capitalist (as anarchists stress, but Leninists
@@ -5974,13 +5943,13 @@ open capitalist firms were not considered suitable for _"direct workers'
management"_ is not explained, but the fact remains Trotsky clearly
differentiated between management and control. For him, _"workers' control"_
meant _"workers supervision"_ over the capitalist who retained power. Thus the
-_"slogan of workers control of production"_ was not equated to actual workers
-control over production. Rather, it was _"a sort of economic dual power"_
-which meant that _"ownership and right of disposition remain in the hands of
-the capitalists."_ This was because it was _"obvious that the power is not yet
-in the hands of the proletariat, otherwise we would have not workers' control
-of production but the control of production by the workers' state as an
-introduction to a regime of state production on the foundations of
+_"slogan of workers’ control of production"_ was not equated to actual
+workers’ control over production. Rather, it was _"a sort of economic dual
+power"_ which meant that _"ownership and right of disposition remain in the
+hands of the capitalists."_ This was because it was _"obvious that the power
+is not yet in the hands of the proletariat, otherwise we would have not
+workers' control of production but the control of production by the workers'
+state as an introduction to a regime of state production on the foundations of
nationalisation."_ [Trotsky, **The Struggle Against Fascism in Germany**, p.
91 and p. 92]
@@ -6064,23 +6033,23 @@ The factory committees were added to this _"state capitalist"_ system but they
played only a very minor role in it. Indeed, this system of state control was
designed to limit the power of the factory committees:
-> _ "One of the first decrees issues by the Bolshevik Government was the
-Decree on Workers' Control of 27 November 1917. By this decree workers'
-control was institutionalised . . . Workers' control implied the persistence
-of private ownership of the means of production, though with a 'diminished'
-right of disposal. The organs of workers' control, the factory committees,
-were not supposed to evolve into workers' management organs after the
-nationalisation of the factories. The hierarchical structure of factory work
-was not questioned by Lenin . . . To the Bolshevik leadership the transfer of
-power to the working class meant power to its leadership, i.e. to the party.
-Central control was the main goal of the Bolshevik leadership. The hasty
-creation of the VSNKh (the Supreme Council of the National Economy) on 1
-December 1917, with precise tasks in the economic field, was a significant
-indication of fact that decentralised management was not among the projects of
-the party, and that the Bolsheviks intended to counterpoise central direction
-of the economy to the possible evolution of workers' control toward self-
-management."_ [Silvana Malle, **The Economic Organisation of War Communism,
-1918-1921**, p. 47]
+> _"One of the first decrees issues by the Bolshevik Government was the Decree
+on Workers' Control of 27 November 1917. By this decree workers' control was
+institutionalised . . . Workers' control implied the persistence of private
+ownership of the means of production, though with a 'diminished' right of
+disposal. The organs of workers' control, the factory committees, were not
+supposed to evolve into workers' management organs after the nationalisation
+of the factories. The hierarchical structure of factory work was not
+questioned by Lenin . . . To the Bolshevik leadership the transfer of power to
+the working class meant power to its leadership, i.e. to the party. Central
+control was the main goal of the Bolshevik leadership. The hasty creation of
+the VSNKh (the Supreme Council of the National Economy) on 1 December 1917,
+with precise tasks in the economic field, was a significant indication of fact
+that decentralised management was not among the projects of the party, and
+that the Bolsheviks intended to counterpoise central direction of the economy
+to the possible evolution of workers' control toward self-management."_
+[Silvana Malle, **The Economic Organisation of War Communism, 1918-1921**, p.
+47]
Once in power, the Bolsheviks soon turned away from even this limited vision
of workers' control and in favour of _"one-man management."_ Lenin raised this
@@ -6187,13 +6156,13 @@ bureaucratic monstrosity of Stalinist and post-Stalinist Russia, yet wishing
to retain some credibility among their working class supporters, various
strands of Bolshevism have sought posthumously to rehabilitate the concept of
'workers' control.'"_ The facts show that between 1917 and 1921 _"all attempts
-by the working class to assert real power over production \- or to transcend
+by the working class to assert real power over production - or to transcend
the narrow role allocated by to it by the Party - were smashed by the
Bolsheviks, after first having been denounced as anarchist or anarcho-
syndicalist deviations. Today workers' control is presented as a sort of sugar
coating to the pill of nationalisation of every Trotskyist or Leninist micro-
bureaucrat on the make. Those who strangled the viable infant are now hawking
-the corpse around "_ [**For Workers' Power**, p. 165] Little has changes since
+the corpse around."_ [**For Workers' Power**, p. 165] Little has changes since
Brinton wrote those words in the 1960s, with Leninists today proclaiming with
a straight face that they stand for "self-management"!
@@ -6208,7 +6177,7 @@ co-operative production is not to remain a shame and a snare; if it is to
supersede the Capitalist system; if united co-operative societies are to
regulate national production upon a common plan, thus taking it under their
own control, and putting an end to the constant anarchy and periodical
-convulsions which are the fatality of Capitalist production \- what else . . .
+convulsions which are the fatality of Capitalist production - what else . . .
would it be but Communism, 'possible' Communism?"_ [**Selected Works**, pp.
290-1] In the 1880s, Engels suggested as a reform the putting of public works
and state-owned land into the hands of workers' co-operatives rather than
@@ -6248,15 +6217,17 @@ designed to marginalise them.
Moreover, the aims of the Paris workers were at odds with the vision of the
**Communist Manifesto** and in line with anarchism - most obviously Proudhon's
demands for workers associations to replace wage labour and what he called, in
-his **Principle of Federation**, an _"agro-industrial federation."_ Thus the
-Commune's idea of co-operative production was a clear expression of what
-Proudhon explicitly called _"industrial democracy,"_ a _"reorganisation of
-industry, under the jurisdiction of all those who compose it."_ [quoted by K.
-Steven Vincent, **Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican
-Socialism**, p. 225] Thus, while Engels (in part) echoes Proudhon's ideas, he
-does not go fully towards a self-managed system of co-operation and co-
-ordination based on the workers' own organisations. Significantly, Bakunin and
-later anarchists simply developed these ideas to their logical conclusion.
+1863, an _"agricultural-industrial federation."_ Thus the Commune's idea of
+co-operative production was a clear expression of what Proudhon called
+_"industrial democracy"_ based on_ "democratically organised workers’
+associations"_ forming a _"vast federation of companies and societies woven
+into the common cloth of the democratic and social Republic"_ (for _"under
+universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments of labour
+is **social** ownership"_). [**Property is Theft!**, p. 711, p. 611, pp.
+377-8] Thus, while Engels (in part) echoes Proudhon's ideas, he does not go
+fully towards a self-managed system of co-operation and co-ordination based on
+the workers' own organisations. Significantly, Bakunin and later anarchists
+simply developed these ideas to their logical conclusion.
Marx, to his credit, supported these libertarian visions when applied in
practice by the Paris workers during the Commune and promptly revised his
@@ -6290,7 +6261,7 @@ country . . . leads to the commune of the future . . . Government is replaced
by the assembled councils of the trade bodies, and by a committee of their
respective delegates."_ In addition, _"a local grouping which allows the
workers in the same area to liase on a day to day basis"_ and _"a linking up
-of the various localities, fields, regions, etc."_ (i.e. international trade
+of the various localities, fields, regions, etc."_ (i.e., international trade
or industrial union federations) would ensure that _"labour organises for
present and future by doing away with wage slavery."_ This _"mode of
organisation leads to the labour representation of the future."_ [**No Gods,
@@ -6325,3 +6296,8 @@ socially and politically. As Bakunin argued, the _"revolution should not only
be made for the people's sake; it should also be made by the people."_ [**No
Gods, No Masters**, vol. 1, p. 141]
+[‹ H.2 What parts of anarchism do Marxists particularly
+misrepresent?](/afaq/secH2.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/secHcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [H.4 Didn't Engels refute
+anarchism in "On Authority"? ›](/afaq/secH4.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secH4.md b/markdown/secH4.md
index 0777587d184ea3c4de5c00a1716eed05cb98c2d9..71c7b28ac0d09e42342714a37d0f0bccb88d274e 100644
--- a/markdown/secH4.md
+++ b/markdown/secH4.md
@@ -94,8 +94,8 @@ 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:
-> _ "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.
+> _"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.
@@ -116,14 +116,12 @@ society. This cannot be compared to making and sticking by a collective
decision reached by free discussion and debate within a self-governing
associations. As Bakunin argued:
-> _ "Discipline, mutual trust as well as unity are all excellent qualities
-when properly understood and practised, but disastrous when abused . . . [one
-use of the word] discipline almost always signifies despotism on the one hand
-and blind automatic submission to authority on the other . . .
+> _"Discipline, mutual trust as well as unity are all excellent qualities when
+properly understood and practised, but disastrous when abused . . . [one use
+of the word] discipline almost always signifies despotism on the one hand and
+blind automatic submission to authority on the other . . . _
->
-
-> "Hostile as I am to [this,] the authoritarian conception of discipline, I
+> _"Hostile as I am to [this,] the authoritarian conception of discipline, I
nevertheless recognise that a certain kind of discipline, not automatic but
voluntary and intelligently understood is, and will ever be, necessary
whenever a greater number of individuals undertake any kind of collective work
@@ -137,11 +135,9 @@ attached to any one person. Hierarchical order and promotion do not exist, so
that the executive of yesterday can become the subordinate of tomorrow. No one
rises above the others, and if he does rise, it is only to fall back again a
moment later, like the waves of the sea forever returning to the salutary
-level of equality.
-
->
+level of equality. _
-> "In such a system, power, properly speaking, no longer exists. Power is
+> _"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
@@ -176,7 +172,7 @@ 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 did. The former is marked by hierarchical power and the
-turning of the subjected into automations performing mechanical movements
+turning of the subjected into automatons 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
@@ -184,12 +180,10 @@ 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:
-> _ "The basic error . . . is in believing that organisation is not possible
-without authority.
+> _"The basic error . . . is in believing that organisation is not possible
+without authority. _
->
-
-> "Now, it seems to us that organisation, that is to say, association for a
+> _"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
@@ -216,7 +210,7 @@ self-management, that working people will create a new discipline what will be
the basis of socialism (the voluntary self-discipline Bakunin talked about).
As Kropotkin memorably put it:
-> _ "Having been brought up in a serf-owner's family, I entered active life,
+> _"Having been brought up in a serf-owner's family, I entered active life,
like all young men of my time, with a great deal of confidence in the
necessity of commanding, ordering, scolding, punishing, and the like. But
when, at an early stage, I had to manage serious enterprises and to deal with
@@ -260,14 +254,12 @@ agreement and _"subordination,"_ then life itself becomes _"authoritarian."_
The only free person, according to Engels' logic, would be the hermit.
Anarchists reject such nonsense. As George Barrett argued:
-> _ "To get the full meaning out of life we must co-operate, and to co-operate
+> _"To get the full meaning out of life we must co-operate, and to co-operate
we must make agreements with our fellow-men. But to suppose that such
agreements mean a limitation of freedom is surely an absurdity; on the
-contrary, they are the exercise of our freedom.
-
->
+contrary, they are the exercise of our freedom. _
-> "If we are going to invent a dogma that to make agreements is to damage
+> _"If we are going to invent a dogma that to make agreements is to damage
freedom, then at once freedom becomes tyrannical, for it forbids men [and
women] to take the most ordinary everyday pleasures. For example, I cannot go
for a walk with my friend because it is against the principle of Liberty that
@@ -276,11 +268,9 @@ cannot in the least extend my own power beyond myself, because to do so I must
co-operate with someone else, and co-operation implies an agreement, and that
is against Liberty. It will be seen at once that this argument is absurd. I do
not limit my liberty, but simply exercise it, when I agree with my friend to
-go for a walk.
+go for a walk. _
->
-
-> "If, on the other hand, I decide from my superior knowledge that it is good
+> _"If, on the other hand, I decide from my superior knowledge that it is good
for my friend to take exercise, and therefore I attempt to compel him to go
for a walk, then I begin to limit freedom. This is the difference between free
agreement and government."_ [**Objections to Anarchism**, pp. 348-9]
@@ -292,7 +282,7 @@ by making decisions and associating with others would become a denial of
liberty. Clearly Engels argument is lacking something!
Perhaps this paradox can be explained once we recognise that Engels is using a
-distinctly liberal view of freedom \- i.e. freedom from. Anarchists reject
+distinctly liberal view of freedom - i.e. freedom from. Anarchists reject
this. We see freedom as holistic - freedom from and freedom to. This means
that freedom is maintained by the kind of relationships we form with others,
**not** by isolation. As Bakunin argued, _"man in isolation can have no
@@ -307,9 +297,9 @@ freedom is impossible outside of association. Within an association absolute
"autonomy" cannot exist, but such a concept of "autonomy" would restrict
freedom to such a degree that it would be so self-defeating as to make a
mockery of the concept of autonomy and no sane person would seek it. To
-requote Malatesta, freedom we want _"is not an absolute metaphysical, abstract
-freedom"_ but _"a real freedom, possible freedom, which is the conscious
-community of interests, voluntary solidarity."_ [**Anarchy**, p. 43]
+requote Malatesta, the freedom we want _"is not an absolute metaphysical,
+abstract freedom"_ but _"a real freedom, possible freedom, which is the
+conscious community of interests, voluntary solidarity."_ [**Anarchy**, p. 43]
To state the obvious, anarchists are well aware that _"anyone who associates
and co-operates with others for a common purpose must feel the need to co-
@@ -322,7 +312,7 @@ inappropriate."_ [Malatesta, **The Anarchist Revolution**, pp. 107-8] For
anarchists, collective organisation and co-operation does not mean the end of
individuality. Bakunin expressed it well:
-> _ "You will think, you will exist, you will act collectively, which
+> _"You will think, you will exist, you will act collectively, which
nevertheless will not prevent in the least the full development of the
intellectual and moral faculties of each individual. Each of you will bring to
you his own talents, and in all joining together you will multiply your value
@@ -424,7 +414,7 @@ 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
+just mean that we have changed the 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
@@ -432,11 +422,11 @@ organised in an anarchist way. A few Marxists have also seen this difference.
For example, Rosa Luxemburg repeated (probably unknowingly) Bakunin's
distinction between forms of discipline and organisation when she argued that:
-> _ "We misuse words and we practice self-deception when we apply the same
-term - discipline - to such dissimilar notions as: (1) the absence of thought
-and will in a body with a thousand automatically moving hands and legs, and
-(2) the spontaneous co-ordination of the conscious, political acts of a body
-of men. What is there in common between the regulated docility of an oppressed
+> _"We misuse words and we practice self-deception when we apply the same term
+- discipline - to such dissimilar notions as: (1) the absence of thought and
+will in a body with a thousand automatically moving hands and legs, and (2)
+the spontaneous co-ordination of the conscious, political acts of a body of
+men. What is there in common between the regulated docility of an oppressed
class and the self-discipline and organisation of a class struggling for its
emancipation? . . . The working class will acquire the sense of the new
discipline, the freely assumed self-discipline of the social democracy, not as
@@ -450,14 +440,12 @@ first 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. As Kropotkin put it:
-> _ "This applies to all forms of association. Cohabitation of two individuals
+> _"This applies to all forms of association. Cohabitation of two individuals
under the same roof may lead to the enslavement of one by the will of the
other, as it may also lead to liberty for both. The same applies to the family
-or . . . to large or small associations, to each social institution . . .
-
->
+or . . . to large or small associations, to each social institution . . . _
-> "Communism is capable of assuming all forms of freedom or of oppression -
+> _"Communism is capable of assuming all forms of freedom or of oppression -
which other institutions are unable to do. It may produce a monastery where
all implicitly obey the orders of their superior, and it may produce an
absolutely free organisation, leaving his full freedom to the individual,
@@ -498,7 +486,7 @@ organised federations of industrial and agricultural workers."_ [**Bakunin on
Anarchism**, p. 399 and p. 400] Which meant that Bakunin, like all anarchists,
was well aware of how a factory or other workplace would be organised:
-> _ "Only associated labour, that is, labour organised upon the principles of
+> _"Only associated labour, that is, labour organised upon the principles of
reciprocity and co-operation, is adequate to the task of maintaining . . .
civilised society."_ [**The Political Philosophy of Bakunin**, p. 341]
@@ -530,20 +518,20 @@ about their work (workers' self-management, to use modern terminology). This
did not necessitate the same authoritarian social relationships as exist under
capitalism:
-> _ "Of course in every large collective undertaking, a division of labour,
+> _"Of course in every large collective undertaking, a division of labour,
technical management, administration, etc., is necessary. But authoritarians
-clumsily play on words to produce a **raison d'tre** for government out of the
-very real need for the organisation of work. Government . . . is the concourse
-of individuals who have had, or have seized, the right and the means to make
-laws and to oblige people to obey; the administrator, the engineer, etc.,
-instead are people who are appointed or assume the responsibility to carry out
-a particular job and do so. Government means the delegation of power, that is
-the abdication of initiative and sovereignty of all into the hands of a few;
-administration means the delegation of work, that is tasks given and received,
-free exchange of services based on free agreement. . . Let one not confuse the
-function of government with that of administration, for they are essentially
-different, and if today the two are often confused, it is only because of
-economic and political privilege."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 41-2]
+clumsily play on words to produce a **raison d'être** for government out of
+the very real need for the organisation of work. Government . . . is the
+concourse of individuals who have had, or have seized, the right and the means
+to make laws and to oblige people to obey; the administrator, the engineer,
+etc., instead are people who are appointed or assume the responsibility to
+carry out a particular job and do so. Government means the delegation of
+power, that is the abdication of initiative and sovereignty of all into the
+hands of a few; administration means the delegation of work, that is tasks
+given and received, free exchange of services based on free agreement. . . Let
+one not confuse the function of government with that of administration, for
+they are essentially different, and if today the two are often confused, it is
+only because of economic and political privilege."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 41-2]
For a given task, co-operation and joint activity may be required by its very
nature. Take, for example, a train network. The joint activity of numerous
@@ -607,7 +595,7 @@ all, 'just following the rules.'"_ The British anarcho-syndicalists of the
**Direct Action Movement** agreed and even quoted an industrial expert on the
situation:
-> _ "If managers' orders were completely obeyed, confusion would result and
+> _"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
@@ -620,7 +608,7 @@ 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:
-> _ "Even the simplest repetitive job demands a certain minimum of initiative
+> _"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
@@ -647,20 +635,18 @@ that could never be codified. By merely following the rules meticulously, the
workforce can virtually halt production."_ [James C. Scott, **Seeing like a
State**, p. 6] As Cornelius Castoriadis argued:
-> _ "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
+> _"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.
+mistakes, etc. _
->
-
-> "Under 'normal' conditions of exploitation, workers are torn between the
+> _"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
@@ -692,19 +678,19 @@ G. Rosenberg, _"The Social Background to Tsektran"_, pp. 349-373, **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] There can be no better way
-to cripple an economy than to impose Lenin's demand that the task of workers
-was that of _"unquestioningly obeying the will of the Soviet leader, of the
-dictator, **during** the work."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 27, p. 270]
+and, unsurprisingly, a few months after Trotsky subjected 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] There can be no better way to cripple an
+economy than to impose Lenin's demand that the task of workers was that of
+_"unquestioningly obeying the will of the Soviet leader, of the dictator,
+**during** the work."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 27, p. 270]
As the experience of workers' in struggle shows, it is the **abolition** of
autonomy which ensures the abolition of large-scale industry, not its
exercise. 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 our ability to make decisions
+struggle. As any worker knows, it is only our ability to make decisions
autonomously that keeps industry going.
Rather than abolishing authority making large-scale industry impossible, it is
@@ -717,7 +703,7 @@ replaced by collective self-discipline.
## H.4.5 Is the way industry operates _"independent of all social
organisation"_?
-As noted in the [last section](secH4.html#sech45), Engels argued that applying
+As noted in the [last section](secH4.html#sech44), 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."_
@@ -730,7 +716,7 @@ Rather it has been shaped by the class struggle along with technology (which
is often a weapon in that conflict - see [section D.10](secD10.html)). As
Castoriadis argued:
-> _ "Management organises production with a view of achieving 'maximum
+> _"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
@@ -742,11 +728,9 @@ 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.
-
->
+machine increased production. _
-> "The workers are by no means helpless in this struggle. They constantly
+> _"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]
@@ -811,33 +795,29 @@ 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, Prez Farras,
-a professional soldier, was concerned about the application of libertarian
-principles to military organisation. Durruti replied:
+One was lead by anarchist militant Durruti. His military adviser, Pérez
+Farras, a professional soldier, was concerned about the application of
+libertarian principles to military organisation. Durruti replied:
-> _ "I've said it once and I'll say it again: I've been an anarchist my entire
+> _"I've said it once and I'll say it again: I've been an anarchist my entire
life and the fact that I'm responsible for this human collectivity won't
change my convictions. It was as an anarchist that I agreed to carry out the
-task that the Central Committee of the Anti-Fascist Militias entrusted me.
+task that the Central Committee of the Anti-Fascist Militias entrusted me. _
->
-
-> "I don't believe - and everything happening around us confirms this - that
+> _"I don't believe - and everything happening around us confirms this - that
you can run a workers' militia according to classic military rules. I believe
that discipline, co-ordination, and planning are indispensable, but we
shouldn't define them in terms taken from the world that we're destroying. We
have to build on new foundations. My comrades and I are convinced that
solidarity is the best incentive for arousing an individual's sense of
responsibility and a willingness to accept discipline as an act of self-
-discipline.
-
->
+discipline. _
-> "War has been imposed upon us . . . but our goal is revolutionary victory.
+> _"War has been imposed upon us . . . but our goal is revolutionary victory.
This means defeating the enemy, but also a radical change in men. For that
change to occur, man must learn to live and conduct himself as a free man, an
apprenticeship that develops his personality and sense of responsibility, his
-capacity to be master of his own acts. The workers on the job not only
+capacity to be master of his own acts. The worker on the job not only
transforms the material on which he works, but also transforms himself through
that work. The combatant is nothing more than a worker whose tool is a rifle -
and he should strive toward the same objective as a worker. One can't behave
@@ -846,7 +826,7 @@ importance of what he's doing. I know that it's not easy to achieve this, but
I also know that what can't be accomplished with reason will not be obtained
by force. If we have to sustain our military apparatus by fear, then we won't
have changed anything except the colour of the fear. It's only by freeing
-itself from free that society can build itself in freedom."_ [quoted by Abel
+itself from fear that society can build itself in freedom."_ [quoted by Abel
Paz, **Durruti: In The Spanish Revolution**, p. 474]
Is it really convincing to argue that the individuals who made up the militia
@@ -878,7 +858,7 @@ 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 were not a
specific set of relationships between **humans.** As Bookchin argued:
-> _ "To Engels, the factory is a natural fact of technics, not a specifically
+> _"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
@@ -888,7 +868,7 @@ 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]
+[**Toward an Ecological Society**, p. 206]
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
@@ -934,7 +914,7 @@ 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
+both Engels and Lenin argued. Little wonder, then, the worker became the serf
of the state under the Bolsheviks. 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.
@@ -984,10 +964,10 @@ operation of many people, could function without a certain amount of
subordination, without some authority or power."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 316] Now,
however, he argued that communism would involve no _"subordination"_ while, at
the same time, be based on the _"the principle of the subordination of the
-minority to the majority"_! A contradiction? Perhaps no, as he argued that the
-minority would _"become accustomed"_ to the conditions of _"social life"_ \-
-in other words the recognition that sticking to your agreements you make with
-others does not involve "subordination." This, ironically, would confirm
+minority to the majority"_! A contradiction? Perhaps not, as he argued that
+the minority would _"become accustomed"_ to the conditions of _"social life"_
+\- in other words the recognition that sticking to your agreements you make
+with others does not involve "subordination." This, ironically, would confirm
anarchist ideas as we argue that making agreements with others, as equals,
does not involve domination or subordination but rather is an expression of
autonomy, of liberty.
@@ -1010,10 +990,10 @@ the _"veritable despotism"_ of modern industry!
As can be seen from both Engels and Lenin, we have a contradiction within
Marxism. On the one hand, they argue that authority (_"subjection"_) will
always be with us, no matter what, as _"subordination"_ and _"authority"_ is
-independent of the specific social society we live in. On the other, they
-argue that Marxist socialism will be without a state, _"without
-subordination"_, _"without force"_ and will end the _"subjection of men to
-their own means of production."_ The two positions cannot be reconciled.
+independent of the specific society we live in. On the other, they argue that
+Marxist socialism will be without a state, _"without subordination"_,
+_"without force"_ and will end the _"subjection of men to their own means of
+production."_ The two positions cannot be reconciled.
Simply put, if **"On Authority"** is correct then, logically, it means that
not only is anarchism impossible but also Marxist socialism. Lenin and Engels
@@ -1037,7 +1017,7 @@ then what does that mean for Lenin's aim to ensure _"the transformation of the
whole state economic mechanism into a single huge machine . . . as to enable
hundreds of millions of people to be guided by a single plan?"_ [**Collected
Works**, vol. 27, pp. 90-1] Surely such an economy would be, to use Engels'
-words, a _"a veritable despotism"_?
+words, _"a veritable despotism"_?
The only possible solution is reducing the working day to a minimum and so the
time spent as a slave to the machine (and plan) is reduced. The idea that work
@@ -1046,7 +1026,7 @@ automatically destroyed by Engels' argument. Like capitalism, Marxist-
Socialism is based on "work is hell" and the domination of the producer.
Hardly an inspiring vision of the future.
-## H.4.7 Is revolution _"the most authoritarian thing there is"_?
+## H.4.7 Is revolution "the most authoritarian thing there is"?
As well as the argument that "authority" is essential for every collective
activity, Engels raises another argument against anarchism. This second
@@ -1065,8 +1045,8 @@ Engels fails to indicate the nature of class society and, therefore, of a
social revolution. In a class society _"one part of the population"_
constantly _"imposes its will upon the other part"_ \- those with power impose
their decisions to those beneath them in the social hierarchy. In other words,
-the ruling class imposes its will on the working class everyday in work by the
-hierarchical structure of the workplace and in society by the state.
+the ruling class imposes its will on the working class everyday, in work by
+the hierarchical structure of the workplace and in society by the state.
Discussing the "population" as if it were not divided by classes and so
subject to specific forms of authoritarian social relationships is liberal
nonsense.
@@ -1079,35 +1059,28 @@ other words, it is an act of **liberation** in which the hierarchical power of
the few over the many is eliminated and replaced by the freedom of the many to
control their own lives. It is hardly authoritarian to destroy authority! Thus
a social revolution is, fundamentally, an act of liberation for the oppressed
-who act in their own interests to end the system in which _"one part of
-population imposes its will upon the other"_ everyday.
+who act in their own interests to end the system in which _"one part of the
+population imposes its will upon the other"_ everyday. Malatesta stated the
+obvious:
-Malatesta stated the obvious:
-
-> _ "To fight our enemies effectively, we do not need to deny the principle of
+> _"To fight our enemies effectively, we do not need to deny the principle of
freedom, not even for one moment: it is sufficient for us to want real freedom
-and to want it for all, for ourselves as well as for others.
-
->
+and to want it for all, for ourselves as well as for others. _
-> "We want to expropriate the property-owning class, and with violence, since
+> _"We want to expropriate the property-owning class, and with violence, since
it is with violence that they hold on to social wealth and use it to exploit
the working class. Not because freedom is a good thing for the future, but
because it is a good thing, today as well as tomorrow, and the property
-owners, be denying us the means of exercising our freedom, in effect, take it
-away from us.
+owners, by denying us the means of exercising our freedom, in effect, take it
+away from us. _
->
-
-> "We want to overthrow the government, all governments - and overthrow them
+> _"We want to overthrow the government, all governments - and overthrow them
with violence since it is by the use of violence that they force us into
obeying - and once again, not because we sneer at freedom when it does not
serve our interests but because governments are the negation of freedom and it
-is not possible to be free without getting rid of them . . .
-
->
+is not possible to be free without getting rid of them . . . _
-> "The freedom to oppress, to exploit . . . is the denial of freedom: and the
+> _"The freedom to oppress, to exploit . . . is the denial of freedom: and the
fact that our enemies make irrelevant and hypocritical use of the word freedom
is not enough to make us deny the principle of freedom which is the
outstanding characteristic of our movement and a permanent, constant and
@@ -1131,7 +1104,7 @@ their position at the bottom of the social hierarchy.
To equate the defence of freedom with "authority" is, in anarchist eyes, an
expression of confused politics. Ultimately, Engels is like the liberal who
-equates the violence of the oppressed to end oppression with that the
+equates the violence of the oppressed to end oppression with that of the
oppressors!
Needless to say, this applies to the class struggle as well. Is, for example,
@@ -1157,11 +1130,11 @@ created). Such a situation can only spell death of a social revolution, which
requires the active participation of all if it is to succeed. It also,
incidentally, exposes a central fallacy of Marxism, namely that it claims to
desire a society based on the participation of everyone yet favours a form of
-organisation - centralisation \- that excludes that participation.
+organisation - centralisation - that excludes that participation.
Georges Fontenis summarises anarchist ideas on this subject when he wrote:
-> _ "And so against the idea of State, where power is exercised by a
+> _"And so against the idea of State, where power is exercised by a
specialised group isolated from the masses, we put the idea of direct workers
power, where accountable and controlled elected delegates (who can be recalled
at any time and are remunerated at the same rate as other workers) replace
@@ -1182,3 +1155,8 @@ that exist between these groups (classes) and the relations of authority
between them which the revolution is seeking to overthrow. As such, Engels
critique totally misses the point.
+[‹ H.3 What are the myths of state socialism?](/afaq/secH3.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secHcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [H.5 What is
+vanguardism and why do anarchists reject it? ›](/afaq/secH5.html "Go to next
+page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secH5.md b/markdown/secH5.md
index 9cafe4a2606d53ae6feb35ed1b526b1a5b8ab0f3..7bbbde71ab0d4cc128091665e393e4bb78cb61ee 100644
--- a/markdown/secH5.md
+++ b/markdown/secH5.md
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ still primarily feudal and absolutist. The lessons learned from years of
struggle in actual capitalist societies were simply rejected in favour of
those from a party operating under Tsarism. While most supporters of
vanguardism will admit that conditions now are different than in Tsarist
-Russia, they still subscribe to organisational method developed in that
+Russia, they still subscribe to organisational methods developed in that
context and justify it, ironically enough, because of its "success" in the
totally different conditions that prevailed in Russia in the early 20th
Century! And Leninists claim to be materialists!
@@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ _"[i]solated from Social-Democracy, the working class movement becomes petty
and inevitably becomes bourgeois."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 4, p. 368] In
**What is to be Done?**, he expands on this position:
-> _ "Class political consciousness can be brought to the workers **only from
+> _"Class political consciousness can be brought to the workers **only from
without,** that is, only outside of the economic struggle, outside the sphere
of relations between workers and employers. The sphere from which alone it is
possible to obtain this knowledge is the sphere of relationships between
@@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ proletarian class struggle from without."_ [quoted by Lenin, **Op. Cit.**, pp.
So Lenin, it must be stressed, was not inventing anything new here. He was
simply repeating the orthodox Marxist position and, as is obvious,
wholeheartedly agreed with Kautsky's pronouncements (any attempt to claim that
-he did not or later rejected it is nonsense, as we prove in [section
+he did not or later rejected them is nonsense, as we prove in [section
H.5.4](secH5.html#sech54)). Lenin, with his usual modesty, claimed to speak on
behalf of the workers when he wrote that _"intellectuals must talk to us, and
tell us more about what we do not know and what we can never learn from our
@@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ necessity, dependent on others to shape and form its movements. To quote
Trotsky's telling analogy on the respective roles of party and class, leaders
and led:
-> _ "Without a guiding organisation, the energy of the masses would dissipate
+> _"Without a guiding organisation, the energy of the masses would dissipate
like steam not enclosed in a piston. But nevertheless, what moves things is
not the piston or the box, but the steam."_ [**History of the Russian
Revolution**, vol. 1, p. 17]
@@ -214,7 +214,7 @@ force gave them direction (instructions).
Libertarian socialist Cornelius Castoriadis provides a good critique of the
implications of the Leninist position:
-> _ "No positive content, nothing new capable of providing the foundation for
+> _"No positive content, nothing new capable of providing the foundation for
the reconstruction of society could arise out of a mere awareness of poverty.
From the experience of life under capitalism the proletariat could derive no
new principles either for organising this new society or for orientating it in
@@ -249,7 +249,7 @@ embodies _"socialist consciousness"_ (and this arises outside the working
class and its struggles) then opposition of the working class to the party
signifies a failure of the class to resist alien influences. As Lenin put it:
-> _ "Since there can be no talk of an independent ideology being developed by
+> _"Since there can be no talk of an independent ideology being developed by
the masses of the workers in the process of their movement, **the only choice
is**: either bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle course . . .
Hence, to belittle socialist ideology **in any way,** to **deviate from it in
@@ -327,7 +327,7 @@ Bolsheviks and Workers' Control**, p. xi and p. xii]
Bakunin expressed the implications of the vanguardist perspective extremely
well. It is worthwhile quoting him at length:
-> _ "Idealists of all sorts, metaphysicians, positivists, those who uphold the
+> _"Idealists of all sorts, metaphysicians, positivists, those who uphold the
priority of science over life, the doctrinaire revolutionists - all of them
champion with equal zeal although differing in their argumentation, the idea
of the State and State power, seeing in them, quite logically from their point
@@ -365,7 +365,7 @@ theories derived from such experiences.
The category of _"economic struggle"_ corresponds to no known social reality.
Every _"economic"_ struggle is _"political"_ in some sense and those involved
can, and do, learn political lessons from them. As Kropotkin noted in the
-1880s, there _"is almost no serious strike which occurs together with the
+1880s, there _"is almost no serious strike which occurs today without the
appearance of troops, the exchange of blows and some acts of revolt. Here they
fight with the troops; there they march on the factories . . . Thanks to
government intervention the rebel against the factory becomes the rebel
@@ -394,7 +394,7 @@ This tendency for the _"professional"_ revolutionary to be subject to
bourgeois influences can continually be seen from the history of the Bolshevik
party. As Trotsky himself noted:
-> _ "It should not be forgotten that the political machine of the Bolshevik
+> _"It should not be forgotten that the political machine of the Bolshevik
Party was predominantly made up of the intelligentsia, which was petty
bourgeois in its origin and conditions of life and Marxist in its ideas and in
its relations with the proletariat. Workers who turned professional
@@ -438,8 +438,8 @@ same intelligentsia which up until then had played the leading role in the
Party and had given political consciousness to the working class. In his
words:
-> _ "For the factory, which seems only a bogey to some, represents that
-highest form of capitalist co-operation which has united and disciplined the
+> _"For the factory, which seems only a bogey to some, represents that highest
+form of capitalist co-operation which has united and disciplined the
proletariat, taught it to organise . . . And it is Marxism, the ideology of
the proletariat trained by capitalism, has been and is teaching . . . unstable
intellectuals to distinguish between the factory as a means of exploitation
@@ -527,7 +527,7 @@ working class, must not be confused with the entire class."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p.
22] For this reason, the party must be organised in a specific manner which
reflect his Leninist assumptions:
-> _ "The alternative [to the vanguard party] is the 'marsh' - where elements
+> _"The alternative [to the vanguard party] is the 'marsh' - where elements
motivated by scientific precision are so mixed up with those who are
irremediably confused as to prevent any decisive action, effectively allowing
the most backward to lead."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 30]
@@ -542,7 +542,7 @@ class will take an active part in the decision making process during the
revolution (although the level of this _"involvement"_ is unspecified,
probably for good reasons as we explain). If this **is** the case, then the
problem of the mass party reappears, but in a new form (we must also note that
-this problem must have also appearing in 1917, when the Bolshevik party opened
+this problem must have also appeared in 1917, when the Bolshevik party opened
its doors to become a mass party).
As the _"organisations that constitute the state"_ are made up of the working
@@ -593,7 +593,7 @@ constitute the state,"_ the party (in practice, its leadership) will hold
power. And for Trotsky, this substitution of the party for the class was
inevitable:
-> _ "We have more than once been accused of having substituted for the
+> _"We have more than once been accused of having substituted for the
dictatorship of the Soviets the dictatorship of our party. Yet it can be said
with complete justice that the dictatorship of the Soviets became possible
only by means of the dictatorship of the party. It is thanks to the clarity of
@@ -628,8 +628,8 @@ must rule over the party machine, which in turn rules over the party members,
who, in turn, rule over the workers. This logical chain was, ironically
enough, recognised by Trotsky in 1904 in his polemic against Lenin:
-> _ "The organisation of the party substitutes itself for the party as a
-whole; then the central committee substitutes itself for the organisation; and
+> _"The organisation of the party substitutes itself for the party as a whole;
+then the central committee substitutes itself for the organisation; and
finally the 'dictator' substitutes himself for the central committee."_
[quoted by Harman, **Op. Cit.**, p. 22]
@@ -721,7 +721,7 @@ Our differences with vanguardism could not be more clear.
Vanguardism rests on the premise that the working class cannot emancipate
itself. As such, the ideas of Lenin as expounded in **What is to be Done?**
-(**WITBD**) contradicts the key idea of Marx that the emancipation of the
+(**WITBD**) contradict the key idea of Marx that the emancipation of the
working class is the task of the working class itself. Thus the paradox of
Leninism. On the one hand, it subscribes to an ideology allegedly based on
working class self-liberation. On the other, the founder of that school wrote
@@ -840,15 +840,13 @@ as he is a _"socialist theoretician"_ and not a worker! How clear can you be?
This can be seen from the rest of the sentence Draper truncates. Lenin
continued by noting that people like Proudhon _"take part only to the extent
that they are able, more or less, to acquire the knowledge of their age and
-advance that knowledge."_ {
-
-Op. Cit.**, p. 82f] In other words, insofar as they learn from the _"vehicles
-of science."_ Neither Kautsky or Lenin denied that it was possible for workers
-to acquire such knowledge and pass it on (sometimes even develop it). However
-this does **not** mean that they thought workers, as part of their daily life
-and struggle **as workers,** could develop _"socialist theory."_ Thus Lenin's
-footnote reiterated Kautsky's argument rather than, as Draper hoped, refute
-it.
+advance that knowledge."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 82f] In other words, insofar as
+they learn from the _"vehicles of science."_ Neither Kautsky or Lenin denied
+that it was possible for workers to acquire such knowledge and pass it on
+(sometimes even develop it). However this does **not** mean that they thought
+workers, as part of their daily life and struggle **as workers,** could
+develop _"socialist theory."_ Thus Lenin's footnote reiterated Kautsky's
+argument rather than, as Draper hoped, refute it.
Draper turns to another footnote, which he noted _"was not directly tied to
the Kautsky article, but discussed the 'spontaneity' of the socialist idea.
@@ -903,21 +901,21 @@ take in 1907 when he wrote an introduction to a book which contained **What is
to Be Done?**.
In contradiction to Draper's claim, Lenin **did** return to this matter. In
-October 1905 he wrote an a short article in praise of an article by Stalin on
+October 1905 he wrote a short article in praise of an article by Stalin on
this very subject. Stalin had sought to explain Lenin's ideas to the Georgian
Social-Democracy and, like Lenin, had sought to root the argument in Marxist
orthodoxy (partly to justify the argument, partly to expose the Menshevik
opposition as being non-Marxists). Stalin argued along similar lines to Lenin:
-> _ "the question now is: who works out, who is able to work out this
-socialist consciousness (i.e. scientific socialism)? Kautsky says, and I
-repeat his idea, that the masses of proletarians, as long as they remain
-proletarians, have neither the time nor the opportunity to work out socialist
-consciousness . . . The vehicles of science are the intellectuals . . . who
-have both the time and opportunity to put themselves in the van of science and
-workout socialist consciousness. Clearly, socialist consciousness is worked
-out by a few Social-Democratic intellectuals who posses the time and
-opportunity to do so."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 1, p. 164]
+> _"the question now is: who works out, who is able to work out this socialist
+consciousness (i.e. scientific socialism)? Kautsky says, and I repeat his
+idea, that the masses of proletarians, as long as they remain proletarians,
+have neither the time nor the opportunity to work out socialist consciousness
+. . . The vehicles of science are the intellectuals . . . who have both the
+time and opportunity to put themselves in the van of science and workout
+socialist consciousness. Clearly, socialist consciousness is worked out by a
+few Social-Democratic intellectuals who posses the time and opportunity to do
+so."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. 1, p. 164]
Stalin stressed the Marxist orthodoxy by stating Social-Democracy _"comes in
and introduces socialist consciousness into the working class movement. This
@@ -927,7 +925,7 @@ pp. 164-5] That Stalin was simply repeating Lenin's and Kautsky's arguments is
clear, as is the fact it was considered the orthodox position within social-
democracy.
-If Draper was right, then Lenin would have taken the opportunity to attack
+If Draper were right, then Lenin would have taken the opportunity to attack
Stalin's article and express the alternative viewpoint Draper was convinced he
held. Lenin, however, put pen to paper to **praise** Stalin's work, noting
_"the splendid way in which the problem of the celebrated 'introduction of a
@@ -989,7 +987,7 @@ socialist movement will be repeating the party ideology, as developed by
intellectuals in the past. If they **do** develop new theory, it would be, as
Lenin stressed, _"not as workers, but as socialist theoreticians"_ and so
socialist consciousness still does not derive from their own class
-experiences. This places the party in a privileged position vis--vis the
+experiences. This places the party in a privileged position vis-à-vis the
working class and so the elitism remains.
Somewhat ironically given how much Draper is at pains to distance his hero
@@ -1074,7 +1072,7 @@ that Leninism was (and still is) a "radical" offshoot of this movement, this
should come as no surprise. However, Draper's comments remind us how religious
many forms of Marxism are - why do we need facts when we have the true faith?
-## H.5.5 What is _"democratic centralism"_?
+## H.5.5 What is "democratic centralism"?
Anarchists oppose vanguardism for three reasons, one of which is the way it
recommends how revolutionaries should organise to influence the class
@@ -1093,7 +1091,7 @@ is not all, as well as being _"centralised,"_ the party is also meant to be
democratic, hence the expression _"democratic centralism."_ On this the
resolution states:
-> _ "The Communist Party must be organised on the basis of democratic
+> _"The Communist Party must be organised on the basis of democratic
centralism. The most important principle of democratic centralism is election
of the higher party organs by the lowest, the fact that all instructions by a
superior body are unconditionally and necessarily binding on lower ones, and
@@ -1137,9 +1135,7 @@ factory. We must arrange that he be maintained by the Party, that he may in
due time go underground."_ [**Essential Works of Lenin**, p. 158, p. 153, p.
147, p. 148 and p. 155]
-
-
- Thus the full time professional revolutionaries are drawn from all classes
+Thus the full time professional revolutionaries are drawn from all classes
into the party apparatus. However, in practice the majority of such full-
timers were/are middle class. Trotsky noted that _"just as in the Bolshevik
committees, so at the [1905] Congress itself, there were almost no workingmen.
@@ -1152,9 +1148,7 @@ existent. However, regardless of their original class background what unites
the full-timers is not their origin but rather their current relationship with
the working class, one of separation and hierarchy.
-
-
- The organisational structure of this system was made clear at around the same
+The organisational structure of this system was made clear at around the same
time as **What is to be Done?**, with Lenin arguing that the factory group (or
cell) of the party _"must consist of a small number of **revolutionaries,**
receiving **direct from the [central] committee** orders and power to conduct
@@ -1168,9 +1162,7 @@ proposed by Lenin and agreed to by the Comintern in 1920 is obvious. Thus we
have a highly centralised party, one run by _"professional revolutionaries"_
from the top down.
-
-
- It will be objected that Lenin was discussing the means of party building
+It will be objected that Lenin was discussing the means of party building
under Tsarism and advocated wider democracy under legality. However, given
that in 1920 he universalised the Bolshevik experience and urged the creation
of a dual party structure (based on legal and illegal structures), his
@@ -1191,9 +1183,7 @@ them _"understand the necessity for representative institutions"_ and _"full-
time professional officials."_ [**Essential Works of Lenin**, p. 161 and pp.
162-3]
-
-
- Needless to say, Lenin linked this to Kautsky, who _"shows the need for
+Needless to say, Lenin linked this to Kautsky, who _"shows the need for
**professional** journalists, parliamentarians, etc., for the Social-
Democratic leadership of the proletarian class struggle"_ and who _"attacks
the 'socialism of anarchists and **litterateurs**' who . . . proclaim the
@@ -1215,9 +1205,7 @@ of electing leaders and any attempt to widen the input of ordinary members is
simply an expression of workers who need educating from their _"primitive"_
failings!
-
-
- In summary, we have a model of a _"revolutionary"_ party which is based on
+In summary, we have a model of a _"revolutionary"_ party which is based on
full-time _"professional revolutionaries"_ in which the concept of direct
democracy is replaced by a system of, at best, representative democracy. It is
highly centralised, as befitting a specialised organisation. As noted in
@@ -1230,20 +1218,16 @@ in 1902 and in 1920 he advocated a similar hierarchical and top-down
organisation with a dual secret and public organisation in the **Communist
International**. The continuity of ideas is clear.
+## H.5.6 Why do anarchists oppose _"democratic centralism"_?
-
- ## H.5.6 Why do anarchists oppose _"democratic centralism"_?
-
-
-
- What to make of Lenin's suggested model of _"democratic centralism"_
-discussed in the [last section](secH5.html#sech55)? It is, to use Cornelius
-Castoriadis's term, a _"revolutionary party organised on a capitalist manner"_
+What to make of Lenin's suggested model of _"democratic centralism"_ discussed
+in the [last section](secH5.html#sech55)? It is, to use Cornelius
+Castoriadis's term, a _"revolutionary party organised in a capitalist manner"_
and so in practice the _"democratic centralist"_ party, while being
centralised, will not be very democratic. In fact, the level of democracy
would reflect that in a capitalist republic rather than a socialist society:
-> _ "The dividing up of tasks, which is indispensable wherever there is a need
+> _"The dividing up of tasks, which is indispensable wherever there is a need
for co-operation, becomes a real division of labour, the labour of giving
orders being separate from that of carrying them out . . . this division
between directors and executants tends to broaden and deepen by itself. The
@@ -1253,9 +1237,9 @@ information, of the general view of the situation, and of the problems of
organisation, arrested in their development by their lack of participation in
the overall life of the Party, the organisation's rank-and-file militants less
and less have the means or the possibility of having any control over those at
-the top.
+the top. _
-"This division of labour is supposed to be limited by 'democracy.' But
+> _"This division of labour is supposed to be limited by 'democracy.' But
democracy, which should mean that **the majority rules,** is reduced to
meaning that the majority **designates its rulers;** copied in this way from
the model of bourgeois parliamentary democracy, drained of any real meaning,
@@ -1263,9 +1247,9 @@ it quickly becomes a veil thrown over the unlimited power of the rulers. The
base does not run the organisation just because once a year it elects
delegates who designate the central committee, no more than the people are
sovereign in a parliamentary-type republic because they periodically elect
-deputies who designate the government.
+deputies who designate the government. _
-"Let us consider, for example, 'democratic centralism' as it is supposed to
+> _"Let us consider, for example, 'democratic centralism' as it is supposed to
function in an ideal Leninist party. That the central committee is designated
by a 'democratically elected' congress makes no difference since, once it is
elected, it has complete (statutory) control over the body of the Party (and
@@ -1285,11 +1269,9 @@ general problems the specific task and permanent work of a separate category
of militants, only their opinion will, or will appear, to count to the
others."_ [Castoriadis, **Social and Political Writings**, vol. 2, pp. 204-5]
-
-
- Castoriadis' insight is important and strikes at the heart of the problem
-with vanguard parties. They simply reflect the capitalist society they claim
-to represent. As such, Lenin's argument against _"primitive"_ democracy in the
+Castoriadis' insight is important and strikes at the heart of the problem with
+vanguard parties. They simply reflect the capitalist society they claim to
+oppose. As such, Lenin's argument against _"primitive"_ democracy in the
revolutionary and labour movements is significant. When he asserts that those
who argue for direct democracy _"completely"_ fail to _"understand that in
modern society this principle can have only a relative application,"_ he is
@@ -1304,9 +1286,7 @@ Can we postpone the application of our ideas until _"after the revolution"_ or
can the revolution only occur when we apply our socialist principles in
resisting class society?
-
-
- In a nutshell, can the same set of organisational structures be used for the
+In a nutshell, can the same set of organisational structures be used for the
different ends? Can bourgeois structures be considered neutral or have they,
in fact, evolved to ensure and protect minority rule? Ultimately, form and
content are not independent of each other. Form and content adapt to fit each
@@ -1316,9 +1296,7 @@ with their specific form of class society. Neither centralisation and
representation can undermine minority rule and, if they did, they would
quickly be eliminated.
-
-
- Interestingly, both Bukharin and Trotsky acknowledged that fascism had
+Interestingly, both Bukharin and Trotsky acknowledged that fascism had
appropriated Bolshevik ideas. The former demonstrated at the 12th Congress of
the Communist Party in 1923 how Italian fascism had _"adopted and applied in
practice the experiences of the Russian revolution"_ in terms of their
@@ -1338,9 +1316,7 @@ fascism. After all, no one has detected a tendency of Hitler or Mussolini, in
their crusade against democracy, the organised labour movement and the left,
to imitate the organisational principles of anarchism.
-
-
- Surely we can expect decisive structural differences to exist between
+Surely we can expect decisive structural differences to exist between
capitalism and socialism if these societies are to have different aims. Where
one is centralised to facilitate minority rule, the other must be
decentralised and federal to facilitate mass participation. Where one is top-
@@ -1349,16 +1325,14 @@ uses bourgeois organisational elements then we should not be surprised if it
turns out to be socialist in name only. The same applies to revolutionary
organisations. As the anarchists of **Trotwatch** explain:
-> _ "In reality, a Leninist Party simply reproduces and institutionalises
+> _"In reality, a Leninist Party simply reproduces and institutionalises
existing capitalist power relations inside a supposedly 'revolutionary'
organisation: between leaders and led; order givers and order takers; between
specialists and the acquiescent and largely powerless party workers. And that
elitist power relation is extended to include the relationship between the
party and class."_ [**Carry on Recruiting!**, p. 41]
-
-
- If you have an organisation which celebrates centralisation, having an
+If you have an organisation which celebrates centralisation, having an
institutionalised _"leadership"_ separate from the mass of members becomes
inevitable. Thus the division of labour which exists in the capitalist
workplace or state is created. Forms cannot and do not exist independently of
@@ -1372,9 +1346,7 @@ and experimenting with forms such as libertarian labour organisations, which
put into practice, through struggle against exploitation, principles of
equality and free association."_ [John Clark, **The Anarchist Moment**, p. 79]
-
-
- As noted above, a _"democratic centralist"_ party requires that the _"lower"_
+As noted above, a _"democratic centralist"_ party requires that the _"lower"_
party bodies (cells, branches, etc.) should be subordinate to the higher ones
(e.g. the central committee). The higher bodies are elected at the (usually)
annual conference. As it is impossible to mandate for future developments, the
@@ -1386,7 +1358,7 @@ committee. At the next conference, the party membership can show its approval
of the leadership by electing another. The problems with this scheme are
numerous:
-> _ "The first problem is the issue of hierarchy. Why should 'higher' party
+> _"The first problem is the issue of hierarchy. Why should 'higher' party
organs interpret party policy any more accurately than 'lower' ones? The pat
answer is that the 'higher' bodies compromise the most capable and experienced
members and are (from their lofty heights) in a better position to take an
@@ -1397,9 +1369,7 @@ fact than many central committee members are full timers and therefore
detached from more real issues such as making a living . . ."_ [ACF, **Marxism
and its Failures**, p. 8]
-
-
- Equally, in order that the _"higher"_ bodies can evaluate the situation they
+Equally, in order that the _"higher"_ bodies can evaluate the situation they
need effective information from the _"lower"_ bodies. If the _"lower"_ bodies
are deemed incapable of formulating their own policies, how can they be wise
enough, firstly, to select the right leaders and, secondly, determine the
@@ -1411,10 +1381,8 @@ decisions which are reached at the top are made in ignorance of the real
situation on the ground? As we discuss in [section H.5.8](secH5.html#sech58),
this is usually the fate of such parties.
-
-
- Within the party, as noted, the role of _"professional revolutionaries"_ (or
-_"full timers"_) is stressed. As Lenin argued, any worker which showed any
+Within the party, as noted, the role of _"professional revolutionaries"_ (or
+_"full timers"_) is stressed. As Lenin argued, any worker who showed any
talent must be removed from the workplace and become a party functionary. Is
it surprising that the few Bolshevik cadres (i.e. professional
revolutionaries) of working class origin soon lost real contact with the
@@ -1423,26 +1391,20 @@ discuss in [section H.5.12](sech5.html#sech512), their role in the Bolshevik
party was essentially conservative in nature and aimed to maintain their own
position.
-
-
- That the anarchist critique of _"democratic centralism"_ is valid, we need
+That the anarchist critique of _"democratic centralism"_ is valid, we need
only point to the comments and analysis of numerous members (and often soon to
be ex-members) of such parties. Thus we get a continual stream of articles
discussing why specific parties are, in fact, _"bureaucratic centralist"_
-rather than "democratic centralist"_ and what is required to reform them. That
+rather than "democratic centralist" and what is required to reform them. That
every _"democratic centralist"_ party in existence is not that democratic does
not hinder their attempts to create one which is. In a way, the truly
_"democratic centralist"_ party is the Holy Grail of modern Leninism. As we
discuss in [section H.5.10](secH5.html#sech510), their goal may be as mythical
as that of the Arthurian legends.
+## H.5.7 Is the way revolutionaries organise important?
-
- ## H.5.7 Is the way revolutionaries organise important?
-
-
-
- As we discussed in the [last section](secH5.html#sech56), anarchists argue
+As we discussed in the [last section](secH5.html#sech56), anarchists argue
that the way revolutionaries organise today is important. However, according
to some of Lenin's followers, the fact that the "revolutionary" party is
organised in a non-revolutionary manner does not matter. In the words of Chris
@@ -1452,9 +1414,7 @@ vanguard party] will of necessity have a quite different structure to that of
the workers' state that will arise in the process of overthrowing
capitalism."_ [**Party and Class**, p. 34]
-
-
- However, in practice this distinction is impossible to make. If the party is
+However, in practice this distinction is impossible to make. If the party is
organised in specific ways then it is so because this is conceived to be
_"efficient,"_ _"practical"_ and so on. Hence we find Lenin arguing against
_"backwardness in organisation"_ and that the _"point at issue is whether our
@@ -1467,9 +1427,7 @@ reject its _"organisational principle"_ in favour of one it thinks is
_"opportunist,"_ _"primitive"_ and so on? [**Collected Works**, vol. 7, p.
389, p. 388 and pp. 396-7]
-
-
- Therefore, as the **vanguard** the party represents the level to which the
+Therefore, as the **vanguard** the party represents the level to which the
working class is supposed to reach then its organisational principles must,
similarly, be those which the class must reach. As such, Harman's comments are
incredulous. How we organise today is hardly irrelevant, particularly if the
@@ -1488,9 +1446,7 @@ ruling party will not seek to recreate these organisational principles once in
power? As the Russian Revolution proves, this is the case (see [section
H.6](secH6.html))
-
-
- To claim how we organise under capitalism is not important to a revolutionary
+To claim how we organise under capitalism is not important to a revolutionary
movement is simply not true. The way revolutionaries organise have an impact
both on themselves and how they will view the revolution developing. An
ideological prejudice for centralisation and "top-down" organisation will not
@@ -1498,9 +1454,7 @@ disappear once the revolution starts. Rather, it will influence the way the
party acts within it and, if it aims to seize power, how it will exercise that
power once it has.
-
-
- For these reasons anarchists stress the importance of building the new world
+For these reasons anarchists stress the importance of building the new world
in the shell of the old (see [section H.1.6](secH1.html#sech16)). All
organisations create social relationships which shape their memberships. As
the members of these parties will be part of the revolutionary process, they
@@ -1514,9 +1468,7 @@ nature of post-capitalist society and its institutions cannot be maintained
(particularly if the aim of the _"revolutionary"_ organisation is to seize
power on behalf of the working class).
-
-
- As we argue elsewhere (see [section J.3](secJ3.html)) anarchists argue for
+As we argue elsewhere (see [section J.3](secJ3.html)) anarchists argue for
revolutionary groups based on self-management, federalism and decision making
from below. In other words, we apply within our organisations the same
principles as those which the working class has evolved in the course of its
@@ -1533,23 +1485,17 @@ down centralised parties is marked more by its failures than its successes,
suggesting that not only is the vanguard model undesirable, it is also
unnecessary.
+## H.5.8 Are vanguard parties effective?
-
- ## H.5.8 Are vanguard parties effective?
-
-
-
- In a word, no. Vanguard parties have rarely been proven to be effective
-organs for fermenting revolutionary change which is, let us not forget, their
-stated purpose. Indeed, rather than being in the vanguard of social struggle,
-the Leninist parties are often the last to recognise, let alone understand,
-the initial stirrings of important social movements and events. It is only
-once these movements have exploded in the streets that the self-proclaimed
+In a word, no. Vanguard parties have rarely been proven to be effective organs
+for fermenting revolutionary change which is, let us not forget, their stated
+purpose. Indeed, rather than being in the vanguard of social struggle, the
+Leninist parties are often the last to recognise, let alone understand, the
+initial stirrings of important social movements and events. It is only once
+these movements have exploded in the streets that the self-proclaimed
"vanguards" notice them and decide they require the party's leadership.
-
-
- Part of this process are constant attempts to install their political program
+Part of this process are constant attempts to install their political program
onto movements that they do not understand, movements that have proven to be
successful using different tactics and methods of organisation. Rather than
learn from the experiences of others, social movements are seen as raw
@@ -1561,9 +1507,7 @@ appointed vanguards, who once it appeared spent a lot of time trying to catch
up with the movement while criticising its proven organisational principles
and tactics.
-
-
- The reasons for such behaviour are not too difficult to find. They lie in the
+The reasons for such behaviour are not too difficult to find. They lie in the
organisational structure favoured by these parties and the mentality lying
behind them. As anarchists have long argued, a centralised, top-down structure
will simply be unresponsive to the needs of those in struggle. The inertia
@@ -1580,28 +1524,26 @@ struggle. The example of Bolshevik hostility to the soviets spontaneously
formed by workers during the 1905 Russian revolution is one of the best known
examples of this tendency.
-
-
- Murray Bookchin is worth quoting at length on this subject:
-
-> _ "The 'glorious party,' when there is one, almost invariably lags behind
-the events . . . In the beginning . . . it tends to have an inhibitory
-function, not a 'vanguard' role. Where it exercises influence, it tends to
-slow down the flow of events, not 'co- ordinate' the revolutionary forces.
-This is not accidental. The party is structured along hierarchical lines
-**that reflect the very society it professes to oppose.** Despite its
-theoretical pretensions, it is a bourgeois organism, a miniature state, with
-an apparatus and a cadre whose function it is to **seize** power, not
-**dissolve** power. Rooted in the pre-revolutionary period, it assimilates all
-the forms, techniques and mentality of bureaucracy. Its membership is schooled
-in obedience and in the preconceptions of a rigid dogma and is taught to
-revere the leadership. The party's leadership, in turn, is schooled in habits
-born of command, authority, manipulation and egomania. This situation is
-worsened when the party participates in parliamentary elections. In election
-campaigns, the vanguard party models itself completely on existing bourgeois
-forms and even acquires the paraphernalia of the electoral party. . .
-
-"As the party expands, the distance between the leadership and the ranks
+Murray Bookchin is worth quoting at length on this subject:
+
+> _"The 'glorious party,' when there is one, almost invariably lags behind the
+events . . . In the beginning . . . it tends to have an inhibitory function,
+not a 'vanguard' role. Where it exercises influence, it tends to slow down the
+flow of events, not 'co- ordinate' the revolutionary forces. This is not
+accidental. The party is structured along hierarchical lines **that reflect
+the very society it professes to oppose.** Despite its theoretical
+pretensions, it is a bourgeois organism, a miniature state, with an apparatus
+and a cadre whose function it is to **seize** power, not **dissolve** power.
+Rooted in the pre-revolutionary period, it assimilates all the forms,
+techniques and mentality of bureaucracy. Its membership is schooled in
+obedience and in the preconceptions of a rigid dogma and is taught to revere
+the leadership. The party's leadership, in turn, is schooled in habits born of
+command, authority, manipulation and egomania. This situation is worsened when
+the party participates in parliamentary elections. In election campaigns, the
+vanguard party models itself completely on existing bourgeois forms and even
+acquires the paraphernalia of the electoral party. . . _
+
+> _"As the party expands, the distance between the leadership and the ranks
inevitably increases. Its leaders not only become 'personages,' they lose
contact with the living situation below. The local groups, which know their
own immediate situation better than any remote leaders, are obliged to
@@ -1614,23 +1556,23 @@ decisions are made, the more conservative is the nature of the decision-making
process, the more bureaucratic and extraneous are the factors which come into
play, the more considerations of prestige and retrenchment supplant
creativity, imagination, and a disinterested dedication to revolutionary
-goals.
+goals. _
-"The party becomes less efficient from a revolutionary point of view the more
-it seeks efficiency by means of hierarchy, cadres and centralisation. Although
-everyone marches in step, the orders are usually wrong, especially when events
-begin to move rapidly and take unexpected turns - as they do in all
-revolutions. . .
+> _"The party becomes less efficient from a revolutionary point of view the
+more it seeks efficiency by means of hierarchy, cadres and centralisation.
+Although everyone marches in step, the orders are usually wrong, especially
+when events begin to move rapidly and take unexpected turns - as they do in
+all revolutions. . . _
-"On the other hand, this kind of party is extremely vulnerable in periods of
-repression. The bourgeoisie has only to grab its leadership to destroy
+> _"On the other hand, this kind of party is extremely vulnerable in periods
+of repression. The bourgeoisie has only to grab its leadership to destroy
virtually the entire movement. With its leaders in prison or in hiding, the
party becomes paralysed; the obedient membership has no one to obey and tends
to flounder. Demoralisation sets in rapidly. The party decomposes not only
because of the repressive atmosphere but also because of its poverty of inner
-resources.
+resources. _
-"The foregoing account is not a series of hypothetical inferences, it is a
+> _"The foregoing account is not a series of hypothetical inferences, it is a
composite sketch of all the mass Marxian parties of the past century - the
Social Democrats, the Communists and the Trotskyist party of Ceylon (the only
mass party of its kind). To claim that these parties failed to take their
@@ -1640,14 +1582,12 @@ into bourgeois society because they were structured along bourgeois lines. The
germ of treachery existed in them from birth."_ [**Post-Scarcity Anarchism**,
pp. 123-6]
-
-
- The evidence Bookchin summarises suggests that vanguard parties are less than
+The evidence Bookchin summarises suggests that vanguard parties are less than
efficient in promoting revolutionary change. Sluggish, unresponsive,
undemocratic, they simply cannot adjust to the dynamic nature of social
struggle, never mind revolution. This is to be expected:
-> _ "For the state centralisation is the appropriate form of organisation,
+> _"For the state centralisation is the appropriate form of organisation,
since it aims at the greatest possible uniformity in social life for the
maintenance of political and social equilibrium. But for a movement whose very
existence depends on prompt action at any favourable moment and on the
@@ -1666,9 +1606,7 @@ kills the spirit and the vital initiative of its members and sets up that
domination by mediocrity which is the characteristic of all bureaucracies."_
[Rudolf Rocker, **Anarcho-Syndicalism**, p. 61]
-
-
- As we discuss in [section H.5.12](secH5.html#sech512), the example of the
+As we discuss in [section H.5.12](secH5.html#sech512), the example of the
Bolshevik party during the Russian Revolution amply proves Rocker's point.
Rather than being a highly centralised, disciplined vanguard party, the
Bolshevik party was marked by extensive autonomy throughout its ranks. Party
@@ -1676,7 +1614,7 @@ discipline was regularly ignored, including by Lenin in his attempts to get
the central party bureaucracy to catch up with the spontaneous revolutionary
actions and ideas of the Russian working class. As Bookchin summarised, the
_"Bolshevik leadership was ordinarily extremely conservative, a trait that
-Lenin had to fight throughout 1917 \- first in his efforts to reorient the
+Lenin had to fight throughout 1917 - first in his efforts to reorient the
Central Committee against the provisional government (the famous conflict over
the 'April Theses'), later in driving the Central Committee toward
insurrection in October. In both cases he threatened to resign from the
@@ -1685,9 +1623,7 @@ Once in power, however, _"the Bolsheviks tended to centralise their party to
the degree that they became isolated from the working class."_ [**Op. Cit.**,
pp. 126 and p. 127]
-
-
- The "vanguard" model of organising is not only inefficient and ineffective
+The "vanguard" model of organising is not only inefficient and ineffective
from a revolutionary perspective, it generates bureaucratic and elitist
tendencies which undermine any revolution unfortunate enough to be dominated
by such a party. For these extremely practical and sensible reasons anarchists
@@ -1697,13 +1633,9 @@ at is to supplant the diversity produced and required by revolutionary
movements with the drab conformity produced by centralisation and to replace
popular power and freedom with party power and tyranny.
+## H.5.9 What are vanguard parties effective at?
-
- ## H.5.9 What are vanguard parties effective at?
-
-
-
- As we discussed the [last section](secH5.html#sech58), vanguard parties are
+As we discussed the [last section](secH5.html#sech58), vanguard parties are
not efficient as agents of revolutionary change. So, it may be asked, what
**are** vanguard parties effective at? If they are harmful to revolutionary
struggle, what are they good at? The answer to this is simple. No anarchist
@@ -1718,33 +1650,29 @@ away,' the state controlled by the 'glorious party' preserves the very
conditions which 'necessitate' the existence of a state - and a party to
'guard' it."_ [**Post-Scarcity Anarchism**, pp. 125-6]
-
-
- By being structured along hierarchical lines that reflect the very system
-that it professes to oppose, the vanguard party very "effectively" reproduces
-that system within both the current radical social movements **and** any
+By being structured along hierarchical lines that reflect the very system that
+it professes to oppose, the vanguard party very "effectively" reproduces that
+system within both the current radical social movements **and** any
revolutionary society that may be created. This means that once in power, it
shapes society in its own image. Ironically, this tendency towards
conservatism and bureaucracy was noted by Trotsky:
-> _ "As often happens, a sharp cleavage developed between the classes in
-motion and the interests of the party machines. Even the Bolshevik Party
-cadres, who enjoyed the benefit of exceptional revolutionary training, were
-definitely inclined to disregard the masses and to identify their own special
-interests and the interests of the machine on the very day after the monarchy
-was overthrown. What, then, could be expected of these cadres when they became
-an all-powerful state bureaucracy?"_ [**Stalin**, vol. 1, p. 298]
-
+> _"As often happens, a sharp cleavage developed between the classes in motion
+and the interests of the party machines. Even the Bolshevik Party cadres, who
+enjoyed the benefit of exceptional revolutionary training, were definitely
+inclined to disregard the masses and to identify their own special interests
+and the interests of the machine on the very day after the monarchy was
+overthrown. What, then, could be expected of these cadres when they became an
+all-powerful state bureaucracy?"_ [**Stalin**, vol. 1, p. 298]
-
- In such circumstances, it is unsurprising that urging party power and
+In such circumstances, it is unsurprising that urging party power and
identifying it with working class power would have less than revolutionary
results. Discussing the Bolsheviks in 1905 Trotsky points out this tendency
existed from the start:
-> _ "The habits peculiar to a political machine were already forming in the
+> _"The habits peculiar to a political machine were already forming in the
underground. The young revolutionary bureaucrat was already emerging as a
-type. The conditions of conspiracy, true enough, offered rather merge scope
+type. The conditions of conspiracy, true enough, offered rather meagre scope
for such formalities of democracy as electiveness, accountability and control.
Yet, undoubtedly the committeemen narrowed these limitations considerably more
than necessity demanded and were far more intransigent and severe with the
@@ -1752,12 +1680,10 @@ revolutionary workingmen than with themselves, preferring to domineer even on
occasions that called for lending an attentive ear to the voice of the
masses."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 101]
-
-
- He quoted Krupskaya, a party member, on these party bureaucrats, the
-_"committeemen."_ Krupskaya stated that _"as a rule"_ they _"did not recognise
-any party democracy"_ and _"did not want any innovations. The 'committeeman'
-did not desire, and did not know how to, adapt himself to rapidly changing
+He quoted Krupskaya, a party member, on these party bureaucrats, the
+_"committeemen,"_ and how _"as a rule"_ they _"did not recognise any party
+democracy"_ and _"did not want any innovations. The 'committeeman' did not
+desire, and did not know how to, adapt himself to rapidly changing
conditions."_ [quoted by Trotsky, **Op. Cit.**, p. 101] This conservatism
played havoc in the party during 1917, incidentally. It would be no
exaggeration to argue that the Russian revolution occurred in spite of, rather
@@ -1766,23 +1692,17 @@ H.5.12](secH5.html#sech512)). These principles, however, came into their own
once the party had seized power, ensuring the consolidation of bureaucratic
rule by an elite.
-
-
- That a vanguard party helps to produces a bureaucratic regime once in power
+That a vanguard party helps to produces a bureaucratic regime once in power
should not come as a surprise. If the party, to use Trotsky's expression,
exhibits a _"caste tendency of the committeemen"_ can we be surprised if once
in power it reproduces such a tendency in the state it is now the master of?
[**Op. Cit.**, p. 102] And this _"tendency"_ can be seen today in the
multitude of Leninist sects that exist.
-
-
- ## H.5.10 Why does _"democratic centralism"_ produce _"bureaucratic
+## H.5.10 Why does _"democratic centralism"_ produce _"bureaucratic
centralism"_?
-
-
- In spite of the almost ritualistic assertions that vanguard parties are _"the
+In spite of the almost ritualistic assertions that vanguard parties are _"the
most democratic the world has seen,"_ an army of ex-members, expelled
dissidents and disgruntled members testify that they do not live up to the
hype. They argue that most, if not all, "vanguard" parties are not
@@ -1792,9 +1712,7 @@ top-down with little democratic control, never mind participation. For
anarchists, this is hardly surprising. The reasons why this continually
happens are rooted in the nature of _"democratic centralism"_ itself.
-
-
- Firstly, the assumption of _"democratic centralism"_ is that the membership
+Firstly, the assumption of _"democratic centralism"_ is that the membership
elect a leadership and give them the power to decide policy between
conferences and congresses. This has a subtle impact on the membership, as it
is assumed that the leadership has a special insight into social problems
@@ -1806,9 +1724,7 @@ its name. Unquestioning belief in the party leadership has been an all to
common recurring theme in many accounts of vanguard parties. The hierarchical
structure of the party promotes a hierarchical mentality in its members.
-
-
- Conformity within such parties is also reinforced by the intense activism
+Conformity within such parties is also reinforced by the intense activism
expected by members, particularly leading activists and full-time members.
Paradoxically, the more deeply people participate in activism, the harder it
becomes to reflect on what they are doing. The unrelenting pace often induces
@@ -1822,9 +1738,7 @@ the only perspective which members get exposed to. Members tend to leave,
typically, because of exhaustion, crisis, even despair rather than as the
result of rational reflection and conscious decision.
-
-
- Secondly, given that vanguard parties are based on the belief that they are
+Secondly, given that vanguard parties are based on the belief that they are
the guardians of _"scientific socialism,"_ this means that there is a tendency
to squeeze all of social life into the confines of the party's ideology.
Moreover, as the party's ideology is a "science" it is expected to explain
@@ -1843,25 +1757,21 @@ mission assures it of a moral energy quite astonishing in its intensity - and,
at the same time, a clerical mentality which is quick to become
Inquisitorial."_ [**Memoirs of a Revolutionary**, p. 134]
-
-
- The intense level of activism means that members are bombarded with party
+The intense level of activism means that members are bombarded with party
propaganda, are in endless party meetings, or spend time reading party
literature and so, by virtue of the fact that there is not enough time to read
-anything, members end up reading nothing but party publications. Most points
+everything, members end up reading nothing but party publications. Most points
of contact with the external world are eliminated or drastically curtailed.
Indeed, such alternative sources of information and such thinking is regularly
dismissed as being contaminated by bourgeois influences. This often goes so
far as to label those who question any aspect of the party's analysis
revisionists or deviationists, bending to the _"pressures of capitalism,"_ and
-are usually driven from the ranks as heretics. All this is almost always
+they are usually driven from the ranks as heretics. All this is almost always
combined with contempt for all other organisations on the Left (indeed, the
closer they are to the party's own ideological position the more likely they
are to be the targets of abuse).
-
-
- Thirdly, the practice of _"democratic centralism"_ also aids this process
+Thirdly, the practice of _"democratic centralism"_ also aids this process
towards conformity. Based on the idea that the party must be a highly
disciplined fighting force, the party is endowed with a powerful central
committee and a rule that all members must publicly defend the agreed-upon
@@ -1871,21 +1781,17 @@ party's leading bodies usually have extensive authority to govern the party's
affairs, including updating party doctrine and deciding the party's response
to current political events.
-
-
- As unity is the key, there is a tendency to view any opposition as a
-potential threat. It is not at all clear when _"full freedom to criticise"_
-policy internally can be said to disturb the unity of a defined action. The
-norms of democratic centralism confer all power between conferences onto a
-central committee, allowing it to become the arbiter of when a dissident
-viewpoint is in danger of weakening unity. The evidence from numerous vanguard
-parties suggest that their leaderships usually view **any** dissent as
-precisely such a disruption and demand that dissidents cease their action or
-face expulsion from the party.
-
-
-
- It should also be borne in mind that Leninist parties also view themselves as
+As unity is the key, there is a tendency to view any opposition as a potential
+threat. It is not at all clear when _"full freedom to criticise"_ policy
+internally can be said to disturb the unity of a defined action. The norms of
+democratic centralism confer all power between conferences onto a central
+committee, allowing it to become the arbiter of when a dissident viewpoint is
+in danger of weakening unity. The evidence from numerous vanguard parties
+suggest that their leaderships usually view **any** dissent as precisely such
+a disruption and demand that dissidents cease their action or face expulsion
+from the party.
+
+It should also be borne in mind that Leninist parties also view themselves as
vitally important to the success of any future revolution. This cannot help
but reinforce the tendency to view dissent as something which automatically
imperils the future of the planet and, therefore, something which must be
@@ -1902,9 +1808,7 @@ illusion of unanimity, including the trampling underfoot of whatever rights
the membership may have on paper and the imposition of any decisions the
leadership considers as essential between conferences.
-
-
- Fourthly, and more subtly, it is well known that when people take a public
+Fourthly, and more subtly, it is well known that when people take a public
position in defence of a proposition, there is a strong tendency for their
private attitudes to shift so that they harmonise with their public behaviour.
It is difficult to say one thing in public and hold to a set of private
@@ -1926,9 +1830,7 @@ confirmed in the internal regimes of vanguard parties, where debate is often
narrowly focused on a few minor issues of emphasis rather than fundamental
issues of policy and theory.
-
-
- It has already been noted (in [section H.5.5](secH5.html#sech55)) that the
+It has already been noted (in [section H.5.5](secH5.html#sech55)) that the
organisational norms of democratic centralism imply a concentration of power
at the top. There is abundant evidence that such a concentration has been a
vital feature of every vanguard party and that such a concentration limits
@@ -1946,19 +1848,17 @@ often the case that activities that would provoke outrage if engaged in by
rank-and-file members are tolerated when their leaders do it. As one group of
Scottish libertarians noted:
-> _ "Further, in so far as our Bolshevik friends reject and defy capitalist
-and orthodox labourist conceptions, they also are as much 'individualistic' as
-the anarchist. Is it not boasted, for example, that on many occasions Marx,
-Lenin and Trotsky were prepared to be in a minority of one - if they thought
-they were more correct than all others on the question at issue? In this, like
+> _"Further, in so far as our Bolshevik friends reject and defy capitalist and
+orthodox labourist conceptions, they also are as much 'individualistic' as the
+anarchist. Is it not boasted, for example, that on many occasions Marx, Lenin
+and Trotsky were prepared to be in a minority of one - if they thought they
+were more correct than all others on the question at issue? In this, like
Galileo, they were quite in order. Where they and their followers, obsessed by
the importance of their own judgement go wrong, is in their tendency to refuse
this inalienable right to other protagonists and fighters for the working
class."_ [APCF, _"Our Reply,"_ **Class War on the Home Front**, p. 70]
-
-
- As in any hierarchical structure, the tendency is for those in power to
+As in any hierarchical structure, the tendency is for those in power to
encourage and promote those who agree with them. This means that members
usually find their influence and position in the party dependent on their
willingness to conform to the hierarchy and its leadership. Dissenters will
@@ -1984,9 +1884,7 @@ the old Bolsheviks, and the direction of disciplinary measures, not against
the unprincipled careerists and conformist late-comers, but against those
sections with a critical outlook."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 135]
-
-
- This, of course, also applies to the party congress, on paper the sovereign
+This, of course, also applies to the party congress, on paper the sovereign
body of the organisation. All too often resolutions at party conferences will
either come from the leadership or be completely supportive of its position.
If branches or members submit resolutions which are critical of the
@@ -1998,9 +1896,7 @@ he termed the _"Party steamroller"_ at work in early 1921 when _"the voting
[was] rigged for Lenin's and Zinoviev's 'majority'"_ in one of the districts
of Petrograd. [**Op. Cit.**, p.123]
-
-
- All to often, such parties have "elected" bodies which have, in practice,
+All to often, such parties have "elected" bodies which have, in practice,
usurped the normal democratic rights of members and become increasingly
removed from formal controls. All practical accountability of the leaders to
the membership for their actions is eliminated. Usually this authoritarian
@@ -2012,9 +1908,7 @@ always had a grudging admiration and respect for that most inhuman of all
hierarchical institutions, the military."_ [**Toward an Ecological Society**,
p. 254f]
-
-
- The modern day effectiveness of the vanguard party can be seen by the strange
+The modern day effectiveness of the vanguard party can be seen by the strange
fact that many Leninists fail to join any of the existing parties due to their
bureaucratic internal organisation and that many members are expelled (or
leave in disgust) as a result of their failed attempts to make them more
@@ -2025,9 +1919,7 @@ parties, desperately trying to find an actual party which matches their own
vision of democratic centralism rather than the bureaucratic centralism which
seems the norm?
-
-
- Our account of the workings of vanguard parties explains, in part, why many
+Our account of the workings of vanguard parties explains, in part, why many
anarchists and other libertarians voice concern about them and their
underlying ideology. We do so because their practices are disruptive and
alienate new activists, hindering the very goal (socialism/revolution) they
@@ -2037,73 +1929,67 @@ vanguardism seems to be confirmed in reality while the Leninist defence seems
sadly lacking (unless, of course, the person is a member of such a party and
then their organisation is the exception to the rule!).
-
-
- ## H.5.11 Can you provide an example of the negative nature of vanguard
+## H.5.11 Can you provide an example of the negative nature of vanguard
parties?
+Yes. Our theoretical critique of vanguardism we have presented in the last few
+sections is more than proved by the empirical evidence of such parties in
+operation today. Rarely do "vanguard" parties reach in practice the high hopes
+their supporters like to claim for them. Such parties are usually small, prone
+to splitting as well as leadership cults, and usually play a negative role in
+social struggle. A long line of ex-members complain that such parties are
+elitist, hierarchical and bureaucratic.
-
- Yes. Our theoretical critique of vanguardism we have presented in the last
-few sections is more than proved by the empirical evidence of such parties in
-operation today. Rarely do "vanguard"_ parties reach in practice the high
-hopes their supporters like to claim for them. Such parties are usually small,
-prone to splitting as well as leadership cults, and usually play a negative
-role in social struggle. A long line of ex-members complain that such parties
-are elitist, hierarchical and bureaucratic.
-
-
-
- Obviously we cannot hope to discuss all such parties. As such, we will take
+Obviously we cannot hope to discuss all such parties. As such, we will take
just one example, namely the arguments of one group of dissidents of the
biggest British Leninist party, the **Socialist Workers Party**. It is worth
quoting their account of the internal workings of the SWP at length:
-> _ "The SWP is not democratic centralist but bureaucratic centralist. The
+> _"The SWP is not democratic centralist but bureaucratic centralist. The
leadership's control of the party is unchecked by the members. New
perspectives are initiated exclusively by the central committee (CC), who then
implement their perspective against all party opposition, implicit or
-explicit, legitimate or otherwise.
+explicit, legitimate or otherwise. _
-"Once a new perspective is declared, a new cadre is selected from the top
+> _"Once a new perspective is declared, a new cadre is selected from the top
down. The CC select the organisers, who select the district and branch
committees - any elections that take place are carried out on the basis of
'slates' so that it is virtually impossible for members to vote against the
slate proposed by the leadership. Any members who have doubts or disagreements
are written off as 'burnt out' and, depending on their reaction to this, may
-be marginalised within the party and even expelled.
-
-"These methods have been disastrous for the SWP in a number of ways: Each new
-perspective requires a new cadre (below the level of the CC), so the existing
-cadre are actively marginalised in the party. In this way, the SWP has failed
-to build a stable and experienced cadre capable of acting independently of the
-leadership. Successive layers of cadres have been driven into passivity, and
-even out of the revolutionary movement altogether. The result is the loss of
-hundreds of potential cadres. Instead of appraising the real, uneven
-development of individual cadres, the history of the party is written in terms
-of a star system (comrades currently favoured by the party) and a demonology
-(the 'renegades' who are brushed aside with each turn of the party). As a
-result of this systematic dissolution of the cadre, the CC grows ever more
-remote from the membership and increasingly bureaucratic in its methods. In
-recent years the national committee has been abolished (it obediently voted
-for its own dissolution, on the recommendation of the CC), to be replaced by
-party councils made up of those comrades active at any one time (i.e. those
-who already agree with current perspectives); district committees are
-appointed rather than elected; the CC monopolise all information concerning
-the party, so that it is impossible for members to know much about what
-happens in the party outside their own branch; the CC give a distorted account
-of events rather than admit their mistakes . . . history is rewritten to
-reinforce the prestige of the CC . . . The outcome is a party whose
+be marginalised within the party and even expelled. _
+
+> _"These methods have been disastrous for the SWP in a number of ways: Each
+new perspective requires a new cadre (below the level of the CC), so the
+existing cadre are actively marginalised in the party. In this way, the SWP
+has failed to build a stable and experienced cadre capable of acting
+independently of the leadership. Successive layers of cadres have been driven
+into passivity, and even out of the revolutionary movement altogether. The
+result is the loss of hundreds of potential cadres. Instead of appraising the
+real, uneven development of individual cadres, the history of the party is
+written in terms of a star system (comrades currently favoured by the party)
+and a demonology (the 'renegades' who are brushed aside with each turn of the
+party). As a result of this systematic dissolution of the cadre, the CC grows
+ever more remote from the membership and increasingly bureaucratic in its
+methods. In recent years the national committee has been abolished (it
+obediently voted for its own dissolution, on the recommendation of the CC), to
+be replaced by party councils made up of those comrades active at any one time
+(i.e. those who already agree with current perspectives); district committees
+are appointed rather than elected; the CC monopolise all information
+concerning the party, so that it is impossible for members to know much about
+what happens in the party outside their own branch; the CC give a distorted
+account of events rather than admit their mistakes . . . history is rewritten
+to reinforce the prestige of the CC . . . The outcome is a party whose
conferences have no democratic function, but serve only to orientate party
activists to carry out perspectives drawn up before the delegates even set out
from their branches. At every level of the party, strategy and tactics are
presented from the top down, as pre-digested instructions for action. At every
level, the comrades 'below' are seen only as a passive mass to be shifted into
-action, rather than as a source of new initiatives . . .
+action, rather than as a source of new initiatives . . . _
-"The only exception is when a branch thinks up a new tactic to carry out the
-CC's perspective. In this case, the CC may take up this tactic and apply it
-across the party. In no way do rank and file members play an active role in
+> _"The only exception is when a branch thinks up a new tactic to carry out
+the CC's perspective. In this case, the CC may take up this tactic and apply
+it across the party. In no way do rank and file members play an active role in
determining the strategy and theory of the party - except in the negative
sense that if they refuse to implement a perspective eventually even the CC
notice, and will modify the line to suit. A political culture has been created
@@ -2124,19 +2010,17 @@ undemocratic norms in the party and refuse to join, or keep their distance
despite accepting our formal politics."_ [ISG, **Discussion Document of Ex-SWP
Comrades**]
-
-
- The dissidents argue that a _"democratic"_ party would involve the
-_"[r]egular election of all party full-timers, branch and district leadership,
-conference delegates, etc. with the right of recall,"_ which means that in the
-SWP appointment of full-timers, leaders and so on is the norm. They argue for
-the _"right of branches to propose motions to the party conference"_ and for
-the _"right for members to communicate horizontally in the party, to produce
-and distribute their own documents."_ They stress the need for _"an
-independent Control Commission to review all disciplinary cases (independent
-of the leadership bodies that exercise discipline), and the right of any
-disciplined comrades to appeal directly to party conference."_ They argue that
-in a democratic party _"no section of the party would have a monopoly of
+The dissidents argue that a _"democratic"_ party would involve the _"[r]egular
+election of all party full-timers, branch and district leadership, conference
+delegates, etc. with the right of recall,"_ which means that in the SWP
+appointment of full-timers, leaders and so on is the norm. They argue for the
+_"right of branches to propose motions to the party conference"_ and for the
+_"right for members to communicate horizontally in the party, to produce and
+distribute their own documents."_ They stress the need for _"an independent
+Control Commission to review all disciplinary cases (independent of the
+leadership bodies that exercise discipline), and the right of any disciplined
+comrades to appeal directly to party conference."_ They argue that in a
+democratic party _"no section of the party would have a monopoly of
information"_ which indicates that the SWP's leadership is essentially
secretive, withholding information from the party membership. Even more
significantly, given our discussion on the influence of the party structure on
@@ -2146,9 +2030,7 @@ believe that the organisational norms of the SWP are a shining example of
proletarian democracy, applicable to a future socialist society. Not
surprisingly, many people are instinctively repelled by this idea."_
-
-
- Some of these critics of specific Leninist parties do not give up hope and
+Some of these critics of specific Leninist parties do not give up hope and
still look for a truly democratic centralist party rather than the
bureaucratic centralist ones which seem so common. For example, our group of
ex-SWP dissidents argue that _"[a]nybody who has spent time involved in
@@ -2170,9 +2052,7 @@ work and automatically generates the _"bureaucratic centralism,"_ they point
to the example of the Russian revolution and the original Bolshevik party as
proof of the validity of their hopes.
-
-
- Indeed, it would be no exaggeration to argue that the only reason people take
+Indeed, it would be no exaggeration to argue that the only reason people take
the vanguard party organisational structure seriously is the apparent success
of the Bolsheviks in the Russian revolution. However, as noted above, even the
Bolshevik party was subject to bureaucratic tendencies and as we discuss in
@@ -2180,25 +2060,21 @@ the [next section](secH5.html#secH512), the experience of the 1917 Russian
Revolutions disprove the effectiveness of _"vanguard"_ style parties. The
Bolshevik party of 1917 was a totally different form of organisation than the
ideal _"democratic centralist"_ type argued for by Lenin in 1902 and 1920. As
-a model of revolutionary organisation, the "vanguardist"_ one has been proven
+a model of revolutionary organisation, the "vanguardist" one has been proven
false rather than confirmed by the experience of the Russian revolution.
Insofar as the Bolshevik party was effective, it operated in a non-vanguardist
way and insofar as it did operate in such a manner, it held back the struggle.
+## H.5.12 Surely the Russian Revolution proves that vanguard parties work?
-
- ## H.5.12 Surely the Russian Revolution proves that vanguard parties work?
-
-
-
- No, far from it. Looking at the history of vanguardism we are struck by its
+No, far from it. Looking at the history of vanguardism we are struck by its
failures, not its successes. Indeed, the proponents of _"democratic
centralism"_ can point to only one apparent success of their model, namely the
Russian Revolution. Strangely, though, we are warned by Leninists that failure
to use the vanguard party will inevitably condemn future revolutions to
failure:
-> _ "The proletariat can take power only through its vanguard. . . Without the
+> _"The proletariat can take power only through its vanguard. . . Without the
confidence of the class in the vanguard, without support of the vanguard by
the class, there can be no talk of the conquest of power . . . The Soviets are
the only organised form of the tie between the vanguard and the class. A
@@ -2209,9 +2085,7 @@ one has either shown in practice or tried to explain articulately on paper how
the proletariat can seize power without the political leadership of a party
that knows what it wants."_ [Trotsky, **Writings 1936-37**, p. 490]
-
-
- To anarchist ears, such claims seem out of place. After all, did the Russian
+To anarchist ears, such claims seem out of place. After all, did the Russian
Revolution actually result in socialism or even a viable form of soviet
democracy? Far from it. Unless you picture revolution as simply the changing
of the party in power, you have to acknowledge that while the Bolshevik party
@@ -2224,22 +2098,18 @@ Needless to say, Trotsky blames the failure of the Russian Revolution on
_"objective"_ factors rather than Bolshevik policies and practice, an argument
we address in [section H.6](secH6.html) and will not do so here.
-
-
- So while Leninists make great claims for the effectiveness of their chosen
+So while Leninists make great claims for the effectiveness of their chosen
kind of party, the hard facts of history are against their positive evaluation
of vanguard parties. Ironically, even the Russian Revolution disproves the
claims of Leninists. The fact is that the Bolshevik party in 1917 was very far
from the _"democratic centralist"_ organisation which supporters of
-vanguardism like to claim it is. As such, its success in 1917 lies more in its
+vanguardism like to claim it as. As such, its success in 1917 lies more in its
divergence from the principles of _"democratic centralism"_ than in their
application. The subsequent degeneration of the revolution and the party is
marked by the increasing **application** of those principles in the life of
the party.
-
-
- Thus, to refute the claims of the _"effectiveness"_ and _"efficiency"_ of
+Thus, to refute the claims of the _"effectiveness"_ and _"efficiency"_ of
vanguardism, we need to look at its one and only success, namely the Russian
Revolution. As the Cohen-Bendit brothers argued, _"far from leading the
Russian Revolution forwards, the Bolsheviks were responsible for holding back
@@ -2254,9 +2124,7 @@ revolution. Whenever the principles of _"democratic centralism"_ were applied,
the Bolshevik party played the role the Cohen-Bendit brothers subscribed to it
(and once in power, the party's negative features came to the fore).
-
-
- Even Leninists acknowledge that, to quote Tony Cliff, throughout the history
+Even Leninists acknowledge that, to quote Tony Cliff, throughout the history
of Bolshevism, _"a certain conservatism arose."_ Indeed, _"[a]t practically
all sharp turning points, Lenin had to rely on the lower strata of the party
machine against the higher, or on the rank and file against the machine as a
@@ -2265,10 +2133,8 @@ basic assumptions of Lenin's party schema, namely that the broad party
membership, like the working class, was subject to bourgeois influences so
necessitating central leadership and control from above.
-
-
- Looking at both the 1905 and 1917 revolutions, we are struck by how often
-this _"conservatism"_ arose and how often the higher bodies lagged behind the
+Looking at both the 1905 and 1917 revolutions, we are struck by how often this
+_"conservatism"_ arose and how often the higher bodies lagged behind the
spontaneous actions of the masses and the party membership. Looking at the
1905 revolution, we discover a classic example of the inefficiency of
"democratic centralism." Facing the rise of the soviets, councils of workers'
@@ -2298,39 +2164,33 @@ own party's principles and staying in the Soviet did rank and file Bolsheviks
play a positive role in the revolution. This divergence of top and bottom
would be repeated in 1917.
-
-
- Given this, perhaps it is unsurprising that Leninists started to rewrite the
+Given this, perhaps it is unsurprising that Leninists started to rewrite the
history of the 1905 revolution. Victor Serge, an anti-Stalinist Leninist,
asserted in the late 1920s that in 1905 the Petrograd Soviet was _"led by
Trotsky and inspired by the Bolsheviks."_ [**Year One of the Russian
Revolution**, p. 36]. While the former claim is partially correct, the latter
-is not. As noted, the Bolsheviks were initially opposed the soviets and
+is not. As noted, the Bolsheviks initially opposed the soviets and
systematically worked to undermine them. Unsurprisingly, Trotsky at that time
was a Menshevik, not a Bolshevik. After all, how could the most revolutionary
party that ever existed have messed up so badly? How could democratic
-centralism faired so badly in practice? Best, then, to suggest that it did not
+centralism fare so badly in practice? Best, then, to suggest that it did not
and give the Bolsheviks a role better suited to the rhetoric of Bolshevism
than its reality.
-
-
- Trotsky was no different. He, needless to say, denied the obvious
-implications of these events in 1905. While admitting that the Bolsheviks
-_"adjusted themselves more slowly to the sweep of the movement"_ and that the
-Mensheviks _"were preponderant in the Soviet,"_ he tries to save vanguardism
-by asserting that _"the general direction of the Soviet's policy proceeded in
-the main along Bolshevik lines."_ So, in spite of the lack of Bolshevik
-influence, in spite of the slowness in adjusting to the revolution, Bolshevism
-was, in fact, the leading set of ideas in the revolution! Ironically, a few
-pages later, he mocks the claims of Stalinists that Stalin had _"isolated the
-Mensheviks from the masses"_ by noting that the _"figures hardly bear [the
-claims] out."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 112 and p. 117] Shame he did not apply this
-criteria to his own assertions.
-
-
-
- Of course, every party makes mistakes. The question is, how did the _"most
+Trotsky was no different. He, needless to say, denied the obvious implications
+of these events in 1905. While admitting that the Bolsheviks _"adjusted
+themselves more slowly to the sweep of the movement"_ and that the Mensheviks
+_"were preponderant in the Soviet,"_ he tries to save vanguardism by asserting
+that _"the general direction of the Soviet's policy proceeded in the main
+along Bolshevik lines."_ So, in spite of the lack of Bolshevik influence, in
+spite of the slowness in adjusting to the revolution, Bolshevism was, in fact,
+the leading set of ideas in the revolution! Ironically, a few pages later, he
+mocks the claims of Stalinists that Stalin had _"isolated the Mensheviks from
+the masses"_ by noting that the _"figures hardly bear [the claims] out."_
+[**Op. Cit.**, p. 112 and p. 117] Shame he did not apply this criteria to his
+own assertions.
+
+Of course, every party makes mistakes. The question is, how did the _"most
revolutionary party of all time"_ fare in 1917. Surely that revolution proves
the validity of vanguardism and "democratic centralism"? After all, there was
a successful revolution, the Bolshevik party did seize power. However, the
@@ -2354,11 +2214,9 @@ did play an important role in the Russian revolution, it was because it was
when the party **did** operate in a vanguardist manner, failure was soon to
follow.
-
-
- This claim can be proven by looking at the history of the 1917 revolution.
-The February revolution started with a spontaneous protests and strikes yet
-_"the Petrograd organisation of the Bolsheviks opposed the calling of strikes
+This claim can be proven by looking at the history of the 1917 revolution. The
+February revolution started with spontaneous protests and strikes yet _"the
+Petrograd organisation of the Bolsheviks opposed the calling of strikes
precisely on the eve of the revolution which was destined to overthrow the
Tsar. Fortunately, the workers ignored the Bolshevik 'directives' and went on
strike anyway. In the events which followed, no one was more surprised by the
@@ -2366,15 +2224,12 @@ revolution than the 'revolutionary' parties, including the Bolsheviks."_
[Murray Bookchin, **Post-Scarcity Anarchism**, p. 123] Trotsky quoted one of
the Bolshevik leaders at the time:
-> _ "Absolutely no guiding initiative from the party centres was felt . . .
-the Petrograd Committee had been arrested and the representative of the
-Central Committee . . . was unable to give any directives for the coming
-day."_ [quoted by Trotsky, **History of the Russian Revolution**, vol. 1, p.
-147]
-
-
+> _"Absolutely no guiding initiative from the party centres was felt . . . the
+Petrograd Committee had been arrested and the representative of the Central
+Committee . . . was unable to give any directives for the coming day."_
+[quoted by Trotsky, **History of the Russian Revolution**, vol. 1, p. 147]
- Not the best of starts. Of course rank and file Bolsheviks took part in the
+Not the best of starts. Of course rank and file Bolsheviks took part in the
demonstrations, street fights and strikes and so violated the principles their
party was meant to be based on. As the revolution progressed, so did the dual
nature of the Bolshevik party (i.e. its practical divergence from "democratic
@@ -2385,26 +2240,24 @@ all in the revolution. As one historian of the party makes clear, in 1917 and
until the outbreak of the Civil War, the party operated in ways that few
modern "vanguard" parties would tolerate:
-> _ "The committees were a law unto themselves when it came to accepting
-orders from above. Democratic centralism, as vague a principle of internal
+> _"The committees were a law unto themselves when it came to accepting orders
+from above. Democratic centralism, as vague a principle of internal
administration as there ever has been, was commonly held at least to enjoin
lower executive bodies that they should obey the behests of all higher bodies
in the organisational hierarchy. But town committees in practice had the
devil's own job in imposing firm leadership . . . Insubordination was the rule
of the day whenever lower party bodies thought questions of importance were at
-stake.
+stake. _
-"Suburb committees too faced difficulties in imposing discipline. Many a party
-cell saw fit to thumb its nose at higher authority and to pursue policies
-which it felt to be more suited to local circumstances or more desirable in
-general. No great secret was made of this. In fact, it was openly admitted
-that hardly a party committee existed which did not encounter problems in
-enforcing its will even upon individual activists."_ [Robert Service, **The
-Bolshevik Party in Revolution 1917-1923**, pp. 51-2]
+> _"Suburb committees too faced difficulties in imposing discipline. Many a
+party cell saw fit to thumb its nose at higher authority and to pursue
+policies which it felt to be more suited to local circumstances or more
+desirable in general. No great secret was made of this. In fact, it was openly
+admitted that hardly a party committee existed which did not encounter
+problems in enforcing its will even upon individual activists."_ [Robert
+Service, **The Bolshevik Party in Revolution 1917-1923**, pp. 51-2]
-
-
- So while Lenin's ideal model of a disciplined, centralised and top-down party
+So while Lenin's ideal model of a disciplined, centralised and top-down party
had been expounded since 1902, the operation of the party never matched his
desire. As Service notes, _"a disciplined hierarchy of command stretching down
from the regional committees to party cells"_ had _"never existed in Bolshevik
@@ -2422,9 +2275,7 @@ often refused to go along with official policies . . . they also . . .
sometimes took it into their heads to engage in active obstruction."_ [**Op.
Cit.**, p. 80, p. 62 p. 56 and p. 60]
-
-
- This worked both ways, of course. Town committees did _"snub their nose at
+This worked both ways, of course. Town committees did _"snub their nose at
lower-echelon viewpoints in the time before the next election. Try as hard as
they might, suburb committees and ordinary cells could meanwhile do little to
rectify matters beyond telling their own representative on their town
@@ -2434,29 +2285,24 @@ collaboration."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 52-3] Even by early 1918, the Bolshevik
party bore little resemblance to the "democratic centralist" model desires by
Lenin:
-> _ "The image of a disciplined hierarchy of party committees was therefore
-but a thin, artificial veneer which was used by Bolshevik leaders to cover up
-the cracked surface of the real picture underneath. Cells and suburb
-committees saw no reason to kow-tow to town committees; nor did town
-committees feel under compulsion to show any greater respect to their
-provincial and regional committees than before."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 74]
-
-
-
- It is this insubordination, this local autonomy and action in spite of
-central orders which explains the success of the Bolsheviks in 1917. Rather
-than a highly centralised and disciplined body of "professional"
-revolutionaries, the party saw a _"significant change . . . within the
-membership of the party at local level . . . From the time of the February
-revolution requirements for party membership had been all but suspended, and
-now Bolshevik ranks swelled with impetuous recruits who knew next to nothing
-about Marxism and who were united by little more than overwhelming impatience
-for revolutionary action."_ [Alexander Rabinowitch, **Prelude to Revolution**,
-p. 41]
-
-
-
- This mass of new members (many of whom were peasants who had just recently
+> _"The image of a disciplined hierarchy of party committees was therefore but
+a thin, artificial veneer which was used by Bolshevik leaders to cover up the
+cracked surface of the real picture underneath. Cells and suburb committees
+saw no reason to kow-tow to town committees; nor did town committees feel
+under compulsion to show any greater respect to their provincial and regional
+committees than before."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 74]
+
+It is this insubordination, this local autonomy and action in spite of central
+orders which explains the success of the Bolsheviks in 1917. Rather than a
+highly centralised and disciplined body of "professional" revolutionaries, the
+party saw a _"significant change . . . within the membership of the party at
+local level . . . From the time of the February revolution requirements for
+party membership had been all but suspended, and now Bolshevik ranks swelled
+with impetuous recruits who knew next to nothing about Marxism and who were
+united by little more than overwhelming impatience for revolutionary action."_
+[Alexander Rabinowitch, **Prelude to Revolution**, p. 41]
+
+This mass of new members (many of whom were peasants who had just recently
joined the industrial workforce) had a radicalising effect on the party's
policies and structures. As even Leninist commentators argue, it was this
influx of members who allowed Lenin to gain support for his radical revision
@@ -2470,9 +2316,7 @@ role Trotsky usually gave the party, he admits that _"[w]ithout Lenin, no one
had known what to make of the unprecedented situation."_ [**Stalin**, vol. 1,
p. 301, p. 305 and p. 297]
-
-
- Which is significant in itself. The Bolshevik party is usually claimed as
+Which is significant in itself. The Bolshevik party is usually claimed as
being the most "revolutionary" that ever existed, yet here is Trotsky
admitting that its leading members did not have a clue what to do. He even
argued that _"[e]very time the Bolshevik leaders had to act without Lenin they
@@ -2490,9 +2334,7 @@ say the least, that without one person the whole of the party was reduced to
such a level given that the aim of the "revolutionary" party was to develop
the political awareness of its members.
-
-
- Lenin's arrival, according to Trotsky, allowed the influence of the more
+Lenin's arrival, according to Trotsky, allowed the influence of the more
radical rank and file to defeat the conservatism of the party machine. By the
end of April, Lenin had managed to win over the majority of the party
leadership to his position. However, this _"April conflict between Lenin and
@@ -2503,9 +2345,7 @@ most important moments stood to the **right** of Lenin."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p.
party would have been arguing for incorrect positions the bulk of its
existence (assuming, of course, that Lenin was correct most of the time).
-
-
- For Trotsky, _"Lenin exerted influence not so much as an individual but
+For Trotsky, _"Lenin exerted influence not so much as an individual but
because he embodied the influence of the class on the Party and of the Party
on its machine."_ Yet, this was the machine which Lenin had forged, which
embodied his vision of how a "revolutionary" party should operate and was
@@ -2526,21 +2366,19 @@ Lenin the rank and file party members would not have been able to shift the
weight of the party machine in their favour. Trotsky seemed close to admitting
this:
-> _ "As often happens, a sharp cleavage developed between the classes in
-motion and the interests of the party machines. Even the Bolshevik Party
-cadres, who enjoyed the benefit of exceptional revolutionary training, were
-definitely inclined to disregard the masses and to identify their own special
-interests and the interests of the machine on the very day after the monarchy
-was overthrown."_ [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 1, p. 298]
+> _"As often happens, a sharp cleavage developed between the classes in motion
+and the interests of the party machines. Even the Bolshevik Party cadres, who
+enjoyed the benefit of exceptional revolutionary training, were definitely
+inclined to disregard the masses and to identify their own special interests
+and the interests of the machine on the very day after the monarchy was
+overthrown."_ [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 1, p. 298]
-
-
- Thus the party machine, which embodied the principles of "democratic
+Thus the party machine, which embodied the principles of "democratic
centralism" proved less than able to the task assigned it in practice. Without
Lenin, it is doubtful that the party membership would have overcome the party
machine:
-> _ "Lenin was strong not only because he understood the laws of the class
+> _"Lenin was strong not only because he understood the laws of the class
struggle but also because his ear was faultlessly attuned to the stirrings of
the masses in motion. He represented not so much the Party machine as the
vanguard of the proletariat. He was definitely convinced that thousands from
@@ -2551,36 +2389,29 @@ March the actual attitude of the workers and soldiers had in many cases become
stormily apparent, and it was widely at variance with the instructions issued
by all the parties, including the Bolsheviks."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 299]
-
-
- Little wonder the local party groupings ignored the party machine, practising
+Little wonder the local party groupings ignored the party machine, practising
autonomy and initiative in the face of a party machine inclined to
conservatism, inertia, bureaucracy and remoteness. This conflict between the
party machine and the principles it was based on and the needs of the
revolution and party membership was expressed continually throughout 1917:
-> _ "In short, the success of the revolution called for action against the
+> _"In short, the success of the revolution called for action against the
'highest circles of the party,' who, from February to October, utterly failed
to play the revolutionary role they ought to have taken in theory. The masses
themselves made the revolution, with or even against the party - this much at
least was clear to Trotsky the historian. But far from drawing the correct
conclusion, Trotsky the theorist continued to argue that the masses are
-incapable of making a revolution without a leader."_ [Daniel & Gabriel Cohn-
-Bendit, **Op. Cit.**, p. 188]
-
-
+incapable of making a revolution without a leader."_ [Daniel & Gabriel
+Cohn-Bendit, **Op. Cit.**, p. 188]
- Looking at the development of the revolution from April onwards, we are
-struck by the sluggishness of the party hierarchy. At every revolutionary
-upsurge, the party simply was not to the task of responding to the needs of
-masses and the local party groupings closest to them. The can be seen in June,
-July and October itself. At each turn, the rank and file groupings or Lenin
-had to constantly violate the principles of their own party in order to be
-effective.
+Looking at the development of the revolution from April onwards, we are struck
+by the sluggishness of the party hierarchy. At every revolutionary upsurge,
+the party simply was not up to the task of responding to the needs of masses
+and the local party groupings closest to them. The can be seen in June, July
+and October itself. At each turn, the rank and file groupings or Lenin had to
+constantly violate the principles of their own party in order to be effective.
-
-
- For example, when discussing the cancellation by the central committee of a
+For example, when discussing the cancellation by the central committee of a
demonstration planned for June 10th by the Petrograd Bolsheviks, the
unresponsiveness of the party hierarchy can be seen. The _"speeches by Lenin
and Zinoviev [justifying their actions] by no means satisfied the Petersburg
@@ -2598,9 +2429,7 @@ of the Central Committee position and he noted that _"[f]requently it is
impossible to make out where the Bolshevik ends and the Anarchist begins."_
[quoted by Rabinowitch, **Op. Cit.**, p. 129]
-
-
- In the July days, the breach between the local party groups and the central
+In the July days, the breach between the local party groups and the central
committee increased. This spontaneous uprising was opposed to by the Bolshevik
leadership, in spite of the leading role of their own militants (along with
anarchists) in fermenting it. While calling on their own activists to restrain
@@ -2620,10 +2449,8 @@ itself (_"the state of popular consciousness . . . made impossible the seizure
of power by the Bolsheviks in July."_ [Trotsky, **History of the Russian
Revolution**, vol. 2, p. 81]).
-
-
- The indecision of the party hierarchy did have an effect, of course. While
-the anarchists at Kronstadt looked at the demonstration as the start of an
+The indecision of the party hierarchy did have an effect, of course. While the
+anarchists at Kronstadt looked at the demonstration as the start of an
uprising, the Bolsheviks there were _"wavering indecisively in the middle"_
between them and the Left-Social Revolutionaries who saw it as a means of
applying pressure on the government. This was because they were _"hamstrung by
@@ -2631,9 +2458,7 @@ the indecision of the party Central Committee."_ [Rabinowitch, **Op. Cit.**,
p. 187] Little wonder so many Bolshevik party organisations developed and
protected their own autonomy and ability to act!
-
-
- Significantly, one of the main Bolshevik groupings which helped organise and
+Significantly, one of the main Bolshevik groupings which helped organise and
support the July uprising, the Military Organisation, started their own paper
after the Central Committee had decreed after the failed revolt that neither
it, nor the Petersburg Committee, should be allowed to have one. It _"angrily
@@ -2645,18 +2470,14 @@ Central Committee.'"_ [Rabinowitch, **Op. Cit.**, p. 227] The Central
Committee backed down, undoubtedly due to the fact it could not enforce its
decision.
-
-
- This was but one example of what the Cohn-Bendit brothers pointed to, namely
+This was but one example of what the Cohn-Bendit brothers pointed to, namely
that _"five months after the Revolution and three months before the October
uprising, the masses were still governing themselves, and the Bolshevik
vanguard simply had to toe the line."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 186] Within that
vanguard, the central committee proved to be out of touch with the rank and
file, who ignored it rather than break with their fellow workers.
-
-
- Even by October, the party machine still lagged behind the needs of the
+Even by October, the party machine still lagged behind the needs of the
revolution. In fact, Lenin could only impose his view by going over the head
of the Central Committee. According to Trotsky's account, _"this time he [wa]s
not satisfied with furious criticism"_ of the _"ruinous Fabianism of the
@@ -2664,22 +2485,20 @@ Petrograd leadership"_ and _"by way of protest he resign[ed] from the Central
Committee."_ [**History of the Russian Revolution**, vol. 3, p. 131] Trotsky
quoted Lenin as follows:
-> _ "I am compelled to request permission to withdraw from the Central
+> _"I am compelled to request permission to withdraw from the Central
Committee, which I hereby do, and leave myself freedom of agitation in the
lower ranks of the party and at the party congress."_ [quoted by Trotsky,
**Op. Cit.**, p. 131]
-
-
- Thus the October revolution was precipitated by a blatant violation of the
+Thus the October revolution was precipitated by a blatant violation of the
principles Lenin spent his life advocating. Indeed, if someone else other than
Lenin had done this we are sure that Lenin, and his numerous followers, would
have dismissed it as the action of a _"petty-bourgeois intellectual"_ who
-cannot handle party _"discipline."_ This is itself is significant, as is the
-fact that he decided to appeal to the _"lower ranks"_ of the party - rather
-than being "democratic" the party machine effectively blocked communication
-and control from the bottom-up. Looking to the more radical party membership,
-he _"could only impose his view by going over the head of his Central
+cannot handle party _"discipline."_ This is itself significant, as is the fact
+that he decided to appeal to the _"lower ranks"_ of the party - rather than
+being "democratic" the party machine effectively blocked communication and
+control from the bottom-up. Looking to the more radical party membership, he
+_"could only impose his view by going over the head of his Central
Committee."_ [Daniel and Gabriel Cohn-Bendit, **Op. Cit.**, p. 187] He made
sure to send his letter of protest to _"the Petrograd and Moscow committees"_
and also made sure that _"copies fell into the hands of the more reliable
@@ -2689,11 +2508,9 @@ committees"_ calling for insurrection. He also _"appealed to a Petrograd party
conference to speak a firm word in favour of insurrection."_ [Trotsky, **Op.
Cit.**, p. 131 and p. 132]
-
-
- In October, Lenin had to fight what he called _"a wavering"_ in the _"upper
+In October, Lenin had to fight what he called _"a wavering"_ in the _"upper
circles of the party"_ which lead to a _"sort of dread of the struggle for
-power, an inclination to replace this struggle with resolutions protests, and
+power, an inclination to replace this struggle with resolutions, protests and
conferences."_ [quoted by Trotsky, **Op. Cit.**, p. 132] For Trotsky, this
represented _"almost a direct pitting of the party against the Central
Committee,"_ required because _"it was a question of the fate of the
@@ -2705,12 +2522,10 @@ expressed themselves."_ [Trotsky, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 132-3 and p. 133]
Ultimately, the Central Committee came round to Lenin's position but they did
so under pressure of means at odds with the principles of the party.
-
-
- This divergence between the imagine and reality of the Bolsheviks explains
-their success. If the party had applied or had remained true to the principles
-of "democratic centralism" it is doubtful that it would have played an
-important role in the movement. As Alexander Rabinowitch argues, Bolshevik
+This divergence between the image and reality of the Bolsheviks explains their
+success. If the party had applied or had remained true to the principles of
+"democratic centralism" it is doubtful that it would have played an important
+role in the movement. As Alexander Rabinowitch argues, Bolshevik
organisational unity and discipline is _"vastly exaggerated"_ and, in fact,
Bolshevik success in 1917 was down to _"the party's internally relatively
democratic, tolerant, and decentralised structure and method of operation, as
@@ -2727,9 +2542,7 @@ slogan _"All Power to the Soviets"_ was _"officially withdrawn by the Sixth
[Party] Congress in late July, this change did not take hold at the local
level."_ [**The Bolsheviks Come to Power**, p. 311, p. 312 and p. 313]
-
-
- It is no exaggeration to argue that if any member of a current vanguard party
+It is no exaggeration to argue that if any member of a current vanguard party
acted as the Bolshevik rank and file did in 1917, they would quickly be
expelled (this probably explains why no such party has been remotely
successful since). However, this ferment from below was quickly undermined
@@ -2737,23 +2550,19 @@ within the party with the start of the Civil War. It is from this period when
"democratic centralism" was actually applied within the party and clarified as
an organisational principle:
-> _ "It was quite a turnabout since the anarchic days before the Civil War.
-The Central Committee had always advocated the virtues of obedience and co-
+> _"It was quite a turnabout since the anarchic days before the Civil War. The
+Central Committee had always advocated the virtues of obedience and co-
operation; but the rank-and-filers of 1917 had cared little about such
entreaties as they did about appeals made by other higher authorities. The
wartime emergency now supplied an opportunity to expatiate on this theme at
will."_ [Service, **Op. Cit.**, p. 91]
-
-
- Service stresses that _"it appears quite remarkable how quickly the
+Service stresses that _"it appears quite remarkable how quickly the
Bolsheviks, who for years had talked idly about a strict hierarchy of command
inside the party, at last began to put ideas into practice."_ [**Op. Cit.**,
p. 96]
-
-
- In other words, the conversion of the Bolshevik party into a fully fledged
+In other words, the conversion of the Bolshevik party into a fully fledged
_"democratic centralist"_ party occurred during the degeneration of the
Revolution. This was both a consequence of the rising authoritarianism within
the party, state and society as well as one of its causes so it is quite
@@ -2768,14 +2577,12 @@ hierarchy and authority in the post-revolutionary regime. It simply replaced
the old ruling elite with another, made up of members of the radical
intelligentsia and the odd ex-worker or ex-peasant.
-
-
- This was due to the hierarchical and top-down nature of the party Lenin had
+This was due to the hierarchical and top-down nature of the party Lenin had
created. While the party base was largely working class, the leadership was
not. Full-time revolutionaries, they were either middle-class intellectuals or
(occasionally) ex-workers and (even rarer) ex-peasants who had left their
-class to become part of the party machine. Even the delegates at the party
-congresses did not truly reflect class basis of the party membership. For
+class to become part of the party machine. Even the delegates at party
+congresses did not truly reflect the class basis of the party membership. For
example, the number of delegates was still dominated by white-collar or others
(59.1% to 40.9%) at the sixth party congress at the end of July 1917. [Cliff,
**Lenin**, vol. 2, p. 160] So while the party gathered more working class
@@ -2787,18 +2594,16 @@ base could not effectively control them even during the revolution in 1917. It
was only effective because these newly joined and radicalised working class
members ignored their own party structure and its defining ideology.
-
-
- After the revolution, the Bolsheviks saw their membership start to decrease.
+After the revolution, the Bolsheviks saw their membership start to decrease.
Significantly, _"the decline in numbers which occurred from early 1918
onwards"_ started happening _"contrary to what is usually assumed, some months
before the Central Committee's decree in midsummer that the party should be
purged of its 'undesirable' elements."_ These lost members reflected two
things. Firstly, the general decline in the size of the industrial working
class. This meant that the radicalised new elements from the countryside which
-had flocked to the Bolsheviks in 1917 returned home. Secondly, the lost of
+had flocked to the Bolsheviks in 1917 returned home. Secondly, the loss of
popular support due to the realities of the Bolshevik regime. This can be seen
-from the fact that while the Bolsheviks were losing members, the Left SRS
+from the fact that while the Bolsheviks were losing members, the Left SRs
almost doubled in size to 100,000 (the Mensheviks claimed to have a similar
number). Rather than non-proletarians leaving, _"[i]t is more probable by far
that it was industrial workers who were leaving in droves. After all, it would
@@ -2811,15 +2616,12 @@ way."_ By late 1918 membership started to increase again but _"[m]ost
newcomers were not of working-class origin . . . the proportion of Bolsheviks
of working-class origin fell from 57 per cent at the year's beginning to 48
per cent at the end."_ It should be noted that it was not specified how many
-were classed as having working-class origin were still employed in working-
-class jobs. [Robert Service, **Op. Cit.**, p. 70, pp. 70-1 and p. 90] A new
-ruling elite was thus born, thanks to the way vanguard parties are structured
-and the application of vanguardist principles which had previously been
-ignored.
+classed as having working-class origin were still employed in working-class
+jobs. [Robert Service, **Op. Cit.**, p. 70, pp. 70-1 and p. 90] A new ruling
+elite was thus born, thanks to the way vanguard parties are structured and the
+application of vanguardist principles which had previously been ignored.
-
-
- In summary, the experience of the Russian Revolution does not, in fact, show
+In summary, the experience of the Russian Revolution does not, in fact, show
the validity of the "vanguard" model. The Bolshevik party in 1917 played a
leading role in the revolution only insofar as its members violated its own
organisational principles (Lenin included). Faced with a real revolution and
@@ -2832,3 +2634,7 @@ finally applied they helped ensure the degeneration of the revolution. This
was to be expected, given the nature of vanguardism and the Bolshevik vision
of socialism.
+[‹ H.4 Didn't Engels refute anarchism in "On Authority"?](/afaq/secH4.html "Go
+to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secHcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [H.6 Why did
+the Russian Revolution fail? ›](/afaq/secH6.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secH6.md b/markdown/secH6.md
index ef18a220895037487dce9a9f678872771ee8b62d..f4be1e59f0c7aee953f34224cbed7dd25b2f21ce 100644
--- a/markdown/secH6.md
+++ b/markdown/secH6.md
@@ -138,13 +138,13 @@ outcome.
Nor is it a case that anarchists have no solutions to the problems facing the
Russian Revolution. As well as the negative critique that statist structures
are unsuitable for creating socialism, particularly in the difficult economic
-circumstances that affects every revolution, anarchists stressed that genuine
+circumstances that affect every revolution, anarchists stressed that genuine
social construction had to be based on the people's own organisations and
self-activity. This was because, as Goldman concluded, the state is a _"menace
to the constructive development of the new social structure"_ and _"would
become a dead weight upon the growth of the new forms of life."_ Therefore,
-she argued, only the _"industrial power of the masses, expressed through their
-libertarian associations - Anarchosyndicalism \- is alone able to organise
+she argued, the _"industrial power of the masses, expressed through their
+libertarian associations - Anarchosyndicalism - is alone able to organise
successfully the economic life and carry on production"_ If the revolution had
been made a la Bakunin rather than a la Marx _"the result would have been
different and more satisfactory"_ as (echoing Kropotkin) Bolshevik methods
@@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ no opposition party was prepared to remain within legal limits. The premise of
dictatorship was common to both sides of the argument."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p.
190] Yet this _"judgment ignores"_ the Mensheviks whose policy of legal
opposition: _"The charge that the Mensheviks were not prepared to remain
-within legal limits is part of the Bolsheviks case; it does not survive an
+within legal limits is part of the Bolsheviks’ case; it does not survive an
examination of the facts."_ [Schapiro, **Op. Cit.**, p. 355fn]
As regards the SRs, this issue is more complicated. The right-SRs welcomed and
@@ -189,17 +189,16 @@ Constituent Assembly (within which they had an overwhelming majority and which
the Bolsheviks had dissolved). After the White General Kolchak overthrew this
government in November 1918 (and so turned the civil war into a Red against
White one), most right-SRs sided with the Bolsheviks and, in return, the
-Bolsheviks restated them to the soviets in February 1919\. [Carr, **Op.
-Cit.**, p. 356 and p. 180] It must be stressed that, contra Carr, the SRs
-aimed for a democratically elected government, not a dictatorship (and
-definitely not a White one). With the Left-SRs, it was the Bolsheviks who
-denied them their majority at the Fifth All-Congress of Soviets. Their
-rebellion was **not** an attempted coup but rather an attempt to force the end
-of the Brest-Litovsk treaty with the Germans by restarting the war (as
-Alexander Rabinowitch proves beyond doubt in his **The Bolsheviks in Power**).
-It would be fair to say that the anarchists, most SRs, the Left SRs and
-Mensheviks were not opposed to the revolution, they were opposed to Bolshevik
-policy.
+Bolsheviks restated them to the soviets in February 1919. [Carr, **Op. Cit.**,
+p. 356 and p. 180] It must be stressed that, contra Carr, the SRs aimed for a
+democratically elected government, not a dictatorship (and definitely not a
+White one). With the Left-SRs, it was the Bolsheviks who denied them their
+majority at the Fifth All-Congress of Soviets. Their rebellion was **not** an
+attempted coup but rather an attempt to force the end of the Brest-Litovsk
+treaty with the Germans by restarting the war (as Alexander Rabinowitch proves
+beyond doubt in his **The Bolsheviks in Power**). It would be fair to say that
+the anarchists, most SRs, the Left SRs and Mensheviks were not opposed to the
+revolution, they were opposed to Bolshevik policy.
Ultimately, as Emma Goldman came to conclude, _"what [the Bolsheviks] called
'defence of the Revolution' was really only the defence of [their] party in
@@ -246,7 +245,7 @@ path had been followed then success would have automatically followed. It is
possible that the revolution would have failed but one thing is sure: by
following the Bolshevik path it **did** fail. While the Bolsheviks may have
remained in power at the end of the civil war, the regime was a party
-dictatorship preceding over a state capitalist economy. In such circumstances,
+dictatorship presiding over a state capitalist economy. In such circumstances,
there could no further development towards socialism and, unsurprisingly,
there was none. Ultimately, as the rise of Stalin showed, the notion that
socialism could be constructed without basic working class freedom and self-
@@ -264,7 +263,7 @@ class protest and strikes against them throughout the civil war, so suggesting
a social base existed for a genuinely socialist approach (see [section
H.6.3](secH6.html#sech63)).
-Finally, there is a counter-example which, anarchists argue, show the impact
+Finally, there is a counter-example which, anarchists argue, shows the impact
of Bolshevik ideology on the fate of the revolution. This is the anarchist
influenced Makhnovist movement (see Peter Arshinov's **The History of the
Makhnovist Movement** or Alexandre Skirda's **Nestor Makhno Anarchy's
@@ -292,10 +291,10 @@ justify Bolshevik actions and policies. We do so simply because it would be
impossible to cover every aspect of the revolution and because these
rationales are one of the main reasons why Leninist ideology has not been
placed in the dustbin of history where it belongs. For further discussion, see
-[the appendix on the Russian Revolution](append4.html) or Voline's **The
-Unknown Revolution**, Alexander Berkman's **The Russian Tragedy** and **The
-Bolshevik Myth**, Emma Goldman's **My Disillusionment in Russia** or Maurice
-Brinton's essential **The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control**.
+Voline's **The Unknown Revolution**, Alexander Berkman's **The Russian
+Tragedy** and **The Bolshevik Myth**, Emma Goldman's **My Disillusionment in
+Russia** or Maurice Brinton's essential **The Bolsheviks and Workers'
+Control**.
## H.6.1 Can objective factors explain the failure of the Russian Revolution?
@@ -332,14 +331,14 @@ the Bolsheviks aimed for party power and only supported soviets as long as
they controlled them. To maintain party power, they had to undermine the
soviets and they did. This onslaught on the soviets started quickly, in fact
overnight when the first act of the Bolsheviks was to create an executive
-body, the the Council of People's Commissars (or Sovnarkon), over and above
-the soviets. This was in direct contradiction to Lenin's **The State and
+body, the Council of People's Commissars (or Sovnarkon), over and above the
+soviets. This was in direct contradiction to Lenin's **The State and
Revolution**, where he had used the example of the Paris Commune to argue for
the merging of executive and legislative powers. Then, a mere four days after
this seizure of power by the Bolsheviks, the Sovnarkom unilaterally took for
itself legislative power simply by issuing a decree to this effect: _"This
-was, effectively, a Bolshevik coup dtat that made clear the government's (and
-party's) pre-eminence over the soviets and their executive organ.
+was, effectively, a Bolshevik coup d’état that made clear the government's
+(and party's) pre-eminence over the soviets and their executive organ.
Increasingly, the Bolsheviks relied upon the appointment from above of
commissars with plenipotentiary powers, and they split up and reconstituted
fractious Soviets and intimidated political opponents."_ [Neil Harding,
@@ -365,16 +364,16 @@ the soviets increasing post-October and _"[e]ffective power in the local
soviets relentlessly gravitated to the executive committees, and especially
their presidia. Plenary sessions became increasingly symbolic and
ineffectual."_ The party was _"successful in gaining control of soviet
-executives in the cities and at **uezd** and **guberniya** levels. These
-executive bodies were usually able to control soviet congresses, though the
-party often disbanded congresses that opposed major aspects of current
-policies."_ Local soviets _"had little input into the formation of national
-policy"_ and _"[e]ven at higher levels, institutional power shifted away from
-the soviets."_ [Carmen Sirianni, **Workers' Control and Socialist Democracy**,
-p. 204 and p. 203] In Moscow, for example, power in the soviet _"moved away
-from the plenum to ever smaller groups at the apex."_ The presidium, created
-in November 1917, _"rapidly accrued massive powers."_ [Richard Sakwa, **Soviet
-Communists in Power**, p. 166]
+executives in the cities and at **uezd** [district] and **guberniya**
+[province] levels. These executive bodies were usually able to control soviet
+congresses, though the party often disbanded congresses that opposed major
+aspects of current policies."_ Local soviets _"had little input into the
+formation of national policy"_ and _"[e]ven at higher levels, institutional
+power shifted away from the soviets."_ [Carmen Sirianni, **Workers' Control
+and Socialist Democracy**, p. 204 and p. 203] In Moscow, for example, power in
+the soviet _"moved away from the plenum to ever smaller groups at the apex."_
+The presidium, created in November 1917, _"rapidly accrued massive powers."_
+[Richard Sakwa, **Soviet Communists in Power**, p. 166]
The Bolshevik dominated soviet executives used this power to maintain a
Bolshevik majority, by any means possible, in the face of popular
@@ -466,21 +465,21 @@ party people."_ [Silvana Malle, **The Economic Organisation of War Communism,
1918-1921**, pp. 366-7]
Unsurprisingly, the same contempt was expressed at the fifth All-Russian
-Soviet Congress in July 1918 when the Bolshevik gerrymandered it to maintain
-their majority. The Bolsheviks banned the Mensheviks in the context of
-political loses **before** the Civil War, which gave the Bolsheviks an excuse
-and they _"drove them underground, just on the eve of the elections to the
-Fifth Congress of Soviets in which the Mensheviks were expected to make
-significant gains"_. While the Bolsheviks _"offered some formidable fictions
-to justify the expulsions"_ there was _"of course no substance in the charge
-that the Mensheviks had been mixed in counter-revolutionary activities on the
-Don, in the Urals, in Siberia, with the Czechoslovaks, or that they had joined
-the worst Black Hundreds."_ [Getzler, **Op. Cit.**, p. 181]
+Soviet Congress in July 1918 when the Bolsheviks gerrymandered it to maintain
+their majority. They banned the Mensheviks in the context of political losses
+**before** the Civil War, which gave the Bolsheviks an excuse and they _"drove
+them underground, just on the eve of the elections to the Fifth Congress of
+Soviets in which the Mensheviks were expected to make significant gains"_.
+While the Bolsheviks _"offered some formidable fictions to justify the
+expulsions"_ there was _"of course no substance in the charge that the
+Mensheviks had been mixed in counter-revolutionary activities on the Don, in
+the Urals, in Siberia, with the Czechoslovaks, or that they had joined the
+worst Black Hundreds."_ [Getzler, **Op. Cit.**, p. 181]
With the Mensheviks and Right-SRs banned from the soviets, popular
disenchantment with Bolshevik rule was expressed by voting Left-SR. The
Bolsheviks ensured their majority in the congress and, therefore, a Bolshevik
-government by gerrymandering it has they had the Petrograd soviet. Thus
+government by gerrymandering it as they had the Petrograd soviet. Thus
_"electoral fraud gave the Bolsheviks a huge majority of congress delegates"_.
In reality, _"the number of legitimately elected Left SR delegates was roughly
equal to that of the Bolsheviks."_ The Left-SRs expected a majority but did
@@ -574,9 +573,9 @@ would introduce socialism. [**How the Revolution Armed**, vol. 1, p. 37 and p.
In reality, the Bolshevik vision of socialism simply replaced private
capitalism with state capitalism, taking control of the economy out of the
hands of the workers and placing it into the hands of the state bureaucracy.
-As one historian correctly summarises the s-called workers' state _"oversaw
+As one historian correctly summarises the so-called workers' state _"oversaw
the reimposition of alienated labour and hierarchical social relations. It
-carried out this function in the absence of a ruling class, and them played a
+carried out this function in the absence of a ruling class, and then played a
central role in ushering that class into existence - a class which
subsequently ruled not through its ownership of private property but through
its 'ownership' of the state. That state was antagonistic to the forces that
@@ -630,7 +629,7 @@ emergency measure forced upon the Bolsheviks by dire circumstances of civil
war but rather as a natural aspect of building socialism itself. In March,
1918, for example, Lenin argued that civil war _"became a fact"_ on October,
25, 1917 and _"[i]n this civil war . . . victory was achieved with . . .
-extraordinary ease . . . The Russia revolution was a continuous triumphal
+extraordinary ease . . . The Russian revolution was a continuous triumphal
march in the first months."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 88-9] Looking back at this
time from April 1920, Lenin reiterated his position (_"Dictatorial powers and
one-man management are not contradictory to socialist democracy."_) while also
@@ -800,7 +799,7 @@ attention on the civil war, Leninists also draw attention away from Bolshevik
ideology and tactics. As Peter Kropotkin recounted to Emma Goldman this simply
cannot be done:
-> _ "the Communists are a political party firmly adhering to the idea of a
+> _"the Communists are a political party firmly adhering to the idea of a
centralised State, and that as such they were bound to misdirect the course of
the Revolution . . . [Their policies] have paralysed the energies of the
masses and have terrorised the people. Yet without the direct participation of
@@ -820,7 +819,7 @@ question of which aspects of Bolshevik ideology impacted negatively on the
revolution. As Kropotkin's comments indicate, anarchists have good reason to
argue that one of the greatest myths of state socialism is the idea that
Bolshevik ideology played no role in the fate of the Russian Revolution. We
-turn to this in the [next section](secH6.html#sech62).
+turn to this in the [next section](secH6.html#sech62)
## H.6.2 Did Bolshevik ideology influence the outcome of the Russian
Revolution?
@@ -830,17 +829,15 @@ the Leninist argument that the failure of Bolshevism in the Russian Revolution
can be blamed purely on the difficult objective circumstances they faced. As
Noam Chomsky summarises:
-> _ "In the stages leading up to the Bolshevik coup in October 1917, there
+> _"In the stages leading up to the Bolshevik coup in October 1917, there
**were** incipient socialist institutions developing in Russia - workers'
councils, collectives, things like that. And they survived to an extent once
the Bolsheviks took over - but not for very long; Lenin and Trotsky pretty
much eliminated them as they consolidated their power. I mean, you can argue
about the **justification** for eliminating them, but the fact is that the
-socialist initiatives were pretty quickly eliminated.
+socialist initiatives were pretty quickly eliminated. _
->
-
-> "Now, people who want to justify it say, 'The Bolsheviks had to do it' -
+> _"Now, people who want to justify it say, 'The Bolsheviks had to do it' -
that's the standard justification: Lenin and Trotsky had to do it, because of
the contingencies of the civil war, for survival, there wouldn't have been
food otherwise, this and that. Well, obviously the question is, was that true.
@@ -855,13 +852,13 @@ genuine socialism started before the civil war. Moreover, it did not happen by
accident. The attacks were rooted in the Bolshevik vision of socialism. As
Maurice Brinton concluded:
-> _ "there is a clear-cut and incontrovertible link between what happened
-under Lenin and Trotsky and the later practices of Stalinism . . . The more
-one unearths about this period the more difficult it becomes to define - or
-even to see - the 'gulf' allegedly separating what happened in Lenin's time
-from what happened later. Real knowledge of the facts also makes it impossible
-to accept . . . that the whole course of events was 'historically inevitable'
-and 'objectively determined'. Bolshevik ideology and practice were themselves
+> _"there is a clear-cut and incontrovertible link between what happened under
+Lenin and Trotsky and the later practices of Stalinism . . . The more one
+unearths about this period the more difficult it becomes to define - or even
+to see - the 'gulf' allegedly separating what happened in Lenin's time from
+what happened later. Real knowledge of the facts also makes it impossible to
+accept . . . that the whole course of events was 'historically inevitable' and
+'objectively determined'. Bolshevik ideology and practice were themselves
important and sometimes decisive factors in the equation, at every critical
stage of this critical period."_ [**The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control**, p.
84]
@@ -916,12 +913,12 @@ This was a striking confirmation of the anarchist analysis which argued that a
new bureaucratic class develops around any centralised body. This body would
soon become riddled with personal influences and favours, so ensuring that
members could be sheltered from popular control while, at the same time,
-exploiting its power to feather their own nest. Overtime, this permanent
+exploiting its power to feather their own nest. Over time, this permanent
collection of bodies would become the real power in the state, with the party
members nominally in charge really under the control of an unelected and
uncontrolled officialdom. This was recognised by Lenin in 1922:
-> _ "If we take Moscow with its 4,700 Communists in responsible positions, and
+> _"If we take Moscow with its 4,700 Communists in responsible positions, and
if we take that huge bureaucratic machine, that gigantic heap, we must ask:
who is directing whom? I doubt very much whether it can truthfully be said
that the Communists are directing that heap. To tell the truth, they are not
@@ -936,7 +933,7 @@ employed in the city"_ (200,000 in November, 1920, rising to 228,000 in July,
1921 and, by October 1922, to 243,000). [Sakwa, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 191-3] And
with bureaucracy came the abuse of it simply because it held **real** power:
-> _ "The prevalence of bureaucracy, of committees and commissions . . .
+> _"The prevalence of bureaucracy, of committees and commissions . . .
permitted, and indeed encouraged, endless permutations of corrupt practices.
These raged from the style of living of communist functionaries to bribe-
taking by officials. With the power of allocation of scare resources, such as
@@ -949,7 +946,7 @@ Yet, for the Bolsheviks _"the development of a bureaucracy"_ was a puzzle,
_"whose emergence and properties mystified them."_ It should be noted that,
_"[f]or the Bolsheviks, bureaucratism signified the escape of this bureaucracy
from the will of the party as it took on a life of its own."_ [**Op. Cit.**,
-p. 182 and p. 190] This was the key. They did not object the usurpation of
+p. 182 and p. 190] This was the key. They did not object to the usurpation of
power by the party (indeed they placed party dictatorship at the core of their
politics and universalised it to a general principle for **all** "socialist"
revolutions). Nor did they object to the centralisation of power and activity
@@ -975,7 +972,7 @@ the mass of the workers, just as there is no antagonism between the
administration of the union and the general assembly of its members"_ is just
nonsense. [**Leon Trotsky Speaks**, p. 113] The history of trade unionism is
full of examples of committees betraying their membership. Needless to say,
-the subsequent history Lenin's government shows that there can be
+the subsequent history of Lenin's government shows that there can be
_"antagonism"_ between rulers and ruled and that appointments are always a key
way to further elite interests.
@@ -1015,7 +1012,7 @@ In a clash between soviet democracy and party power, the Bolsheviks
consistently favoured the latter - as would be expected given their ideology.
This can be seen from the Bolsheviks' negative response to the soviets of
-1905\. At one stage the Bolsheviks demanded the St. Petersburg soviet accept
+1905. At one stage the Bolsheviks demanded the St. Petersburg soviet accept
the Bolshevik political programme and then disband. The rationale for these
attacks is significant. The St. Petersburg Bolsheviks were convinced that
_"only a strong party along class lines can guide the proletarian political
@@ -1054,7 +1051,7 @@ applied roused increasing opposition."_ [Sakwa, **Op. Cit.**, p. 182 and p.
**Workers' Opposition** and Trotsky's **Left Opposition** in the 1920s). The
ease with which the Bolsheviks embraced party dictatorship is suggestive of a
fundamental flaw in their political perspective which the problems of the
-revolution, combined with lost of popular support, simply exposed.
+revolution, combined with loss of popular support, simply exposed.
Then there is the Bolshevik vision of socialism. As we discussed in [section
H.3.12](secH3.html#sech312), the Bolsheviks, like other Marxists at the time,
@@ -1088,7 +1085,7 @@ committees would play, at best, a minor role. Given who held actual power in
the new regime, it is unsurprising to discover which vision was actually
introduced:
-> _ "On three occasions in the first months of Soviet power, the [factory]
+> _"On three occasions in the first months of Soviet power, the [factory]
committee leaders sought to bring their model into being. At each point the
party leadership overruled them. The result was to vest both managerial
**and** control powers in organs of the state which were subordinate to the
@@ -1126,7 +1123,7 @@ were prevalent among Marxists, determined the short life of the All-Russian
Council of Workers' Control."_ [Silvana Malle, **The Economic Organisation of
War Communism, 1918-1921**, p. 95 and p. 94]
-Moreover, the Bolsheviks had systematically stopped the factory committee
+Moreover, the Bolsheviks had systematically stopped the factory committees
organising together, using their controlled unions to come _"out firmly
against the attempt of the Factory Committees to form a national
organisation."_ The unions _"prevented the convocation of a planned All-
@@ -1150,7 +1147,7 @@ nationalised property replacing capitalist property was at the root of the
creation of state capitalism within Russia. This was very centralised and very
inefficient:
-> _ "it seems apparent that many workers themselves . . . had now come to
+> _"it seems apparent that many workers themselves . . . had now come to
believe . . . that confusion and anarchy [sic!] **at the top** were the major
causes of their difficulties, and with some justification. The fact was that
Bolshevik administration was chaotic . . . Scores of competitive and
@@ -1200,7 +1197,7 @@ administrations and **glavki** increased together with the number of
enterprises under their control"_. [Malle, **Op. Cit.**, p. 232, p. 233 and p.
250] In summary:
-> _ "The most evident shortcoming . . . was that it did not ensure central
+> _"The most evident shortcoming . . . was that it did not ensure central
allocation of resources and central distribution of output, in accordance with
any priority ranking . . . materials were provided to factories in arbitrary
proportions: in some places they accumulated, whereas in others there was a
@@ -1222,16 +1219,16 @@ given the state of the transport network, this was a doubly inefficient). The
local bodies, knowing the grassroots situation, _"had proved to be more far-
sighted than the centre."_ For example, flax had been substituted for cotton
long before the centre had issued instructions for this. Arguments reversing
-the logic centralisation were raised: _"there was a lot of talk about scarcity
-of raw materials, while small factories and mills were stuffed with them in
-some provinces: what's better, to let work go on, or to make plans?"_ These
-_"expressed feelings . . . about the inefficiency of the **glavk** system and
-the waste which was visible locally."_ Indeed, _"the inefficiency of central
-financing seriously jeopardised local activity."_ While _"the centre had
-displayed a great deal of conservatism and routine thinking,"_ the localities
-_"had already found ways of rationing raw materials, a measure which had not
-yet been decided upon at the centre."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p.269, p. 270 and pp.
-272-3]
+the logic of centralisation were raised: _"there was a lot of talk about
+scarcity of raw materials, while small factories and mills were stuffed with
+them in some provinces: what's better, to let work go on, or to make plans?"_
+These _"expressed feelings . . . about the inefficiency of the **glavk**
+system and the waste which was visible locally."_ Indeed, _"the inefficiency
+of central financing seriously jeopardised local activity."_ While _"the
+centre had displayed a great deal of conservatism and routine thinking,"_ the
+localities _"had already found ways of rationing raw materials, a measure
+which had not yet been decided upon at the centre."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p.269, p.
+270 and pp. 272-3]
This did not result in changes as such demands _"challenged . . . the central
directives of the party"_ which _"approved the principles on which the
@@ -1262,7 +1259,7 @@ resistance from local authorities."_ [Thomas F. Remington, **Op. Cit.**, pp.
58-9] This kind of clashing could not help but occur when the centre had no
real knowledge nor understanding of local conditions:
-> _ "Organisations with independent claims to power frequently ignored it. It
+> _"Organisations with independent claims to power frequently ignored it. It
was deluged with work of an ad hoc character . . . Demands for fuel and
supplies piled up. Factories demanded instructions on demobilisation and
conversion. Its presidium . . . scarcely knew what its tasks were, other than
@@ -1453,7 +1450,7 @@ and the nature of industry, their agricultural policies were even worse. Part
of the problem was that the Bolsheviks were simply ignorant of peasant life
(as one historian put it, _"the deeply held views of the party on class
struggle had overcome the need for evidence."_ [Christopher Read, **From Tsar
-to Soviet**, p. 225]). Lenin, for example, thought that inequality in the
+to Soviets**, p. 225]). Lenin, for example, thought that inequality in the
villages was much, much higher than it actually was, a mistaken assumption
which drove the unpopular and counter-productive "Committees of Poor Peasants"
(kombedy) policy of 1918. Rather than a countryside dominated by a few rich
@@ -1472,31 +1469,31 @@ the advice and protest of the Left-SRs, were failures and had alienated the
peasantry. While admitting to errors, it remains the case that it was Lenin
himself, more than anyone, who was responsible for them. Still, there was no
fundamental change in policy for another two years. Defenders of the
-Bolsheviks argue that the Bolshevik had no alternative but to use violence to
-seize food from the peasants to feed the starving cities. However, this fails
-to acknowledge two key facts. Firstly, Bolshevik industrial policy made the
+Bolsheviks argue that they had no alternative but to use violence to seize
+food from the peasants to feed the starving cities. However, this fails to
+acknowledge two key facts. Firstly, Bolshevik industrial policy made the
collapse of industry worse and so the lack of goods to trade for grain was, in
part, a result of the government. It is likely that if the factory committees
-had been fully supported then the lack of goods to trade may been reduced.
-Secondly, it cannot be said that the peasants did not wish to trade with the
-cities. They were, but at a fair price as can be seen from the fact that
-throughout Russia peasants with bags of grains on their backs went to the city
-to exchange them for goods. In fact, in the Volga region official state
-sources indicate _"that grain-hoarding and the black market did not become a
-major problem until the beginning of 1919, and that during the autumn the
-peasants, in general, were 'wildly enthusiastic to sell as much grain as
-possible' to the government."_ This changed when the state reduced its fixed
-prices by 25% and _"it became apparent that the new government would be unable
-to pay for grain procurements in industrial goods."_ [Orlando Figes, **Peasant
-Russia, Civil War**, p. 253 and p. 254] Thus, in that region at least, it was
-**after** the introduction of central state food requisition in January 1919
-that peasants started to hoard food. Thus Bolshevik policy made the situation
-worse. And as Alec Nove noted _"at certain moments even the government itself
-was compelled to 'legalise' illegal trade. For example, in September 1918 the
-wicked speculators and meshochniki [bag-men] were authorised to take sacks
-weighing up to 1.5 poods (54 lbs.) to Petrograd and Moscow, and in this month
-. . . they supplied four times more than did the official supply
-organisation."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 55]
+had been fully supported then the lack of goods to trade may have been
+reduced. Secondly, it cannot be said that the peasants did not wish to trade
+with the cities. They were willing, but at a fair price as can be seen from
+the fact that throughout Russia peasants with bags of grains on their backs
+went to the city to exchange them for goods. In fact, in the Volga region
+official state sources indicate _"that grain-hoarding and the black market did
+not become a major problem until the beginning of 1919, and that during the
+autumn the peasants, in general, were 'wildly enthusiastic to sell as much
+grain as possible' to the government."_ This changed when the state reduced
+its fixed prices by 25% and _"it became apparent that the new government would
+be unable to pay for grain procurements in industrial goods."_ [Orlando Figes,
+**Peasant Russia, Civil War**, p. 253 and p. 254] Thus, in that region at
+least, it was **after** the introduction of central state food requisition in
+January 1919 that peasants started to hoard food. Thus Bolshevik policy made
+the situation worse. And as Alec Nove noted _"at certain moments even the
+government itself was compelled to 'legalise' illegal trade. For example, in
+September 1918 the wicked speculators and meshochniki [bag-men] were
+authorised to take sacks weighing up to 1.5 poods (54 lbs.) to Petrograd and
+Moscow, and in this month . . . they supplied four times more than did the
+official supply organisation."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 55]
Yet rather than encourage this kind of self-activity, the Bolsheviks denounced
it as speculation and did all in their power to suppress it (this included
@@ -1620,7 +1617,7 @@ A standard Leninist explanation for the dictatorship of the Bolshevik party
_"declassing"_ of the proletariat. Leninist John Rees summarised this
argument:
-> _ "The civil war had reduced industry to rubble. The working class base of
+> _"The civil war had reduced industry to rubble. The working class base of
the workers' state, mobilised time and again to defeat the Whites, the rock on
which Bolshevik power stood, had disintegrated. The Bolsheviks survived three
years of civil war and wars in intervention, but only at the cost of reducing
@@ -1760,23 +1757,23 @@ factories and shops protests mounted and rapidly spread along the railways."_
[Rosenberg, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 126-7]
Faced with this mounting pressure of spontaneous strikes, the EAD declared a
-general for the 2nd of July. The Bolshevik authorities acted quickly: _"Any
-sign of sympathy for the strike was declared a criminal act. More arrests were
-made. In Moscow, Bolsheviks raided the Aleksandrovsk railroad shops, not
-without bloodshed. Dissidence spread."_ On July 1st, _"machine guns were set
-up at main points throughout the Petrograd and Moscow railroad junctions, and
-elsewhere in both cities as well. Controls were tightened in factories.
-Meetings were forcefully dispersed."_ [Rosenberg, **Op. Cit.**, p. 127]
-Factories were warned _"that if they participated in the general strike they
-would face immediate shutdown, and individual strikes were threatened with
-fines or loss of work. Agitators and members of strike committees were subject
-to immediate arrest."_ Opposition printing presses _"were sealed, the offices
-of hostile trade unions were raided, martial law on lines in the Petrograd
-rail hub was declared, and armed patrols with authority to prevent work
-stoppages were formed and put on twenty-four hour duty at key points around
-the city."_ Perhaps unsurprisingly, given _"the brutal suppression of the
-EAD's general strike"_, it was not successful. [Rabinowitch, **Op. Cit.**, p.
-254 and p. 259]
+general strike for the 2nd of July. The Bolshevik authorities acted quickly:
+_"Any sign of sympathy for the strike was declared a criminal act. More
+arrests were made. In Moscow, Bolsheviks raided the Aleksandrovsk railroad
+shops, not without bloodshed. Dissidence spread."_ On July 1st, _"machine guns
+were set up at main points throughout the Petrograd and Moscow railroad
+junctions, and elsewhere in both cities as well. Controls were tightened in
+factories. Meetings were forcefully dispersed."_ [Rosenberg, **Op. Cit.**, p.
+127] Factories were warned _"that if they participated in the general strike
+they would face immediate shutdown, and individual strikes were threatened
+with fines or loss of work. Agitators and members of strike committees were
+subject to immediate arrest."_ Opposition printing presses _"were sealed, the
+offices of hostile trade unions were raided, martial law on lines in the
+Petrograd rail hub was declared, and armed patrols with authority to prevent
+work stoppages were formed and put on twenty-four hour duty at key points
+around the city."_ Perhaps unsurprisingly, given _"the brutal suppression of
+the EAD's general strike"_, it was not successful. [Rabinowitch, **Op. Cit.**,
+p. 254 and p. 259]
Thus _"[b]y the early summer of 1918"_ there were _"widespread anti-Bolshevik
protests. Armed clashes occurred in the factory districts of Petrograd and
@@ -1813,7 +1810,7 @@ hidden throughout this period - and well into the 1930s (see [section
H.1.2](secH1.html#sech12) for his public support for this monopoly).
As noted above, this cycle of resistance and repression was not limited to
-Petrograd. In July 1918, a leading Bolshevik insisted _"that server measures
+Petrograd. In July 1918, a leading Bolshevik insisted _"that severe measures
were needed to deal with strikes"_ in Petrograd while in other cities
_"harsher forms of repression"_ were used. For example, in Tula, in June 1918,
the regime declared _"martial law and arrested the protestors. Strikes
@@ -1841,16 +1838,14 @@ Petrograd saw _"violent strikes"_ at around the same time. [Jonathan Aves,
**Workers Against Lenin**, p. 19 and p. 23] As Vladimir Brovkin argues in his
account of the strikes and protests of 1919:
-> _ "Data on one strike in one city may be dismissed as incidental. When,
+> _"Data on one strike in one city may be dismissed as incidental. When,
however, evidence is available from various sources on simultaneous
independent strikes in different cities an overall picture begins to emerge.
All strikes developed along a similar timetable: February, brewing discontent;
March and April, peak of strikes: May, slackening in strikes; and June and
-July, a new wave of strikes . . .
-
->
+July, a new wave of strikes . . . _
-> "Workers' unrest took place in Russia's biggest and most important
+> _"Workers' unrest took place in Russia's biggest and most important
industrial centres . . . Strikes affected the largest industries, primarily
those involving metal: metallurgical, locomotive, and armaments plants . . .
In some cities . . . textile and other workers were active protesters as well.
@@ -1942,18 +1937,18 @@ protest spread through Petrograd . . . Strikes and demonstrations spread. The
regime responded as it had done in the past, with lock-outs, mass arrests,
heavy show of force - and concessions."_ [Remington, **Op. Cit.**, p. 111] As
Paul Avrich recounts, in Petrograd these _"street demonstrations were heralded
-by a rash of protest meetings"_ workplaces On the 24th of February, the day
-after a workplace meeting, the Trubochny factory workforce downed tools and
-walked out the factory. Additional workers from nearby factories joined in.
-The crowd of 2,000 was dispersed by armed military cadets. The next day, the
-Trubochny workers again took to the streets and visited other workplaces,
-bringing them out on strike too. In the face of a near general strike, three-
-man Defence Committee was formed. Zinoviev _"proclaimed martial law"_ and
-_"[o]vernight Petrograd became an armed camp."_ Strikers were locked out and
-the _"application of military force and the widespread arrests, not to speak
-of the tireless propaganda waged by the authorities"_ was _"indispensable in
-restoring order"_ (as were economic concessions). [**Kronstadt 1921**, pp.
-37-8, p. 39, pp. 46-7 and p. 50]
+by a rash of protest meetings"_ in workplaces. On the 24th of February, the
+day after a workplace meeting, the Trubochny factory workforce downed tools
+and walked out the factory. Additional workers from nearby factories joined
+in. The crowd of 2,000 was dispersed by armed military cadets. The next day,
+the Trubochny workers again took to the streets and visited other workplaces,
+bringing them out on strike too. In the face of a near general strike, a
+three-man Defence Committee was formed. Zinoviev _"proclaimed martial law"_
+and _"[o]vernight Petrograd became an armed camp."_ Strikers were locked out
+and the _"application of military force and the widespread arrests, not to
+speak of the tireless propaganda waged by the authorities"_ was
+_"indispensable in restoring order"_ (as were economic concessions).
+[**Kronstadt 1921**, pp. 37-8, p. 39, pp. 46-7 and p. 50]
In Moscow, _"industrial unrest . . . turned into open confrontation and
protest spilled on to the streets"_, starting with a _"wave of strikes that
@@ -1983,7 +1978,7 @@ called on other plants to support the calls for new elections. As usual, the
ringleaders were arrested."_ [Sakwa, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 242-3, p. 245 and p.
246]
-The events at the Bromlei works were significant in that the march 25th mass
+The events at the Bromlei works were significant in that the March 25th mass
meeting passed an anarchist and Left-SR initiated resolution supporting the
Kronstadt rebels. The party _"responded by having them sacked en masse"_. The
workers _"demonstrated through"_ their district _"and inspired some brief
@@ -2081,7 +2076,7 @@ finally destroy what was left of non-Bolshevik trade unionism. In Moscow, this
took place against fierce resistance of the union members. As one historian
concludes:
-> _ "Reflecting on the determined struggle mounted by printers, bakers and
+> _"Reflecting on the determined struggle mounted by printers, bakers and
chemical workers in Moscow during 1920-1, in spite of appalling economic
conditions, being represented by organisations weakened by constant repression
. . . to retain their independent labour organisations it is difficult not to
@@ -2101,7 +2096,7 @@ state repression). The class struggle in Bolshevik Russia did not stop, it
continued except the ruling class had changed. All the popular energy and
organisation this expressed, which could have been used to combat the problems
facing the revolution and create the foundations of a genuine socialist
-society, were wasted in fighting the Bolshevik regime. Ultimately, though, the
+society, were wasted in fighting the Bolshevik regime. Ultimately, the
_"sustained, though ultimately futile, attempts to revive an autonomous
workers' movement, especially in mid-1918 and from late 1920, failed owing to
repression."_ [Sakwa, **Op. Cit.**, p. 269] Another historian notes that
@@ -2152,12 +2147,10 @@ the Communists' violation of fair play and workplace democracy."_ [Raleigh,
> _"The population was drifting away from the capital. All who had relatives
in the country had rejoined them. The authentic proletariat remained till the
-end, having the most slender connections with the countryside.
-
->
+end, having the most slender connections with the countryside. _
-> "This fact must be emphasised, in order to nail the official lies seeking to
-attribute the Petrograd strikes . . . to peasant elements, 'insufficiently
+> _"This fact must be emphasised, in order to nail the official lies seeking
+to attribute the Petrograd strikes . . . to peasant elements, 'insufficiently
steeled in proletarian ideas.' The real situation was the very opposite . . .
There was certainly no exodus of peasants into the starving towns! . . . It
was the famous Petrograd proletariat, the proletariat which had played such a
@@ -2175,13 +2168,13 @@ Bolshevik Party made deurbanisation and declassing the scapegoats for its
political difficulties when the party's own policies and its unwillingness to
accept changing proletarian attitudes were also to blame."_ It should also be
noted that the notion of declassing to rationalise the party's misfortunes was
-used before long before the civil war: _"This was the same argument used to
-explain the Bolsheviks' lack of success among workers in the early months of
-1917 - that the cadres of conscious proletarians were diluted by
-nonproletarian elements."_ [Diane P. Koenker, _"Urbanisation and
-Deurbanisation in the Russian Revolution and Civil War"_, pp. 81-104, **Party,
-State, and Society in the Russian Civil War**, Diane P. Koenker, William G.
-Rosenberg and Ronald Grigor Suny (eds.), p. 96, p. 95, p. 100 and p. 84]
+used long before the civil war: _"This was the same argument used to explain
+the Bolsheviks' lack of success among workers in the early months of 1917 -
+that the cadres of conscious proletarians were diluted by nonproletarian
+elements."_ [Diane P. Koenker, _"Urbanisation and Deurbanisation in the
+Russian Revolution and Civil War"_, pp. 81-104, **Party, State, and Society in
+the Russian Civil War**, Diane P. Koenker, William G. Rosenberg and Ronald
+Grigor Suny (eds.), p. 96, p. 95, p. 100 and p. 84]
While there is still much research required, what facts that are available
suggest that throughout the time of Lenin's regime the Russian workers took
@@ -2191,11 +2184,11 @@ manner, often they did. However, such responses were, in part (as we noted in
the [last section](secH6.html#sech62)), because Bolshevik policy **itself**
gave them little choice as it limited their ability to respond collectively.
Yet in the face of difficult economic circumstances, workers turned to mass
-meetings and strikes. In response, the Bolshevik's used state repression to
+meetings and strikes. In response, the Bolsheviks used state repression to
break resistance and protest against their regime. In such circumstances it is
easy to see how the Bolshevik party became isolated from the masses they
claimed to be leading but were, in fact, ruling. This transformation of rebels
-into a ruling elite comes as no great surprise given that Bolshevik's aimed to
+into a ruling elite comes as no great surprise given that Bolsheviks aimed to
seize power themselves in a centralised and hierarchical institution, a state,
which has always been the method by which ruling classes secured their
position (as we argued in [section H.3.7](secH3.html#sech37), this perspective
@@ -2221,7 +2214,7 @@ For example, in his 1920 diatribe against Left-wing Communism, Lenin pointed
to _"non-Party workers' and peasants' conferences"_ and Soviet Congresses as
means by which the party secured its rule. Yet, **if** the congresses of
soviets were _"**democratic** institutions, the like of which even the best
-democratic republics of the bourgeois have never know"_, the Bolsheviks would
+democratic republics of the bourgeois have never known"_, the Bolsheviks would
have no need to _"support, develop and extend"_ non-Party conferences _"to be
able to observe the temper of the masses, come closer to them, meet their
requirements, promote the best among them to state posts"._ [**The Lenin
@@ -2245,7 +2238,7 @@ participation. The Bolsheviks turned it down."_ [Pirani, **Op. Cit.**, pp.
elections had seen _"a high level of activity by the masses and a striving to
be in power themselves."_ [quoted by Pirani, **Op. Cit.**, p. 101]
-1921 also saw the Bolshevik disperse provincial trade unions conferences in
+1921 also saw the Bolsheviks disperse provincial trade unions conferences in
Vologda and Vitebsk _"because they had anti-communist majorities."_ [Aves,
**Op. Cit.**, p. 176] At the All-Russian Congress of Metalworkers' Union in
May, the delegates voted down the party-list of recommended candidates for
@@ -2277,7 +2270,7 @@ When such things happen, we can conclude that Bolshevik desire to remain in
power had a significant impact on whether workers were able to exercise
collective power or not. As Pirani concludes:
-> _ "one of the most important choices the Bolsheviks made . . . was to turn
+> _"one of the most important choices the Bolsheviks made . . . was to turn
their backs on forms of collective, participatory democracy that workers
briefly attempted to revive [post civil war]. [Available evidence] challenges
the notion . . . that political power was forced on the Bolsheviks because the
@@ -2323,7 +2316,7 @@ detainees on whom statistical information was available on 1 November 1920,
peasants and workers constituted the largest groups, at 39% and 34%
respectively. Similarly, of the 40,913 prisoners held in December 1921 (of
whom 44% had been committed by the Cheka) nearly 84% were illiterate or
-minimally educated, clearly, therefore, either peasants of workers. [George
+minimally educated, clearly, therefore, either peasants or workers. [George
Leggett, **The Cheka: Lenin's Political Police**, p. 178] Needless to say,
Lenin failed to mention this aspect of his system in **The State and
Revolution** (a failure shared by later Leninists). Ultimately, the
@@ -2386,9 +2379,7 @@ dictatorship of the proletariat is the strike committee of the social
Revolution.**"_ [**Proceedings and Documents of the Second Congress 1920**,
vol. 2, p. 929]
-
-
- In strikes, however, the decisions which are to be obeyed are those of the
+In strikes, however, the decisions which are to be obeyed are those of the
strikers. They should make the decisions and the strike committees should
carry them out. The actual decisions of the Strike Committee should be
accountable to the assembled strikers who have the real power (and so power is
@@ -2396,12 +2387,12 @@ accountable to the assembled strikers who have the real power (and so power is
committee). A far better analogy for what happened in Russia was provided by
Emma Goldman:
-> _ "There is another objection to my criticism on the part of the Communists.
+> _"There is another objection to my criticism on the part of the Communists.
Russia is on strike, they say, and it is unethical for a revolutionist to side
against the workers when they are striking against their masters. That is pure
-demagoguery practised by the Bolsheviki to silence criticism.
+demagoguery practised by the Bolsheviki to silence criticism. _
-"It is not true that the Russian people are on strike. On the contrary, the
+> _"It is not true that the Russian people are on strike. On the contrary, the
truth of the matter is that the Russian people have been **locked out** and
that the Bolshevik State - even as the bourgeois industrial master - uses the
sword and the gun to keep the people out. In the case of the Bolsheviki this
@@ -2410,9 +2401,7 @@ blinding the masses. Just because I am a revolutionist I refuse to side with
the master class, which in Russia is called the Communist Party."_ [**My
Disillusionment in Russia**, p. xlix]
-
-
- The isolation of the Bolsheviks from the working class was, in large part,
+The isolation of the Bolsheviks from the working class was, in large part,
required to ensure their power and, moreover, a natural result of utilising
state structures. _"The struggle against oppression - political, economic, and
social, against the exploitation of man by man"_ argued Alexander Berkman,
@@ -2435,9 +2424,7 @@ genuine socialist society could not be expressed and, moreover, came into
conflict with the Bolshevik authorities and their attempts to impose their
(essentially state capitalist) vision of "socialism".
-
-
- It need not have been that way. As can be seen from our discussion of labour
+It need not have been that way. As can be seen from our discussion of labour
protest under the Bolsheviks, even in extremely hard circumstances the Russian
people were able to organise themselves to conduct protest meetings,
demonstrations and strikes. The social base for an alternative to Bolshevik
@@ -2445,3 +2432,8 @@ power and policies existed. Sadly Bolshevik politics, policies and the
repression they required ensured that it could not be used constructively
during the revolution to create a genuine socialist revolution.
+[‹ H.5 What is vanguardism and why do anarchists reject it?](/afaq/secH5.html
+"Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secHcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [Section
+I - What would an anarchist society look like? ›](/afaq/secIcon.html "Go to
+next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secHcon.md b/markdown/secHcon.md
index 56b2329ff6f094551e2c89539bbbe3603dc64a95..5c1c91ed3137a48c68afda24bf2fcd122e2908fa 100644
--- a/markdown/secHcon.md
+++ b/markdown/secHcon.md
@@ -1,112 +1,135 @@
# Section H - Why do anarchists oppose state socialism?
+##
+
## [Introduction](secHint.html)
+##
+
## [H.1 Have anarchists always opposed state socialism?](secH1.html)
###
-[H.1.1 What was Bakunin's critique of Marxism?](secH1.html#sech11)
-[H.1.2 What are the key differences between Anarchists and Marxists?
+> [H.1.1 What was Bakunin's critique of Marxism?](secH1.html#sech11)
+> [H.1.2 What are the key differences between Anarchists and Marxists?
](secH1.html#sech12)
-[H.1.3 Why do anarchists wish to abolish the state
+> [H.1.3 Why do anarchists wish to abolish the state
_"overnight"_?](secH1.html#sech13)
-[H.1.4 Do anarchists have _"absolutely no idea"_ of what to put in place of
+> [H.1.4 Do anarchists have _"absolutely no idea"_ of what to put in place of
the state?](secH1.html#sech14)
-[H.1.5 Why do anarchists reject _"utilising the present
+> [H.1.5 Why do anarchists reject _"utilising the present
state"_?](secH1.html#sech15)
-[H.1.6 Why do anarchists try to _"build the new world in the shell of the
+> [H.1.6 Why do anarchists try to _"build the new world in the shell of the
old"_?](secH1.html#sech16)
-[H.1.7 Haven't you read Lenin's _"State and Revolution"_?](secH1.html#sech17)
+> [H.1.7 Haven't you read Lenin's _"State and
+Revolution"_?](secH1.html#sech17)
## [H.2 What parts of anarchism do Marxists particularly
misrepresent?](secH2.html)
-### [H.2.1 Do anarchists reject defending a revolution?](secH2.html#sech21)
-[H.2.2 Do anarchists reject _"class conflict"_ and _"collective
+> ### [H.2.1 Do anarchists reject defending a revolution?](secH2.html#sech21)
+> [H.2.2 Do anarchists reject _"class conflict"_ and _"collective
struggle"_?](secH2.html#sech22)
-[H.2.3 Does anarchism yearn _"for what has gone before"_?](secH2.html#sech23)
-[H.2.4 Do anarchists think _"the state is the main
+> [H.2.3 Does anarchism yearn _"for what has gone
+before"_?](secH2.html#sech23)
+> [H.2.4 Do anarchists think _"the state is the main
enemy"_?](secH2.html#sech24)
-[H.2.5 Do anarchists think _"full blown"_ socialism will be created
+> [H.2.5 Do anarchists think _"full blown"_ socialism will be created
overnight?](secH2.html#sech25)
-[H.2.6 How do Marxists misrepresent Anarchist ideas on mutual
+> [H.2.6 How do Marxists misrepresent Anarchist ideas on mutual
aid?](secH2.html#sech26)
-[H.2.7 Who do anarchists see as their _"agents of social
+> [H.2.7 Who do anarchists see as their _"agents of social
change"_?](secH2.html#sech27)
-[H.2.8 What is the relationship of anarchism to
+> [H.2.8 What is the relationship of anarchism to
syndicalism?](secH2.html#sech28)
-[H.2.9 Do anarchists have _"liberal"_ politics?](secH2.html#sech29)
-[H.2.10 Are anarchists against leadership? ](secH2.html#sech210)
-[H.2.11 Are anarchists _"anti-democratic"_?](secH2.html#sech211)
-[H.2.12 Does anarchism survive only in the absence of a strong workers'
+> [H.2.9 Do anarchists have _"liberal"_ politics?](secH2.html#sech29)
+> [H.2.10 Are anarchists against leadership? ](secH2.html#sech210)
+> [H.2.11 Are anarchists _"anti-democratic"_?](secH2.html#sech211)
+> [H.2.12 Does anarchism survive only in the absence of a strong workers'
movement?](secH2.html#sech212)
-[H.2.13 Do anarchists reject "political" struggles and
+> [H.2.13 Do anarchists reject "political" struggles and
action?](secH2.html#sech213)
-[H.2.14 Are anarchist organisations _"ineffective," "elitist"_ or _"downright
-bizarre"_?](secH2.html#sech214)
+> [H.2.14 Are anarchist organisations _"ineffective," "elitist"_ or
+_"downright bizarre"_?](secH2.html#sech214)
## [H.3 What are the myths of state socialism?](secH3.html)
-### [H.3.1 Do Anarchists and Marxists want the same
+> ### [H.3.1 Do Anarchists and Marxists want the same
thing?](secH3.html#sech31)
-[H.3.2 Is Marxism _"socialism from below"_?](secH3.html#sech32)
-[H.3.3 Is Leninism _"socialism from below"_?](secH3.html#sech33)
-[H.3.4 Don't anarchists just quote Marxists selectively?](secH3.html#sech34)
-[H.3.5 Has Marxist appropriation of anarchist ideas changed
+> [H.3.2 Is Marxism _"socialism from below"_?](secH3.html#sech32)
+> [H.3.3 Is Leninism _"socialism from below"_?](secH3.html#sech33)
+> [H.3.4 Don't anarchists just quote Marxists
+selectively?](secH3.html#sech34)
+> [H.3.5 Has Marxist appropriation of anarchist ideas changed
it?](secH3.html#sech35)
-[H.3.6 Is Marxism the only revolutionary politics which have
+> [H.3.6 Is Marxism the only revolutionary politics which have
worked?](secH3.html#sech36)
-[H.3.7 What is wrong with the Marxist theory of the state?](secH3.html#sech37)
-[H.3.8 What is wrong with the Leninist theory of the
+> [H.3.7 What is wrong with the Marxist theory of the
+state?](secH3.html#sech37)
+> [H.3.8 What is wrong with the Leninist theory of the
state?](secH3.html#sech38)
-[H.3.9 Is the state simply an agent of economic power?](secH3.html#sech39)
-[H.3.10 Has Marxism always supported the idea of workers'
+> [H.3.9 Is the state simply an agent of economic power?](secH3.html#sech39)
+> [H.3.10 Has Marxism always supported the idea of workers'
councils?](secH3.html#sech310)
-[H.3.11 Does Marxism aim to give power to workers
+> [H.3.11 Does Marxism aim to give power to workers
organisations?](secH3.html#sech311)
-[H.3.12 Is big business the precondition for socialism?](secH3.html#sech312)
-[H.3.13 Why is state socialism just state capitalism?](secH3.html#sech313)
-[H.3.14 Don't Marxists believe in workers' control?](secH3.html#sech314)
+> [H.3.12 Is big business the precondition for
+socialism?](secH3.html#sech312)
+> [H.3.13 Why is state socialism just state capitalism?](secH3.html#sech313)
+> [H.3.14 Don't Marxists believe in workers' control?](secH3.html#sech314)
## [H.4 Didn't Engels refute anarchism in _"On Authority"_?](secH4.html)
-### [H.4.1 Does organisation imply the end of liberty? ](secH4.html#sech41)
-[H.4.2 Does free love show the weakness of Engels'
+> ### [H.4.1 Does organisation imply the end of liberty? ](secH4.html#sech41)
+> [H.4.2 Does free love show the weakness of Engels'
argument?](secH4.html#sech42)
-[H.4.3 How do anarchists propose to run a factory? ](secH4.html#sech43)
-[H.4.4 How does the class struggle refute Engels'
+> [H.4.3 How do anarchists propose to run a factory? ](secH4.html#sech43)
+> [H.4.4 How does the class struggle refute Engels'
arguments?](secH4.html#sech44)
-[H.4.5 Is the way industry operates _"independent of all social
+> [H.4.5 Is the way industry operates _"independent of all social
organisation"_?](secH4.html#sech45)
-[H.4.6 Why does Engels' "On Authority" harm Marxism?](secH4.html#sech46)
-[H.4.7 Is revolution _"the most authoritarian thing there
+> [H.4.6 Why does Engels' "On Authority" harm Marxism?](secH4.html#sech46)
+> [H.4.7 Is revolution _"the most authoritarian thing there
is"_?](secH4.html#sech47)
## [H.5 What is vanguardism and why do anarchists reject it?](secH5.html)
-### [H.5.1 Why are vanguard parties anti-socialist?](secH5.html#sech51)
-[H.5.2 Have vanguardist assumptions been validated?](secH5.html#sech52)
-[H.5.3 Why does vanguardism imply party power?](secH5.html#sech53)
-[H.5.4 Did Lenin abandon vanguardism?](secH5.html#sech54)
-[H.5.5 What is _"democratic centralism"_?](secH5.html#sech55)
-[H.5.6 Why do anarchists oppose _"democratic centralism"_?](secH5.html#sech56)
-[H.5.7 Is the way revolutionaries organise important?](secH5.html#sech57)
-[H.5.8 Are vanguard parties effective?](secH5.html#sech58)
-[H.5.9 What are vanguard parties effective at?](secH5.html#sech59)
-[H.5.10 Why does _"democratic centralism"_ produce _"bureaucratic
+> ### [H.5.1 Why are vanguard parties anti-socialist?](secH5.html#sech51)
+> [H.5.2 Have vanguardist assumptions been validated?](secH5.html#sech52)
+> [H.5.3 Why does vanguardism imply party power?](secH5.html#sech53)
+> [H.5.4 Did Lenin abandon vanguardism?](secH5.html#sech54)
+> [H.5.5 What is _"democratic centralism"_?](secH5.html#sech55)
+> [H.5.6 Why do anarchists oppose _"democratic
+centralism"_?](secH5.html#sech56)
+> [H.5.7 Is the way revolutionaries organise important?](secH5.html#sech57)
+> [H.5.8 Are vanguard parties effective?](secH5.html#sech58)
+> [H.5.9 What are vanguard parties effective at?](secH5.html#sech59)
+> [H.5.10 Why does _"democratic centralism"_ produce _"bureaucratic
centralism"_?](secH5.html#sech510)
-[H.5.11 Can you provide an example of the negative nature of vanguard
+> [H.5.11 Can you provide an example of the negative nature of vanguard
parties?](secH5.html#sech511)
-[H.5.12 Surely the Russian Revolution proves that vanguard parties
+> [H.5.12 Surely the Russian Revolution proves that vanguard parties
work?](secH5.html#sech512)
## [H.6 Why did the Russian Revolution fail?](secH6.html)
-### [H.6.1 Can objective factors explain the failure of the Russian
+> ### [H.6.1 Can objective factors explain the failure of the Russian
Revolution?](secH6.html#sech61)
-[H.6.2 Did Bolshevik ideology influence the outcome of the Russian
+> [H.6.2 Did Bolshevik ideology influence the outcome of the Russian
Revolution?](secH6.html#sech62)
-[H.6.3 Were the Russian workers "declassed" and
+> [H.6.3 Were the Russian workers "declassed" and
"atomised"?](secH6.html#sech63)
+ * [H.0 Section H Introduction](/afaq/secHint.html)
+ * [H.1 Have anarchists always opposed state socialism?](/afaq/secH1.html)
+ * [H.2 What parts of anarchism do Marxists particularly misrepresent?](/afaq/secH2.html)
+ * [H.3 What are the myths of state socialism?](/afaq/secH3.html)
+ * [H.4 Didn't Engels refute anarchism in "On Authority"?](/afaq/secH4.html)
+ * [H.5 What is vanguardism and why do anarchists reject it?](/afaq/secH5.html)
+ * [H.6 Why did the Russian Revolution fail?](/afaq/secH6.html)
+
+[‹ G.7 Lysander Spooner: right-"libertarian" or libertarian
+socialist?](/afaq/secG7.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/index.html "Go
+to parent page" ) [H.0 Section H Introduction ›](/afaq/secHint.html "Go to
+next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secHint.md b/markdown/secHint.md
index 4e1324e5ae065a5c3575e990e8408c5464eab94b..df60d6fc1872cd02cfc6f7dc25370149724db67c 100644
--- a/markdown/secHint.md
+++ b/markdown/secHint.md
@@ -7,20 +7,18 @@ tendencies and movements. The main tendencies of socialism are state socialism
disagreement between anarchists and Marxists is legendary. As Benjamin Tucker
noted:
-> _"[I]t is a curious fact that the two extremes of the [socialist movement] .
-. . though united . . . by the common claim that labour should be put in
+> _"it is a curious fact that the two extremes of the [socialist movement] . .
+. though united . . . by the common claim that labour should be put in
possession of its own, are more diametrically opposed to each other in their
fundamental principles of social action and their methods of reaching the ends
aimed at than either is to their common enemy, existing society. They are
based on two principles the history of whose conflict is almost equivalent to
-the history of the world since man came into it . . .
+the history of the world since man came into it . . . _
->
-
-> "The two principles referred to are AUTHORITY and LIBERTY, and the names of
+> _"The two principles referred to are AUTHORITY and LIBERTY, and the names of
the two schools of Socialistic thought which fully and unreservedly represent
one or the other are, respectively, State Socialism and Anarchism. Whoso knows
-that these two schools want and how they propose to get it understands the
+what these two schools want and how they propose to get it understands the
Socialistic movement. For, just as it has been said that there is no half-way
house between Rome and Reason, so it may be said that there is no half-way
house between State Socialism and Anarchism."_ [**The Individualist
@@ -105,20 +103,20 @@ Moreover, such a technique is ultimately dishonest. Looking at Proudhon, for
example, his anti-Semitic outbursts remained unpublished in his note books
until well after his ideas and, as Robert Graham points out, _"a reading of
**General Idea of the Revolution** will show, anti-Semitism forms no part of
-Proudhon's revolutionary programme."_ [_"Introduction"_, **The General Idea of
-the Revolution**, p. xxxvi] Similarly, Bakunin's racism is an unfortunate
-aspect of his life, an aspect which is ultimately irrelevant to the core
-principles and ideas he argued for. As for Proudhon's sexism it should be
-noted that Bakunin and subsequent anarchists totally rejected it and argued
-for complete equality between the sexes. Likewise, anarchists from Kropotkin
-onwards have opposed racism in all its forms (and the large Jewish anarchist
-movement saw that Bakunin's anti-Semitic comments were not a defining aspect
-to his ideas). Why mention these aspects of their ideas at all?
+Proudhon's revolutionary programme."_ [_"Introduction"_, **General Idea of the
+Revolution**, p. xxxvi] Similarly, Bakunin's racism is an unfortunate aspect
+of his life, an aspect which is ultimately irrelevant to the core principles
+and ideas he argued for. As for Proudhon's sexism it should be noted that
+Bakunin and subsequent anarchists totally rejected it and argued for complete
+equality between the sexes. Likewise, anarchists from Kropotkin onwards have
+opposed racism in all its forms (and the large Jewish anarchist movement saw
+that Bakunin's anti-Semitic comments were not a defining aspect to his ideas).
+Why mention these aspects of their ideas at all?
-Nor were Marx and Engels free from racist, sexism or homophobic comments yet
+Nor were Marx and Engels free from racist, sexist or homophobic comments yet
no anarchist would dream these were worthy of mention when critiquing their
ideology (for those interested in such matters, Peter Fryer's essay **"Engels:
-A Man of his Time"** should be consulted. This is because the anarchist
+A Man of his Time"** should be consulted). This is because the anarchist
critique of Marxism is robust and confirmed by substantial empirical evidence
(namely, the failures of social democracy and the Russian Revolution).
@@ -133,7 +131,7 @@ Engels on July 20th, 1870:
centralisation of the power of the State will be useful for the centralisation
of the German working class. Moreover, German ascendancy will transfer the
centre of gravity of the European worker's movement from France to Germany . .
-. On a world scale, the ascendancy of the German proletariat the French
+. On a world scale, the ascendancy of the German proletariat over the French
proletariat will at the same time constitute the ascendancy of **our** theory
over Proudhon's."_ [quoted by Arthur Lehning, **Michael Bakunin: Selected
Writings**, p. 284]
@@ -150,9 +148,9 @@ smallest ones as well). The father of Russian Marxism, George Plekhanov,
supported the Allies while the German Social Democratic Party (the jewel in
the crown of the Second International) supported its nation-state in the war.
There was just one man in the German Reichstag in August 1914 who did not vote
-for war credits (and he did not even vote against them, he abstained). While
-there was a small minority of the German Social-Democrats did not support the
-war, initially many of this anti-war minority went along with the majority of
+for war credits (and he did not even vote against them, he abstained). While a
+small minority of the German Social-Democrats did not support the war,
+initially many of this anti-war minority went along with the majority of the
party in the name of "discipline" and "democratic" principles.
In contrast, only a **very** small minority of anarchists supported any side
@@ -175,7 +173,7 @@ minority within the anarchist movement and that it was the official Marxist
movement which betrayed the cause of internationalism, not anarchism. Indeed,
the betrayal of the Second International was the natural result of the
_"ascendancy"_ of Marxism over anarchism that Marx had hoped. The rise of
-Marxism, in the form of social-democracy, ended as Bakunin predicted, with the
+Marxism in the form of social-democracy, ended as Bakunin predicted, with the
corruption of socialism in the quagmire of electioneering and statism. As
Rudolf Rocker correctly argued, _"the Great War of 1914 was the exposure of
the bankruptcy of political socialism."_ [**Marx and Anarchism**]
@@ -199,7 +197,7 @@ revolution, they saved it for Stalin, not socialism. That is nothing to be
proud of.
From an anarchist perspective, this makes perfect sense as _"[n]o revolution
-can ever succeed as factor of liberation unless the MEANS used to further it
+can ever succeed as a factor of liberation unless the MEANS used to further it
be identical in spirit and tendency with the PURPOSE to be achieved."_ [Emma
Goldman, **My Disillusionment in Russia**, p. 261] In other words, statist and
authoritarian means will result in statist and authoritarian ends. Calling a
@@ -246,7 +244,7 @@ rhetoric remained radical for a few more years, of course).
If we look at the "workers' states" created by Marxists, we discover, yet
again, anarchist predictions proved right. Bakunin argued that _"[b]y popular
-government they [the Marxists] mean government of the people by a small under
+government they [the Marxists] mean government of the people by a small number
of representatives elected by the people. . . [That is,] government of the
vast majority of the people by a privileged minority. But this minority, the
Marxists say, will consist of workers. Yes, perhaps, of **former** workers,
@@ -271,7 +269,7 @@ indeed, the ideals of socialism as such.
This does not mean that anarchists reject everything Marx wrote. Far from it.
Much of his analysis of capitalism is acceptable to anarchists, for example
-(both Bakunin and Tucker considered Marx's economic analysis as important).
+both Bakunin and Tucker considered Marx's economic analysis as important.
Indeed, there are some schools of Marxism which are very libertarian and are
close cousins to anarchism (for example, council communism and Autonomist
Marxism are close to revolutionary anarchism). Unfortunately, these forms of
@@ -317,3 +315,8 @@ to describe "libertarian socialist/communist." This in no way implies that
anarchists are not socialists. It is purely a tool to make our arguments
easier to read.
+[‹ Section H - Why do anarchists oppose state socialism?](/afaq/secHcon.html
+"Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secHcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [H.1
+Have anarchists always opposed state socialism? ›](/afaq/secH1.html "Go to
+next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secI1.md b/markdown/secI1.md
index 873339460f75573234b589ed359c6889448283ee..94bb013767b6b1dda7256a518208ec2a357eac14 100644
--- a/markdown/secI1.md
+++ b/markdown/secI1.md
@@ -2,17 +2,16 @@
In a word, no. This question is often asked by those who have come across the
so-called "libertarian" right. As discussed in [section
-A.1.3](secA1.html#seca13), the word _"libertarian"_ has been used by
-anarchists for far longer than the pro-free market right have been using it.
-In fact, anarchists have been using it as a synonym for anarchist for over 150
-years, since 1858\. In comparison, widespread use of the term by the so-called
+A.1.3](secA1.html#seca13) , the word libertarian has been used by anarchists
+for far longer than the pro-free market right have been using it. In fact,
+anarchists have been using it as a synonym for anarchist for over 150 years,
+since 1858. In comparison, widespread use of the term by the so-called
"libertarian" right dates from the 1970s in America (with, from the 1940s
onwards, limited use by a few individuals). Indeed, outside of North America
-_"libertarian"_ is still essentially used as an equivalent of _"anarchist"_
-and as a shortened version of _"libertarian socialist."_ As Noam Chomsky
-notes:
+libertarian is still essentially used as an equivalent of anarchist and as a
+shortened version of libertarian socialist. As Noam Chomsky notes:
-> _ "Let me just say regarding the terminology, since we happen to be in the
+> _"Let me just say regarding the terminology, since we happen to be in the
United States, we have to be rather careful. Libertarian in the United States
has a meaning which is almost the opposite of what it has in the rest of the
world traditionally. Here, libertarian means ultra right-wing capitalist. In
@@ -20,15 +19,15 @@ the European tradition, libertarian meant socialist. So, anarchism was
sometimes called libertarian socialism, a large wing of anarchism, so we have
to be a little careful about terminology."_ [**Reluctant Icon**]
-This in itself does not prove that the term _"libertarian socialist"_ is free
-of contradiction. However, as we will show below, the claim that the term is
+This in itself does not prove that the term libertarian socialist is free of
+contradiction. However, as we will show below, the claim that the term is
self-contradictory rests on the assumption that socialism requires the state
in order to exist and that socialism is incompatible with liberty (and the
equally fallacious claim that capitalism is libertarian and does not need the
state). This assumption, as is often true of many objections to socialism, is
based on a misconception of what socialism is, a misconception that many
authoritarian socialists and the state capitalism of Soviet Russia have helped
-to foster. In reality it is the term _"state socialism"_ which is the true
+to foster. In reality it is the term "state socialism" which is the true
oxymoron.
Sadly many people take for granted the assertion of many on the right and left
@@ -50,30 +49,30 @@ common. For example, Anarchists, many Guild Socialists, council communists
rejected state ownership. Indeed, anarchists recognised that the means of
production did not change their form as capital when the state took over their
ownership nor did wage-labour change its nature when it is the state employing
-labour (for example, see [section H.3.13](secH3.html#sech313)). For anarchists
-state ownership of capital is not socialistic in the slightest. Indeed, as
-Tucker was well aware, state ownership turned **everyone** into a proletarian
-(bar the state bureaucracy) -- hardly a desirable thing for a political theory
-aiming for the end of wage slavery!
+labour (for example, see [section H.3.13](secH3.html#sech313) ). For
+anarchists state ownership of capital is not socialistic in the slightest.
+Indeed, as Tucker was well aware, state ownership turned **everyone** into a
+proletarian (bar the state bureaucracy) -- hardly a desirable thing for a
+political theory aiming for the end of wage slavery!
So what **does** socialism mean? Is it compatible with libertarian ideals?
-What do the words _"libertarian"_ and _"socialism"_ actually mean? It is
-temping to use dictionary definitions as a starting point, although we should
-stress that such a method holds problems as different dictionaries have
-different definitions and the fact that dictionaries are rarely politically
+What do the words libertarian and socialism actually mean? It is temping to
+use dictionary definitions as a starting point, although we should stress that
+such a method holds problems as different dictionaries have different
+definitions and the fact that dictionaries are rarely politically
sophisticated. Use one definition, and someone else will counter with one more
-to their liking. For example, _"socialism"_ is often defined as _"state
-ownership of wealth"_ and _"anarchy"_ as _"disorder."_ Neither of these
-definitions are useful when discussing political ideas, particularly anarchism
-as, obviously, no form of anarchism would be socialist by such a definition
-nor do anarchists seek disorder. Therefore, the use of dictionaries is not the
-end of a discussion and often misleading when applied to politics.
+to their liking. For example, socialism is often defined as _"state ownership
+of wealth"_ and anarchy as _"disorder."_ Neither of these definitions are
+useful when discussing political ideas, particularly anarchism as, obviously,
+no form of anarchism would be socialist by such a definition nor do anarchists
+seek disorder. Therefore, the use of dictionaries is not the end of a
+discussion and often misleading when applied to politics.
Libertarian, though, is generally defined to mean someone who upholds the
principles of liberty, especially individual liberty of thought and action.
Such a situation cannot but be encouraged by socialism, by free access to the
means of life. This is because in such a situation people associate as equals
-and so. as John Most and Emma Goldman once argued, the _"system of communism
+and so, as John Most and Emma Goldman once argued, the _"system of communism
logically excludes any and every relation between master and servant, and
means really Anarchism."_ [_"Talking about Anarchy"_, p. 28, **Black Flag**,
no. 228, p. 28] In other words, by basing itself on free association and self-
@@ -92,7 +91,7 @@ staunch defender of capitalism (and a classical liberal often listed as a
forefather of right-wing "libertarianism") glibly noted, the capitalist _"of
course exercises power over the workers"_, although _"he cannot exercise it
arbitrarily"_ thanks to the market but within this limit _"the entrepreneur is
-free to give full rein to his whims"_ and _"to dismiss workers offhand"_
+free to give full rein to his whims"_ and _"to dismiss workers offhand."_
[Ludwig von Mises, **Socialism**, p. 443 and p. 444] Right-wing "libertarians"
are utterly blind to the liberty-destroying hierarchies associated with
private property, perhaps unsurprisingly as they are fundamentally pro-
@@ -100,7 +99,7 @@ capitalist and anti-socialist (equally unsurprisingly, genuine libertarians
tend to call them "propertarians"). As left-wing economist Geoffrey M. Hodgson
correctly notes:
-> _ "By their own logic, [such] market individualists are forced to disregard
+> _"By their own logic, [such] market individualists are forced to disregard
the organisational structure of the firm, or to falsely imagine that markets
exist inside it. To do otherwise would be to admit that a system as dynamic as
capitalism depends upon a mode of organisation from which markets are excluded
@@ -144,10 +143,10 @@ people will become subject to the authoritarian social relationships the likes
of Mises and other right-wing "libertarians" support. As one communist-
anarchist put it:
-> _ "It is because the individual does not own himself, and is not permitted
-to be his true self. He has become a mere market commodity, an instrument for
-the accumulation of property -- for others . . . Individuality is stretched on
-the Procrustes bed of business . . . If our individuality were to be made the
+> _"It is because the individual does not own himself, and is not permitted to
+be his true self. He has become a mere market commodity, an instrument for the
+accumulation of property -- for others . . . Individuality is stretched on the
+Procrustes bed of business . . . If our individuality were to be made the
price of breathing, what ado there would be about the violence done to the
personality! And yet our very right to food, drink and shelter is only too
often conditioned upon our loss of individuality. These things are granted to
@@ -174,17 +173,17 @@ defended and held up as virtues."_ [**Red Emma Speaks**, p. 112]
As we will discuss in [section I.3.3](secI3.html#seci33), socialisation is
advocated to ensure the elimination of wage labour and is a common theme of
-all genuine forms of socialism. In theory at least, anarchist argue that state
-socialism does not eliminate wage labour, rather it universalises it. In fact,
-state socialism shows that socialism is **necessarily** libertarian, not
-statist. For if the state owns the workplace, then the producers do not, and
-so they will not be at liberty to manage their own work but will instead be
-subject to the state as the boss. Moreover, replacing the capitalist owning
-class by state officials in no way eliminates wage labour; in fact it makes it
-worse in many cases. Therefore "socialists" who argue for nationalisation of
-the means of production are **not** socialists (which means that the Soviet
-Union and the other so-called "socialist" countries are **not** socialist nor
-are parties which advocate nationalisation socialist).
+all genuine forms of socialism. Anarchists argue that state socialism does not
+eliminate wage labour, rather it universalises it. In fact, state socialism
+shows that socialism is **necessarily** libertarian, not statist. For if the
+state owns the workplace, then the producers do not, and so they will not be
+at liberty to manage their own work but will instead be subject to the state
+as the boss. Moreover, replacing the capitalist owning class by state
+officials in no way eliminates wage labour; in fact it makes it worse in many
+cases. Therefore "socialists" who argue for nationalisation of the means of
+production are **not** socialists (which means that the Soviet Union and the
+other so-called "socialist" countries were/are **not** socialist nor are
+parties which advocate nationalisation socialist).
Indeed, attempts to associate socialism with the state misunderstands the
nature of socialism. It is an essential principle of socialism that (social)
@@ -206,8 +205,8 @@ felt, along with that of everybody else, in the administration of public
affairs."_ [Malatesta and Hamon, **Op. Cit.**, vol. 2, p. 20]
The election of someone to administer public affairs **for you** is not having
-a portion of social power. It is, to use of words of Emile Pouget (a leading
-French anarcho-syndicalist) _"an act of abdication,"_ the delegating of power
+a portion of social power. It is, to use the words of leading French anarcho-
+syndicalist Emile Pouget, _"an act of abdication,"_ the delegating of power
into the hands of a few. [**Op. Cit.**, p. 67] This means that _"**[a]ll
political power inevitably creates a privileged situation** for the men who
exercise it. Thus it violates, from the beginning, the equalitarian
@@ -240,8 +239,8 @@ clear thinking. Thus to be a true socialist requires you to be a libertarian,
to be for individual liberty and opposed to inequalities of power which
restrict that liberty.
-Therefore, rather than being an oxymoron, _"libertarian socialism"_ indicates
-that true socialism must be libertarian and that a libertarian who is not a
+Therefore, rather than being an oxymoron, libertarian socialism indicates that
+true socialism must be libertarian and that a libertarian who is not a
socialist is a phoney. As true socialists oppose wage labour, they must also
oppose the state for the same reasons. Similarly, consistent libertarians must
oppose wage labour for the same reasons they must oppose the state. So,
@@ -281,7 +280,7 @@ put it in 1867:
injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality."_
[**Bakunin on Anarchism**, p. 127]
-History has proven him correct. Rather that libertarian socialism being the
+History has proven him correct. Rather than libertarian socialism being the
oxymoron, it is state socialism and libertarian capitalism that are. Both
historically (in terms of who first used the word) and logically (in terms of
opposing all hierarchical organisations) it is anarchists who should be called
@@ -305,16 +304,16 @@ is applicable to **all** schools of socialist thought, including libertarian
ones. It is on the basis of his arguments that many right-wingers claim that
libertarian (or any other kind of) socialism is impossible in principle.
-Yet as David Schweickart observes _"[i]t has long been recognised that Mises's
+Yet as David Schweickart observes it _"has long been recognised that Mises's
argument is logically defective. Even without a market in production goods,
their monetary values can be determined."_ [**Against Capitalism**, p. 88] In
other words, economic calculation based on prices is perfectly possible in a
libertarian socialist system. After all, to build a workplace requires so many
tonnes of steel, so many bricks, so many hours of work and so on. If we assume
a mutualist society, then the prices of these goods can be easily found as the
-co-operatives in question would be offer their services on the market. These
-commodities would be the inputs for the construction of production goods and
-so the latter's monetary values can be found.
+co-operatives in question would be offering their services on the market.
+These commodities would be the inputs for the construction of production goods
+and so the latter's monetary values can be found.
Ironically enough, Mises **did** mention the idea of such a mutualist system
in his initial essay. _"Exchange relations between production-goods can only
@@ -345,7 +344,7 @@ _"the workers are the owners of the means of production"_ it was _"not genuine
socialism, that is, centralised socialism"_, as it _"must withdraw productive
goods from the market. Individual citizens must not dispose of the shares in
the means of production which are allotted to them."_ Syndicalism, i.e.,
-having those who do the work control of it, was _"the ideal of plundering
+having those who do the work control it, was _"the ideal of plundering
hordes"_! [**Socialism**, p. 274fn, p. 270, p. 273 and p. 275]
His followers, likewise, concluded that "syndicalism" was not capitalism with
@@ -522,14 +521,13 @@ genuine anarchist would prefer liberty. Luckily, though, workplace liberty
increases efficiency so Rothbard's decision is a wrong one. It should also be
noted that Rothbard's position (as is usually the case) is directly opposite
that of Proudhon, who considered it _"inevitable"_ that in a free society
-_"the two functions of **wage-labourer** on the one hand, and of **proprietor-
-capitalist-contractor** on the other, become equal and inseparable in the
-person of every workingman"_. This was the _"first principle of the new
-economy, a principle full of hope and of consolation for the labourer without
-capital, but a principle full of terror for the parasite and for the tools of
-parasitism, who see reduced to naught their celebrated formula: **Capital,
-labour, talent**!"_ [**Proudhon's Solution of the Social Problem**, p. 165 and
-p. 85]
+_"the two functions of **Wage-Worker** on the one hand, and of **Proprietor-
+Capitalist-Entrepreneur** on the other, become equal and inseparable in the
+person of every worker"_. This was the _"first principle of the new economy, a
+principle full of hope and of consolation for the worker without capital, but
+a principle full of terror for the parasite and for the tools of parasitism,
+who see reduced to naught their celebrated formula: **Capital, labour,
+talent**!"_ [**Property is Theft!**, p. 535 and p. 289]
And it does seem a strange co-incidence that someone born into a capitalist
economy, ideologically supporting it with a passion and seeking to justify its
@@ -700,9 +698,9 @@ efficiency at the level of the individual factory, a myth shared by bourgeois
and Stalinist ideologues alike, cannot stand up to the most elemental
examination of the facts, and any industrial worker could draw up a
devastating indictment against capitalist 'rationalisation' **judged on its
-own terms.** _
+own terms.**_
-> _ "First of all, the managerial bureaucracy does not **know** what it is
+> _"First of all, the managerial bureaucracy does not **know** what it is
supposed to be managing. The reality of production escapes it, for this
reality is nothing but the activity of the producers, and the producers do not
inform the managers . . . about what is really taking place. Quite often they
@@ -710,7 +708,7 @@ organise themselves in such a way that the managers won't be informed (in
order to avoid increased exploitation, because they feel antagonistic, or
quite simply because they have no interest: It isn't **their** business). _
-> _ "In the second place, the way in which production is organised is set up
+> _"In the second place, the way in which production is organised is set up
entirely against the workers. They always are being asked, one way or another,
to do more work without getting paid for it. Management's orders, therefore,
inevitably meet with fierce resistance on the part of those who have to carry
@@ -740,10 +738,10 @@ the higher productivity as an excuse). Thus self-management rather than
hierarchy enhances the flow and use of information in complex organisations
and so improves efficiency.
-This conclusion, it should be stressed, is not idle speculation and that Mises
-was utterly wrong in his assertions related to self-management. People, he
-stated, _"err"_ in thinking that profit-sharing _"would spur the worker on to
-a more zealous fulfilment of his duties"_ (indeed, it _"must lead straight to
+This conclusion, it should be stressed, is not idle speculation and Mises was
+utterly wrong in his assertions related to self-management. People, he stated,
+_"err"_ in thinking that profit-sharing _"would spur the worker on to a more
+zealous fulfilment of his duties"_ (indeed, it _"must lead straight to
Syndicalism"_) and it was _"nonsensical to give 'labour' . . . a share in
management. The realisation of such a postulate would result in syndicalism."_
[**Socialism**, p. 268, p. 269 and p. 305] Yet, as we note in [section
@@ -895,14 +893,14 @@ M. Hodgson is right to suggest that Proudhon's system, in which _"each co-
operative association would be able to enter into contractual relations with
others"_, could be _"described as an early form of 'market socialism'"_. In
fact, _"instead of Lange-type models, the term 'market socialism' is more
-appropriately to such systems. Market socialism, in this more appropriate and
-meaningful sense, involves producer co-operatives that are owned by the
-workers within them. Such co-operatives sell their products on markets, with
-genuine exchanges of property rights"_ (somewhat annoyingly, Hodgson
-incorrectly asserts that _"Proudhon described himself as an anarchist, not a
-socialist"_ when, in reality, the French anarchist repeatedly referred to
-himself and his mutualist system as socialist). [**Economics and Utopia**, p.
-20, p. 37 and p. 20]
+appropriately used to refer to such systems. Market socialism, in this more
+appropriate and meaningful sense, involves producer co-operatives that are
+owned by the workers within them. Such co-operatives sell their products on
+markets, with genuine exchanges of property rights"_ (somewhat annoyingly,
+Hodgson incorrectly asserts that _"Proudhon described himself as an anarchist,
+not a socialist"_ when, in reality, the French anarchist repeatedly referred
+to himself and his mutualist system as socialist). [**Economics and Utopia**,
+p. 20, p. 37 and p. 20]
Thus it is possible for a socialist economy to allocate resources using
markets. By suppressing capital markets and workplace hierarchies, a mutualist
@@ -988,7 +986,7 @@ entails central planning and that it is impossible to make investment
decisions without money values. We discuss why each is wrong in this section.
Mises' positive assumption for capitalism, namely that markets allow exact and
efficient allocation of resources, is discussed in [section
-I.1.5](secI1.html#seci15).
+I.1.5](secI1.html#seci15) .
Firstly, Mises assumes a centralised planned economy. As Hayek summarised, the
crux of the matter was _"the impossibility of a rational calculation in a
@@ -1016,7 +1014,7 @@ an even justice those interests which are most legitimate and pressing."_
[**Bakunin on Anarchism**, pp. 268-9 and p. 318] For Malatesta, such a system
would require _"immense centralisation"_ and would either be _"an impossible
thing to achieve, or, if possible, would end up as a colossal and very complex
-tyranny."_ [**At the Caf**, p. 65]
+tyranny."_ [**At the Café**, p. 65]
Kropotkin, likewise, dismissed the notion of central planning as the
_"economic changes that will result from the social revolution will be so
@@ -1047,7 +1045,21 @@ essential that socialism was decentralised, federal and participatory, that
the _"structure of the society which we longed for"_ was _"worked out, in
theory and practice, from beneath"_ in by _"all labour unions"_ with _"a full
knowledge of local needs of each trade and each locality."_ [**Memoirs of a
-Revolutionist**, p. 184, p. 360, p. 374-5 and p. 376]
+Revolutionist**, p. 184, p. 360, p. 374-5 and p. 376] He reiterated this as
+the Bolsheviks confirmed his warnings:
+
+> _"The immense constructive work demanded by a social revolution cannot be
+accomplished by a central government . . . It has need of knowledge, of brains
+and of the voluntary collaboration of a host of local and specialised forces
+which alone can attack the diversity of economic problems in their local
+aspects . . . Socialism will certainly make considerable progress, and new
+forms of more independent life will be created based on local autonomy and
+free initiative . . . But the success of this reconstruction will depend in
+great part on the possibility of direct cooperation between the different
+peoples. To achieve that, it is necessary that . . . there should be a union
+of all the workers' organisations of the world, federated to deliver world
+production from its present subjection to capitalism."_ [**Anarchism**, pp.
+255-6]
So anarchists can agree with Mises that central planning cannot work in
practice as its advocates hope. Or, more correctly, Mises agreed with the
@@ -1160,9 +1172,9 @@ nature and purpose of calculation."_ [_"Economic Calculation in the Socialist
Commonwealth"_, **Op. Cit.**, p. 113]
The flaw in his argument is clear. Assuming that an hour of socially necessary
-labour is 10 then, in price terms, P would have 80 of direct labour costs,
-with 20 of raw material A while Q would have 90 of direct labour and 10 of A.
-Both cost 100 so it hard to see how this _"corresponds to the nature and
+labour is £10 then, in price terms, P would have £80 of direct labour costs,
+with £20 of raw material A while Q would have £90 of direct labour and £10 of
+A. Both cost £100 so it hard to see how this _"corresponds to the nature and
purpose of calculation"_! Using less of raw material A is a judgement made
**in addition** to _"calculation"_ in this example. The question of whether to
economise on the use of A simply cannot be made using prices. If P, for
@@ -1188,12 +1200,12 @@ one criterion and ignoring all others is a rational thing to do. As O'Neill
suggests, _"the relative scarcity of items . . . hardly exhaust the full gamut
of information that is distributed throughout society which might be relevant
to the co-ordination of economic activities and plans."_ [**The Market**, p.
-196] Saying that a good costs 10 does not tell you much about the amount of
+196] Saying that a good costs £10 does not tell you much about the amount of
pollution its production or use generates, under what conditions of labour it
was produced, whether its price is affected by the market power of the firm
producing it, whether it is produced in an ecologically sustainable way, and
-so forth. Similarly, saying that another, similar, good costs 9 does not tell
-you whether than 1 difference is due to a more efficient use of inputs or
+so forth. Similarly, saying that another, similar, good costs £9 does not tell
+you whether than £1 difference is due to a more efficient use of inputs or
whether it is caused by imposing pollution onto the planet.
And do prices **actually** reflect costs? The question of profit, the reward
@@ -1481,9 +1493,9 @@ health, surroundings, environment and so on by _"its very nature"_ says a lot.
His suggestion that we assign monetary values to such dimensions begs the
question and has plausibility only if it assumes what it is supposed to prove.
[**Op. Cit.**, p. 99-100] Indeed, the person who would put a price on
-friendship simply would have no friends as they simply do not understand what
+friendship would have no friends as they simply do not understand what
friendship is and are thereby excluded from much which is best in human life.
-Likewise for other _"extra-economic"_ goods that individual's value, such as
+Likewise for other _"extra-economic"_ goods that individuals value, such as
beautiful places, happiness, the environment and so on.
So essential information required for sensible decision making would have to
@@ -1536,9 +1548,9 @@ planning), this is false. Planning occurs in capitalism (as can be seen from
any business), it is a question of whether capitalism ensures that more plans
can be co-ordinated and needs meet by means of relative prices and profit-loss
accounting than by communism (free access and distribution according to need).
-As such, the question is does the capitalist system adds additional problems
-to the efficient co-ordination of plans? Libertarian communists argue, yes, it
-does (as we discuss at length in [section I.1.5](secI1.html#seci15)).
+As such, the question is does the capitalist system add additional problems to
+the efficient co-ordination of plans? Libertarian communists argue, yes, it
+does (as we discuss at length in [section I.1.5](secI1.html#seci15) ).
All choices involve lost possibilities, so the efficient use of resources is
required to increase the possibilities for creating other goods. At best, all
@@ -1625,7 +1637,7 @@ economist Paul Krugman notes, the value of the output of an average worker
_"has risen almost 50 percent since 1973. Yet the growing concentration of
income in the hands of a small minority had proceeded so rapidly that we're
not sure whether the typical American has gained anything from rising
-productivity."_ This means that wealth have flooded upwards, and _"the lion's
+productivity."_ This means that wealth has flooded upwards, and _"the lion's
share of economic growth in America over the past thirty years has gone to a
small, wealthy minority."_ [**The Conscience of a Liberal**, p. 124 and p.
244]
@@ -1719,7 +1731,7 @@ hours, working more intensely, allocating resources to accumulating equipment
rather than leisure time or consumption can be seen in co-operatives under
capitalism. While lacking bosses may reduce this tendency in a post-capitalist
economy, it will not eliminate it. This is why many socialists, including
-anarchists, call the way markets force unwilling members of a co-operatives
+anarchists, call the way markets force unwilling members of co-operatives to
make such unpleasant decisions a form of "self-exploitation" (although this is
somewhat misleading, as there no exploitation in the capitalist sense of
owners appropriating unpaid labour). For communist-anarchists, a market system
@@ -1736,7 +1748,7 @@ overwhelming temptation to acquire larger earnings."_ [Murray Bookchin,
Similarly, a market of self-managed firms would still suffer from booms and
slumps as the co-operatives response to changes in prices would still result
-in over-production (see [section C.7.2](secC7.html#secc72)) and over-
+in over-production (see [section C.7.2](secC7.html#secc72) ) and over-
investment (see [section C.7.3](secC7.html#secc73)). While the lack of non-
labour income would help reduce the severity of the business cycle, it seems
unlikely to eliminate it totally. Equally, many of the problems of market-
@@ -1829,8 +1841,8 @@ considered as competitive pressures force a short term perspective on people
harmful to present and future generations, plus the ecology of the planet.
Then there are corrosive effects of the market on human personalities. As we
-have argued elsewhere (see [section B.1.3](secB1.html#secb13)), competition in
-a free market creates numerous problems -- for example, the creation of an
+have argued elsewhere (see [section B.1.3](secB1.html#secb13) ), competition
+in a free market creates numerous problems -- for example, the creation of an
_"ethics of mathematics"_ and the strange inversion of values in which things
(property/money) become more important than people. This can have a de-
humanising effect, with people becoming cold-hearted calculators who put
@@ -1900,16 +1912,16 @@ created with people driven by a sense of solidarity and desire for equality,
markets tend to erode those feelings and syndicates or communes which, thanks
to the resources they control (such as rare raw materials or simply the size
of their investments reducing competitive pressures) have an advantage on the
-market may be tempted to use their monopoly power vis--vis other groups in
+market may be tempted to use their monopoly power vis-à-vis other groups in
society to accrue more income for themselves at the expense of less fortunate
syndicates and communes. This could degenerate back into capitalism as any
inequalities that exist between co-operatives would be increased by
competition, forcing weaker co-operatives to fail and so creating a pool of
workers with nothing to sell but their labour. The successful co-operatives
could then hire those workers and so re-introduce wage labour. So these
-possibilities could, over time, lead to a return a post-capitalist market
-system to capitalism if the inequalities become so great that the new rich
-become so alienated from the rest of society they recreate wage-labour and, by
+possibilities could, over time, return a post-capitalist market system to
+capitalism if the inequalities become so great that the new rich become so
+alienated from the rest of society they recreate wage-labour and, by
necessity, a state to enforce a desire for property in land and the means of
production against public opinion.
@@ -1941,12 +1953,12 @@ the affair of neither guildic nor the concessionary baker, but the affair of
the **united.**"_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 275]
Therefore, social anarchists do not appeal purely to altruism in their
-struggle against the de-humanising effects of the market, but also to to
-egoism: the simple fact that co-operation and mutual aid is in our best
-interests as individuals. By co-operating and controlling _"the affairs of the
-united,"_ we can ensure a free society which is worth living in, one in which
-the individual is not crushed by market forces and has time to fully develop
-his or her individuality and uniqueness:
+struggle against the de-humanising effects of the market, but also to egoism:
+the simple fact that co-operation and mutual aid is in our best interests as
+individuals. By co-operating and controlling _"the affairs of the united,"_ we
+can ensure a free society which is worth living in, one in which the
+individual is not crushed by market forces and has time to fully develop his
+or her individuality and uniqueness:
> _"Solidarity is therefore the state of being in which Man attains the
greatest degree of security and wellbeing; and therefore egoism itself, that
@@ -1981,14 +1993,14 @@ co-operatives "self-managed capitalism" or "self-exploitation" -- they are
simply drawing attention to the negative aspects of markets which getting rid
of the boss cannot solve. Significantly, Proudhon was well aware of the
negative aspect of market forces and suggested various institutional
-structures, such as the ago-industrial federation, to combat them (so while in
-favour of competition he was, unlike the individualist anarchists, against the
-free market). Communist anarchists, unsurprisingly, argue that individualist
-anarchists tend to stress the positive aspects of competition while ignoring
-or downplaying its negative sides. While, undoubtedly, capitalism makes the
-negative side of competition worse than it could be it does not automatically
-follow that a non-capitalist market would not have similar, if smaller,
-negative aspects to it.
+structures, such as the agricultural-industrial federation, to combat them (so
+while in favour of competition he was, unlike the individualist anarchists,
+against the free market). Communist anarchists, unsurprisingly, argue that
+individualist anarchists tend to stress the positive aspects of competition
+while ignoring or downplaying its negative sides. While, undoubtedly,
+capitalism makes the negative side of competition worse than it could be it
+does not automatically follow that a non-capitalist market would not have
+similar, if smaller, negative aspects to it.
## I.1.4 If capitalism is exploitative, then isn't socialism as well?
@@ -2005,15 +2017,14 @@ Both are wrong. First, and most obviously, socialism does not equal communism
(and vice versa). While there is a tendency on both right and left to equate
socialism with communism (particularly Marxism), in reality, as Proudhon once
noted, socialism _"was not founded as a sect or church; it has seen a number
-of different schools."_ [**Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon**, p.
-177] Only a few of these schools are communist, just as only a few of them are
-libertarian. Second, not all socialist schools aim to abolish the market and
-payment by deed. Proudhon, for example, opposed communism and state socialism
-just as much as he opposed capitalism. Third, capitalism does not equal the
-market. The market predates capitalism and, for some libertarian socialists,
-will survive it. Even from a Marxist position, a noted in [section
-I.1.1](secI.html#seci11), the defining feature of capitalism is **wage
-labour**, not the market.
+of different schools."_ [**Property is Theft!**, p. 23] Only a few of these
+schools are communist, just as only a few of them are libertarian. Second, not
+all socialist schools aim to abolish the market and payment by deed. Proudhon,
+for example, opposed communism and state socialism just as much as he opposed
+capitalism. Third, capitalism does not equal the market. The market predates
+capitalism and, for some libertarian socialists, will survive it. Even from a
+Marxist position, a noted in [section I.1.1](secI.html#seci11) , the defining
+feature of capitalism is **wage labour**, not the market.
Why some socialists desire to reduce the choices facing humanity to either
communism or some form of capitalism is frankly strange, but also
@@ -2064,7 +2075,7 @@ Needless to say, subsequent anarchists rejected Proudhon's blanket opposition
to all forms of communism, rejecting this position as only applicable to
authoritarian, not libertarian, communism. Which, it must be remembered, was
the only kind around when this was written in 1840 (as we noted in [section
-H.1](secH1.html), what was known as communism in Proudhon's time was
+H.1](secH1.html) , what was known as communism in Proudhon's time was
authoritarian). Suffice to say, Proudhon's opposition to communism shares
little with that of the Propertarian-right, which reflects the sad lack of
personal empathy (and so ethics) of the typical defender of capitalism.
@@ -2084,7 +2095,7 @@ equal pay, others on payment in terms of labour time, yet others on
communistic associations. The important thing to realise is that individuals
and the co-operatives they join will decide what to do with their output,
whether to exchange it or to distribute it freely. Hence, because it is based
-on free agreement, communism-anarchism cannot be exploitative. Members of a
+on free agreement, communist-anarchism cannot be exploitative. Members of a
commune or co-operative which is communistic are free to leave, after all.
Needless to say, the co-operatives will usually distribute their product to
others within their confederation and exchange with the non-communist ones in
@@ -2094,7 +2105,7 @@ just as it does today to a large degree, even under capitalism.
The reason why capitalism is exploitative is that workers **have** to agree to
give the product of their labour to another (the boss, the landlord) in order
-to be employed in the first place (see [section B.4](secB4.html)). While they
+to be employed in the first place (see [section B.4](secB4.html) ). While they
can choose who to be exploited by (and, to varying degrees, pick the best of
the limited options available to them) they cannot avoid selling their liberty
to property owners (a handful do become self-employed and some manage to join
@@ -2105,7 +2116,7 @@ society as a whole, their neighbours, friends, and so forth). It is based on
free agreement, while capitalism is marked by power, authority, and the firm
(invisible) hand of market forces (supplemented, as necessary, by the visible
fist of the state). As resources are held in common under anarchism, people
-always have the option of working alone if they so desired (see [section
+always have the option of working alone if they so desire (see [section
I.3.7](secI3.html#seci37)).
Secondly, unlike under capitalism, there is no separate class which is
@@ -2142,7 +2153,7 @@ advanced economy, where contributions of individuals are so bound together.
Needless to say, this does not imply that a free people would tolerate the
able-bodied simply taking without contributing towards the mass of products
-and services society. As we discuss in [section I.4.14](secI4.html#seci414),
+and services society. As we discuss in [section I.4.14](secI4.html#seci414) ,
such people will be asked to leave the community and be in the same situation
as those who do not wish to be communists.
@@ -2185,7 +2196,7 @@ fertility of the soil, the quality of the implements used, the advantages or
difficulties flowing from the geographical situation or the social
environment. Hence, the solution cannot be found in respect to the strict
rights of each person, but must be sought in fraternal agreement, in
-solidarity."_ [**At the Caf**, pp. 56-7]
+solidarity."_ [**At the Café**, pp. 56-7]
All in all, most anarchists reject the notion that people sharing the world
(which is all communism really means) equates to them being exploited by
@@ -2201,9 +2212,9 @@ utility of communism, most anarchists would suggest).
## I.1.5 Does capitalism efficiently allocate resources?
-We have discussed, in [section I.1.1](secI1.html#seci11), the negative effects
-of workplace hierarchy and stock markets and, in [section
-I.1.2](secI1.html#seci12), the informational problems of prices and the
+We have discussed, in [section I.1.1](secI1.html#seci11) , the negative
+effects of workplace hierarchy and stock markets and, in [section
+I.1.2](secI1.html#seci12) , the informational problems of prices and the
limitations in using profit as the sole criteria for decision making for the
efficient allocation of resources. As such, anarchists have reason to doubt
the arguments of the "Austrian" school of economics that (libertarian)
@@ -2246,8 +2257,8 @@ Calculation debates of the 1920s and 1930s, moved increasingly away from neo-
classical equilibrium theory. However, this opened up a whole new can of worms
which, ironically, weakened the "Austrian" case against socialism. For the
modern "Austrian" economist, the economy is considered not to be in
-equilibrium, with entrepreneur being seen as the means by which it brought
-towards it. Thus _"this approach postulates a tendency for profit
+equilibrium, with the entrepreneur being seen as the means by which it is
+brought towards it. Thus _"this approach postulates a tendency for profit
opportunities to be **discovered** and **grasped** by routine-resisting
entrepreneurial market participants"_, with this _"tending to nudge the market
in the equilibrative direction."_ Lip-service is paid to the obvious fact that
@@ -2299,7 +2310,7 @@ from meeting market demand. The net result of this activity is a tendency
**away** from equilibrium. This can be generalised for all markets, with the
profit seeking activities of some businesses frustrating the plans of others.
Ultimately, the implication that all entrepreneurial activity is stabilising,
-virtuous arbitrage that removes disequilibria is unconvincing as the
+virtuous arbitrage that removes disequilibria is as unconvincing as is the
suggestion that the misinformation conveyed by disequilibrium prices can cause
very substantial macroeconomic distortions for only one good (credit). Surely,
the argument as regards interest rates can apply to other disequilibrium
@@ -2310,7 +2321,7 @@ distortion leads to all other prices becoming distorted because of the
ramifications for exchange ratios throughout the economy.
One of the reasons why neo-classical economists stress equilibrium is that
-prices only provide the basis for rational calculation only in that state for
+prices provide the basis for rational calculation only in that state, for
disequilibrium prices can convey extremely misleading information. When people
trade at disequilibrium prices, it has serious impacts on the economy (which
is why neo-classical economics abstracts from it). As one economist notes, if
@@ -2322,7 +2333,7 @@ supposition. It is an accurate description of what does happen in the real
world."_ [Paul Ormerod, **The Death of Economics**, pp. 87-8] Once we dismiss
the ideologically driven _"postulate"_ of "Austrian" economics, we can see how
these opportunities for "pure profit" (and, of course, a corresponding pure
-lose for the buyer) impacts on the economy and how the market system adds to
+loss for the buyer) impacts on the economy and how the market system adds to
uncertainty. As dissident economist Steve Keen puts it:
> _"However, a change in prices in one market will affect consumer demand in
@@ -2375,14 +2386,14 @@ cost various investments and the prices which prevail on the market when the
finished goods are finally sold, suggesting that the market presents
systematically misleading signals. In addition, rival companies respond to the
same price signals by undertaking long term investments at the same time, so
-creating the possibility of a general crisis of over-accumulate and over-
+creating the possibility of a general crisis of over-accumulation and over-
production when they are complete. As we discussed in [section
-C.7.2](secC7.html#secc72), this is a key factor in the business cycle. Hence
+C.7.2](secC7.html#secc72) , this is a key factor in the business cycle. Hence
the recurring possibility of over-production, when the aggregate response to a
-specific market's rising price results in the market being swamped by good, so
-driving the market price down. Thus the market is marked by uncertainty, the
-future is not known. So it seems ironic to read Mises asserting that _"in the
-socialist commonwealth every economic change becomes an undertaking whose
+specific market's rising price results in the market being swamped by goods,
+so driving the market price down. Thus the market is marked by uncertainty,
+the future is not known. So it seems ironic to read Mises asserting that _"in
+the socialist commonwealth every economic change becomes an undertaking whose
success can be neither appraised in advance nor later retrospectively
determined. There is only groping in the dark."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 110]
@@ -2400,7 +2411,7 @@ Mises noted that _"the static nature of economic activity is only a
theoretical assumption corresponding to no real state of affairs, however
necessary it may be for our thinking and for the perfection of our knowledge
of economics."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 109] Or, for that matter, our critique of
-socialism! This can be seen from one his examples against socialism:
+socialism! This can be seen from one of his examples against socialism:
> _"Picture the building of a new railroad. Should it be built at all, and if
so, which out of a number of conceivable roads should be built? In a
@@ -2441,7 +2452,7 @@ information, nor endogenously determined via today's planned saving propensity
of income earners . . . Thus, unless one assumes that entrepreneurs can
accurately predict the future from here to eternity, current expectations of
prospective yield must depend on the animal optimism or pessimism of
-entrepreneurs"_ [Paul Davidson, **John Maynard Keynes**, pp. 62-3] So, yes,
+entrepreneurs."_ [Paul Davidson, **John Maynard Keynes**, pp. 62-3] So, yes,
under capitalism you can determine the money cost (price) of a building but
the decision to build is based on estimates and guesses of the future, to use
Mises' words _"vague estimates."_ A change in the market can mean that even a
@@ -2473,8 +2484,7 @@ again, we do not know."_ Economics _"admits"_ that _"the prices of merchandise
and labour . . . can be **estimated**"_ and _"that estimation is essentially
an arbitrary operation, which never can lead to sure and certain
conclusions."_ Thus capitalism is based on _"the relation between two
-unknowns"_ which _"cannot be determined."_ [**System of Economical
-Contradictions**, p. 64]
+unknowns"_ which _"cannot be determined."_ [**Property is Theft!**, p. 172]
So under capitalism **all** decisions are _"groping in the dark"_. Which can,
and does, lead to inefficient allocations of resources:
@@ -2512,11 +2522,11 @@ The question is, does capitalism reduce or increase these uncertainties? We
can suggest that capitalism adds two extra layers of uncertainty. As with any
economy, there is the uncertainty that produced goods will meet an actual need
of others (i.e., that it has a use-value). The market adds another layer of
-uncertainty by adding the need for its price to exceed costs a market.
-Finally, capitalism adds another level of uncertainty in that the capitalist
-class must make suffice profits as well. Thus, regardless of how much people
-need a specific good if capitalists cannot make a profit from it then it will
-not be produced.
+uncertainty by adding the need for its price to exceed costs. Finally,
+capitalism adds another level of uncertainty in that the capitalist class must
+make sufficient profits as well. Thus, regardless of how much people need a
+specific good if capitalists cannot make a profit from it then it will not be
+produced.
Uncertainty will, of course, afflict a communist-anarchist society. Mistakes
in resource allocation will happen, with some goods over produced at times and
@@ -2618,8 +2628,8 @@ distribution of income determines whether something is an "efficient" use of
resources or not. As Thomas Balogh noted, real income _"is measured in terms
of a certain set of prices ruling in a given period and that these prices will
reflect the prevailing distribution of income. (With no Texan oil millionaires
-here would be little chance of selling a baby blue Roll-Royce . . . at a price
-ten times the yearly income of a small farmer or sharecropper)."_ [**The
+there would be little chance of selling a baby blue Roll-Royce . . . at a
+price ten times the yearly income of a small farmer or sharecropper)."_ [**The
Irrelevance of Conventional Economics**, pp. 98-9] The market demand for
commodities, which allocates resources between uses, is based not on the
tastes of consumers but on the distribution of purchasing power between them.
@@ -2637,7 +2647,7 @@ changes in market prices may make once profitably investments unprofitable,
without affecting the needs they were satisfying. And this, needless to say,
can have serious impacts on human well-being.
-As discussed in [section C.1.5](secC1.html#secc15), this becomes most obvious
+As discussed in [section C.1.5](secC1.html#secc15) , this becomes most obvious
during famines. As Allan Engler points out, _"[w]hen people are denied access
to the means of livelihood, the invisible hand of market forces does not
intervene on their behalf. Equilibrium between supply and demand has no
@@ -2663,21 +2673,21 @@ by those without it. As can be seen from the current capitalist practice of
ecological and social effects. So, far from the market being a _"democracy"_
based on _"one dollar, one vote,"_ it is an oligarchy in which, for example,
the _"79,000 Americans who earned the minimum wage in 1987 have the same
-influence [or _"vote"_] as Michael Milken, who 'earned' as much as all of them
+influence [or "vote"] as Michael Milken, who 'earned' as much as all of them
combined."_ [Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, **The Political Economy of
-Participatory Economics**, p. 21] One dissident economist states the blindly
-obvious, namely that the _"market and democracy clash at a fundamental level.
-Democracy runs on the principle of 'one man (one person), one vote.' The
-market runs on the principle of 'one dollar, one vote.' Naturally, the former
-gives equal weight to each person, regardless of the money she/he has. The
-latter gives greater weight to richer people."_ This means that the market is
-automatically skewed in favour of the wealthy and so _"[l]eaving everything to
-the market means that the rich may be able to realise even the most frivolous
-element of their desires, while the poor may not be able even to survive \--
-thus the world spends twenty times more research money on slimming drugs than
-on malaria, which claims more than a million lives and debilitates millions
-more in developing countries every year."_ [Ha-Joon Chang, **Bad Samaritans**,
-p. 172 and p. 174]
+Participatory Economics**, p. 21] One dissident economist states the
+blindingly obvious, namely that the _"market and democracy clash at a
+fundamental level. Democracy runs on the principle of 'one man (one person),
+one vote.' The market runs on the principle of 'one dollar, one vote.'
+Naturally, the former gives equal weight to each person, regardless of the
+money she/he has. The latter gives greater weight to richer people."_ This
+means that the market is automatically skewed in favour of the wealthy and so
+_"[l]eaving everything to the market means that the rich may be able to
+realise even the most frivolous element of their desires, while the poor may
+not be able even to survive -- thus the world spends twenty times more
+research money on slimming drugs than on malaria, which claims more than a
+million lives and debilitates millions more in developing countries every
+year."_ [Ha-Joon Chang, **Bad Samaritans**, p. 172 and p. 174]
In other words, markets are always biased in favour of effective demand, i.e.
in favour of the demands of people with money, and so can never (except in the
@@ -2690,32 +2700,32 @@ purchase it. So just because something makes a loss under one distribution of
income does not mean that it is an inefficient use of resources in the sense
of meeting human needs (and could make a profit under another, more equal,
distribution of wealth). So the "efficient" allocation of resources in terms
-of price (i.e., profit) is often no such thing as the wealthy few skews market
+of price (i.e., profit) is often no such thing as the wealthy few skew market
decisions in their favour.
It is important to remember that, for the "Austrians", preferences are
demonstrated through action in the market and they are not interested in
opinions, thus any preference which is not expressed by action is irrelevant
to them. So any attempt to collectively prioritise, say, building decent
-housing for all, provide health care for everyone, abolish poverty, and so
-forth are all considered "inefficient" uses of resources as those who receive
-them would not, normally, be able to afford them and, consequently, do not
-really desire them anyway (as they, needless to say, do not express that
-desire by market exchanges!). Yet this ignores the awkward fact that in the
-market, people can only act if they have money to make their preferences
-known. Thus those who have a need but no money do not count when determining
-if the market is efficient or not. There is simply no room for the real people
-who can be harmed by real markets. As economist Amartya Sen argues, the
-workings of a "pure" capitalist market, as desired by "Austrians" economists
-and other propertarians, _"can be problematic since the actual consequences of
-the operation of these entitlements can, quite possibly, include rather
-terrible results. It can, in particular, lead to the violation of the
-substantive freedom of individuals to achieve those things to which they have
-reason to attach great importance, including escaping avoidable morality,
-being well nourished and healthy, being able to read, write and count and so
-on."_ In fact, _"even gigantic famines can result without anyone's [right]
-libertarian rights (including property rights) being violated. The destitutes
-such as the unemployed or the impoverished may starve precisely because their
+housing for all, provide health care for everyone, and so forth are all
+considered "inefficient" uses of resources as those who receive them would
+not, normally, be able to afford them and, consequently, do not really desire
+them anyway (as they, needless to say, do not express that desire by market
+exchanges!). Yet this ignores the awkward fact that in the market, people can
+only act if they have money to make their preferences known. Thus those who
+have a need but no money do not count when determining if the market is
+efficient or not. There is simply no room for the real people who can be
+harmed by real markets. As economist Amartya Sen argues, the workings of a
+"pure" capitalist market, as desired by "Austrians" economists and other
+propertarians, _"can be problematic since the actual consequences of the
+operation of these entitlements can, quite possibly, include rather terrible
+results. It can, in particular, lead to the violation of the substantive
+freedom of individuals to achieve those things to which they have reason to
+attach great importance, including escaping avoidable mortality, being well
+nourished and healthy, being able to read, write and count and so on."_ In
+fact, _"even gigantic famines can result without anyone's [right] libertarian
+rights (including property rights) being violated. The destitutes such as the
+unemployed or the impoverished may starve precisely because their
'entitlements' . . . do not give them enough food."_ Similarly,
_"deprivation"_ such as _"regular undernourishment"_, the _"lack of medical
care for curable illnesses"_ can _"coexist with all [right] libertarian rights
@@ -2786,7 +2796,7 @@ satisfaction of consumers.
Equally, that something makes a profit does not mean that it is an efficient
use of resources. If, for example, that profit is achieved by imposing
pollution externalities or by market power then it cannot be said that society
-as a whole, rather than the capitalists, have benefited. Similarly, non-market
+as a whole, rather than the capitalist, has benefited. Similarly, non-market
based systems can be seen to be more efficient than market based ones in terms
of outcome. For example, making health care available to all who need it
rather than those who can afford it is economically "inefficient" in
@@ -2819,19 +2829,19 @@ very grim circumstances. And grim circumstances, without much prospect of a
future, may lead to constructive social action, but where that's lacking they
express themselves in violence."_ [**Keeping the Rabble in Line**, pp. 283-4]
So it simply cannot be assumed that what is good for the economy (profits)
-equates to what to good for people (at least the working class).
-
-Thus the "Austrians" prizes profitability above all and this assumption is at
-the root of the "Calculation Argument" against socialism, but this only makes
-sense only insofar as efficiency is confused with profit. The market will
-invest in coal if profits are higher and, in so doing, contribute to global
-warming. It will deny medical care to the sick (no profits and so it is
-inefficient) while contributing to, say, a housing bubble because it makes
-short-term profits by providing loans to people who really cannot afford it.
-It will support all kinds of economic activity, regardless of the wider
-impact, and so "efficiency" (i.e., profits) can, and does, contradict both
-wisdom and ethics and so, ultimately, an efficient allocation of resources to
-meet people's needs.
+equates to what is good for people (at least the working class).
+
+Thus the "Austrians" prize profitability above all and this assumption is at
+the root of the "Calculation Argument" against socialism, but this makes sense
+only insofar as efficiency is confused with profit. The market will invest in
+coal if profits are higher and, in so doing, contribute to global warming. It
+will deny medical care to the sick (no profits and so it is inefficient) while
+contributing to, say, a housing bubble because it makes short-term profits by
+providing loans to people who really cannot afford them. It will support all
+kinds of economic activity, regardless of the wider impact, and so
+"efficiency" (i.e., profits) can, and does, contradict both wisdom and ethics
+and so, ultimately, an efficient allocation of resources to meet people's
+needs.
Lastly, our critique has so far ignored the periodic crises that hit
capitalist economies which produce massive unemployment and social disruption
@@ -2848,7 +2858,7 @@ are either wasted or left idle.
In a crisis we see the contradiction between use value and exchange value come
to a head. Workers are no less productive than when the crisis started, the
goods and services they create are no less needed than before. The means of
-production are just productive as they were. Both are just as capable as
+production are just as productive as they were. Both are just as capable as
before of affording for everyone a decent standard of living. Even though
people are homeless, housing stands empty. Even though people need goods,
production is stopped. Even though people want jobs, workplaces are closed.
@@ -2894,17 +2904,17 @@ they would never have made a capitalist a profit?
Of course, our discussion is affected by the fact that "actually existing"
capitalism has various forms of state-intervention. Some of these "socialise"
costs and risks, such as publicly funded creation of an infrastructure and
-Research and Development (R&D;). Given that much R&D; is conducted via
+Research and Development (R&D). Given that much R&D is conducted via
state funding (via universities, military procurements, and so on) and (of
course!) the profits of such research are then privatised, question arises
would the initial research have gone ahead if the costs had not been
"socialised"? Would Mises' _"exact"_ calculation have resulted in, say, the
-internet being developed? If, as seems likely, not, does not mean our current
-use of the World Wide Web is an inefficient use of resources? Then there are
-the numerous state interventions which exist to ensure that certain activities
-become "efficient" (i.e., profitable) such as specifying and defending
-intellectual property rights, the limited liability of corporations and
-enforcing capitalist property rights (in land, for example). While we take
+internet being developed? If, as seems likely, not, does it not mean our
+current use of the World Wide Web is an inefficient use of resources? Then
+there are the numerous state interventions which exist to ensure that certain
+activities become "efficient" (i.e., profitable) such as specifying and
+defending intellectual property rights, the limited liability of corporations
+and enforcing capitalist property rights (in land, for example). While we take
this activity for granted when evaluating capitalism, they are serious
imperfections in the market and so what counts as an "efficient" use of
resources. Other state interventions aim to reduce uncertainty and stabilise
@@ -2948,9 +2958,13 @@ ensures that resources are wasted. Using the profit criteria as the measure of
places society in frequent situations (crises) where "economic calculation"
ensures that industries close, so ensuring that goods and services people need
are no longer produced. As Proudhon put it, under capitalism there is _"a
-miserable oscillation between usury and bankruptcy."_ [**Proudhon's Solution
-of the Social Problem**, p. 63] For anarchists, these drawbacks to capitalist
-allocation are obvious. Equally obvious is the reason why Mises failed to
-discuss them: ultimately, like neo-classical economics, the "Austrian" school
-seeks to eulogise capitalism rather than to understand it.
+miserable oscillation between usury and bankruptcy."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 285]
+For anarchists, these drawbacks to capitalist allocation are obvious. Equally
+obvious is the reason why Mises failed to discuss them: ultimately, like neo-
+classical economics, the "Austrian" school seeks to eulogise capitalism rather
+than to understand it.
+
+[‹ I.0 Section I Introduction](/afaq/secIint.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/secIcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [I.2 Is this a blueprint for an
+anarchist society? ›](/afaq/secI2.html "Go to next page" )
diff --git a/markdown/secI2.md b/markdown/secI2.md
index 54fd66b0ab09e235311ca2b1d6b62ce902fe5eb5..5855d8a80953382391c2f2212c9bacbaa07ac754 100644
--- a/markdown/secI2.md
+++ b/markdown/secI2.md
@@ -14,10 +14,9 @@ All we can do here is indicate those general features that we believe a free
society **must** have in order to qualify as truly libertarian. For example, a
society based on hierarchical management in the workplace (like capitalism)
would not be libertarian and would soon see private or public states
-developing to protect the power of those at the top hierarchical positions.
-Beyond such general considerations, however, the specifics of how to structure
-a non-hierarchical society must remain open for discussion and
-experimentation:
+developing to protect the power of those at the top. Beyond such general
+considerations, however, the specifics of how to structure a non-hierarchical
+society must remain open for discussion and experimentation:
> _"Anarchism, meaning Liberty, is compatible with the most diverse economic
[and social] conditions, on the premise that these cannot imply, as under
@@ -50,9 +49,9 @@ critique of the state and capitalism, certain kinds of social organisation are
implied. Thus, our recognition that wage-labour creates authoritarian social
relationships and exploitation suggests a workplace in a free society can only
be based on associated and co-operative labour (i.e., self-management).
-Similarly, given that the state is a centralised body which delegates power
-upwards it is not hard to imagine that a free society would have communal
-institutions which were federal and organised from the bottom-up.
+Similarly, given that the state is a top-down centralised body it is not hard
+to imagine that a free society would have communal institutions which were
+federal and organised from the bottom-up.
Moreover, given the ways in which our own unfree society has shaped our ways
of thinking, it is probably impossible for us to imagine what new forms will
@@ -103,7 +102,7 @@ And, of course, real life has a habit of over-turning even the most realistic
sounding theories, ideas and ideologies. Marxism, Leninism, Monetarism,
laissez-faire capitalism (among others) have proven time and time again that
ideology applied to real life has effects not predicted by the theory before
-hand (although in all four cases, their negative effects where predicted by
+hand (although in all four cases, their negative effects were predicted by
others; in the case of Marxism and Leninism by anarchists). Anarchists are
aware of this, which is why we reject ideology in favour of theory and why we
are hesitant to create blue-prints for the future. History has repeatedly
@@ -149,7 +148,7 @@ ruling class, becomes clearly undesirable and unnecessary. Thus the framework
of the free society will be created by the very process of class struggle, as
working class people create the organisations required to fight for
improvements and change within capitalism (see [section
-I.2.3](secI2.html#seci23)).
+I.2.3](secI2.html#seci23) ).
Thus, the **actual** framework of an anarchist society and how it develops and
shapes itself is dependent on the needs and desires of those who live in such
@@ -206,7 +205,7 @@ system to suit their convenience in a variety of ways . . . as common sense is
likely to suggest to free men [and women]."_ [Charlotte M. Wilson, **Anarchist
Essays**, p. 23] So we have little doubt that working people will quickly
transform their work, workplaces and society into one suitable for human
-beings, rejecting the legacy of capitalism and create a society we simply
+beings, rejecting the legacy of capitalism and creating a society we simply
cannot predict. The occupying of workplaces is, we stress, simply the first
stage of the process of transforming them and the rest of society. These words
of the strikers just before the 1919 Seattle General Strike expresses this
@@ -216,14 +215,11 @@ perspective well:
under the management of the appropriate trades, such activities as are needed
to preserve public health and public peace. If the strike continues, Labour
may feel led to avoid public suffering by reopening more and more activities,
+_
->
+> _"UNDER ITS OWN MANAGEMENT. _
-> "UNDER ITS OWN MANAGEMENT.
-
->
-
-> "And that is why we say that we are starting on a road that leads -- NO ONE
+> _"And that is why we say that we are starting on a road that leads -- NO ONE
KNOWS WHERE!"_ [quoted by Jeremy Brecher, **Strike!**, p. 110]
People's lives in a post-revolutionary society will not centre around fixed
@@ -267,7 +263,7 @@ one degree or another, these forms either alter the individual who uses them
or inhibit his [or her] further development."_ [**Post-Scarcity Anarchism**,
p. 89]
-And the **content** of decisions are determined by the individuals involved.
+And the **content** of decisions is determined by the individuals involved.
Thus participatory, decentralised, self-managed organisations are essential
for the development of the content of decisions because they develop the
individuals who make them.
@@ -333,15 +329,15 @@ our activities are actually creating a better world. After all, if Karl Marx
had been more willing to discuss his vision of a socialist society then the
Stalinists would have found it much harder to claim that their hellish system
was, in fact, socialism. Given that anarchists like Proudhon and Bakunin gave
-a board outline of their vision of a free society it would have been
+a broad outline of their vision of a free society it would have been
impossible for anarchism to be twisted as Marxism was. Most anarchists would
agree with Chomsky's evaluation of the issue:
> _"A movement of the left should distinguish with clarity between its long-
range revolutionary aims and certain more immediate effects it can hope to
-achieve . . .
+achieve . . . _
-> "But in the long run, a movement of the left has no chance of success, and
+> _"But in the long run, a movement of the left has no chance of success, and
deserves none, unless it develops an understanding of contemporary society and
a vision of a future social order that is persuasive to a large majority of
the population. Its goals and organisational forms must take shape through
@@ -376,9 +372,9 @@ against the privileged class, can wipe out class difference."_ [Luigi Fabbri,
_"Anarchy and 'Scientific' Communism"_, pp. 13-49, **The Poverty of Statism**,
pp. 13-49, Albert Meltzer (ed.), p. 30]
-As we discussed in [section H.2.5](secH2.html#sech25), few anarchists consider
-it likely that a perfectly functioning libertarian communist society would be
-the immediate effect of a social revolution. For anarchists a social
+As we discussed in [section H.2.5](secH2.html#sech25) , few anarchists
+consider it likely that a perfectly functioning libertarian communist society
+would be the immediate effect of a social revolution. For anarchists a social
revolution is a **process** and not an event (although, of course, a process
marked by such events as general strikes, uprisings, insurrections and so on).
As Kropotkin argued:
@@ -469,17 +465,15 @@ be created by the struggle for freedom itself, by the class struggle
will not be "perfect" by any means:
> _"I do not say that the peasants [and workers], freely organised from the
-bottom up, will miraculously create an ideal organisation, confirming in all
+bottom up, will miraculously create an ideal organisation, conforming in all
respects to our dreams. But I am convinced that what they construct will be
living and vibrant, a thousands times better and more just than any existing
organisation. Moreover, this . . . organisation, being on the one hand open to
revolutionary propaganda . . . , and on the other, not petrified by the
intervention of the State . . . will develop and perfect itself through free
-experimentation as fully as one can reasonably expect in our times.
-
->
+experimentation as fully as one can reasonably expect in our times. _
-> "With the abolition of the State, the spontaneous self-organisation of
+> _"With the abolition of the State, the spontaneous self-organisation of
popular life . . . will revert to the communes. The development of each
commune will take its point of departure the actual condition of its
civilisation."_ [**Bakunin on Anarchism**, p. 207]
@@ -650,41 +644,33 @@ Councils):
. . Bakunin . . ., much more than Proudhon, linked anarchist principles
directly to revolutionary action, thus arriving at remarkable insights into
the revolutionary process that contribute to an understanding of later events
-in Russia . . .
+in Russia . . . _
->
-
-> "In 1863 Proudhon declared . . . 'All my economic ideas as developed over
+> _"In 1863 Proudhon declared . . . 'All my economic ideas as developed over
twenty-five years can be summed up in the words: agricultural-industrial
federation. All my political ideas boil down to a similar formula: political
federation or decentralisation.' . . . Proudhon's conception of a self-
governing state [sic!] founded on producers' corporations [i.e. federations of
co-operatives], is certainly related to the idea of 'a democracy of producers'
which emerged in the factory soviets. To this extent Proudhon can be regarded
-as an ideological precursor of the councils . . .
-
->
+as an ideological precursor of the councils . . . _
-> "Bakunin . . . suggested the formation of revolutionary committees with
+> _"Bakunin . . . suggested the formation of revolutionary committees with
representatives from the barricades, the streets, and the city districts, who
would be given binding mandates, held accountable to the masses, and subject
to recall. These revolutionary deputies were to form the 'federation of the
barricades,' organising a revolutionary commune to immediately unite with
-other centres of rebellion . . .
+other centres of rebellion . . . _
->
-
-> "Bakunin proposed the formation of revolutionary committees to elect
+> _"Bakunin proposed the formation of revolutionary committees to elect
communal councils, and a pyramidal organisation of society 'through free
federation from the bottom upward, the association of workers in industry and
agriculture -- first in the communities, then through federation of
communities into districts, districts into nations, and nations into
international brotherhood.' These proposals are indeed strikingly similar to
-the structure of the subsequent Russian system of councils . . .
-
->
+the structure of the subsequent Russian system of councils . . . _
-> "Bakunin's ideas about spontaneous development of the revolution and the
+> _"Bakunin's ideas about spontaneous development of the revolution and the
masses' capacity for elementary organisation undoubtedly were echoed in part
by the subsequent soviet movement. . . Because Bakunin . . . was always very
close to the reality of social struggle, he was able to foresee concrete
@@ -706,7 +692,7 @@ anarchists use this term to cover all struggles against domination).
_"Anarchism,"_ argued Kropotkin, _"is not a mere insight into a remote future.
Already now, whatever the sphere of action of the individual, he [or she] can
act, either in accordance with anarchist principles or on an opposite line."_
-It was _"born among the people \-- in the struggles of real life"_ and _"owes
+It was _"born among the people -- in the struggles of real life"_ and _"owes
its origin to the constructive, creative activity of the people."_
[**Anarchism**, p. 75, p. 150 and p. 149] Thus, _"Anarchism is not . . . a
theory of the future to be realised by divine inspiration. It is a living
@@ -741,23 +727,23 @@ potent fact, which shall envelop capital and the State and subjugate them"_ as
_"it is of no use to change the holders of power or introduce some variation
into its workings: an agricultural and industrial combination must be found by
means of which power, today the ruler of society, shall become its slave."_
-[**System of Economical Contradictions**, p. 399 and p. 398] Workers should
-follow the example of those already creating co-operatives:
+[**Property is Theft!**, p. 226 and p. 225] Workers should follow the example
+of those already creating co-operatives:
-> _"Do not the workmen's unions at this moment serve as the cradle for the
+> _"Do not the worker's societies at this moment serve as the cradle for the
social revolution . . . ? Are they not always the open school, both
-theoretical and practical, where the workman learns the science of the
+theoretical and practical, where the worker learns the science of the
production and distribution of wealth, where he studies, without masters and
without books, by his own experience solely, the laws of . . . industrial
-organisation . . . ?"_ [**General Idea of the Revolution**, p. 78]
+organisation . . . ?"_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 552-3]
Attempts to form workers associations, therefore, _"should be judged, not by
the more or less successful results which they obtain, but only according to
their silent tendency to assert and establish the social republic."_ The
-_"importance of their work lies, not in their petty union interests, but in
-their denial of the rule of capitalists, money lenders and governments."_ They
-_"should take over the great departments of industry, which are their natural
-inheritance."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 98-9]
+_"importance of their work lies, not in the petty interests of their company,
+but in the negation of the capitalist regime."_ They will _" take over the
+great departments of industry, which are their natural prerogative."_ [**Op.
+Cit.**, pp. 558-9]
This linking of the present and the future through the self-activity and self-
organisation of working class people is also found in Bakunin. Unlike
@@ -876,8 +862,8 @@ with a self-managed federation of workers' associations. In this way, the
class struggle creates the framework of a free society.
This, obviously, means that any suggestions of how an anarchist society would
-look like are based on the fact that the _**actual**_ framework of a free
-society will be the product of _**actual**_ struggles. This means that the
+look like are based on the fact that the **_actual_** framework of a free
+society will be the product of **_actual_** struggles. This means that the
form of the free society will be shaped by the process of social change and
the organs it creates. This is an important point and worth repeating.
@@ -915,7 +901,7 @@ anarchist:
> _"All of the workers' and peasants' movements which have taken place . . .
have been movements within the limits of the capitalist regime, and have been
-more of less tinged with anarchism. This is perfectly natural and
+more or less tinged with anarchism. This is perfectly natural and
understandable. The working class do not act within a world of wishes, but in
the real world where they are daily subjected to the physical and
psychological blows of hostile forces . . . the workers continually feel the
@@ -966,11 +952,9 @@ anarchy, meaning the free and independent organisation of all the units and
parts of the community and their voluntary federation from below upward, not
by the orders of any authority, even an elected one, and not by the dictates
of any scientific theory, but as the natural development of all the varied
-demands put forth by life itself.
+demands put forth by life itself. _
->
-
-> "Therefore no scholar can teach the people or even define for himself how
+> _"Therefore no scholar can teach the people or even define for himself how
they will and must live on the morrow of the social revolution. That will be
determined first by the situation of each people, and secondly by the desires
that manifest themselves and operate most strongly within them."_ [**Statism
@@ -1004,3 +988,8 @@ change. However, the fundamental principles of a free society will not change
and so it is useful to present a summary of how such a society could work,
based on these principles.
+[‹ I.1 Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron?](/afaq/secI1.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secIcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [I.3 What could
+the economic structure of anarchy look like? ›](/afaq/secI3.html "Go to next
+page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secI3.md b/markdown/secI3.md
index 9095f9c7aecff157fb6896c18ecd83154a87ca44..57c220a35ecfb7bfa702db730da19ba4318718ea 100644
--- a/markdown/secI3.md
+++ b/markdown/secI3.md
@@ -115,14 +115,14 @@ hands; to the agricultural communes. The capital and all the tools of
production belong to the workers; to the workers' associations."_ These
associations are often called _"co-operatives"_ and _"syndicates"_ (see
[section I.3.1](secI3.html#seci31)). This feeds into an essential economic
-concept for libertarian socialists is _**"workers' self-management"**_ This
+concept for libertarian socialists,**_"workers' self-management"_** This
refers to those who do the work managing it, where the land and workplaces are
_"owned and operated by the workers themselves: by their freely organised
federations of industrial and agricultural workers"_ (see [section
I.3.2](secI3.html#seci32)). For most anarchists, _"socialisation"_ is the
necessary foundation for a free society, as only this ensures universal self-
management by allowing free access to the means of production (see [section
-I.3.3](secI3.html#seci33)). Thus an anarchist economy would be based on _"the
+I.3.3](secI3.html#seci33) ). Thus an anarchist economy would be based on _"the
land, tools of production and all other capital"_ being _"converted into
collective property of the whole of society and utilised only by the workers,
i.e., by their agricultural and industrial associations."_ [**Bakunin on
@@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ voluntary federation (see [section I.3.4](secI3.html#seci34)). For social
anarchists, this would be supplemented by confederal bodies or co-ordinating
councils at two levels: first, between all firms in a particular industry; and
second, between all industries (including agriculture) throughout the society
-([section I.3.5](secI3.html#seci35)). Such federations may, depending on the
+([section I.3.5](secI3.html#seci35) ). Such federations may, depending on the
type of anarchism in question, also include people's financial institutions.
While, for some anarcho-syndicalists, this structure is seen as enough, most
@@ -175,16 +175,16 @@ nationalised or state-owned industry.
The exact dynamics of a socialised self-managed system varies between
anarchist schools. Most obviously, as discussed in [section
-I.3.6](secI3.html#seci36), while individualists view competition between
+I.3.6](secI3.html#seci36) , while individualists view competition between
workplaces as unproblematic and mutualists see its negative aspects but
consider it necessary, collectivists and communists oppose it and argue that a
free society can do without it. Moreover, socialisation should not be confused
with forced collectivisation -- individuals and groups will be free **not** to
join a syndicate and to experiment in different forms of economy (see [section
-I.3.7](secI3.html#seci37)). Lastly, anarchists argue that such a system would
+I.3.7](secI3.html#seci37) ). Lastly, anarchists argue that such a system would
be applicable to all economies, regardless of size and development, and aim
for an economy based on appropriately sized technology (Marxist assertions
-**not** withstanding -- see [section I.3.8](secI3.html#seci38)).
+**not** withstanding -- see [section I.3.8](secI3.html#seci38) ).
Regardless of the kind of anarchy desired, anarchists all agree on the
importance of decentralisation, free agreement and free association.
@@ -197,7 +197,7 @@ various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake
of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite
variety of needs and aspirations of a civilised being._
-> _ "In a society developed on these lines . . . voluntary associations . . .
+> _"In a society developed on these lines . . . voluntary associations . . .
would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of
groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and
international temporary or more or less permanent -- for all possible
@@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of the territory, and so
on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever-increasing number
of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs. _
-> _ "Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the
+> _"Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the
contrary -- as is seen in organic life at large - harmony would (it is
contended) result from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of
equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and influences, and this
@@ -289,18 +289,18 @@ capitalist workplace and ending wage labour by associating and democratising
industry is as old as anarchism itself. Thus we find Proudhon arguing in 1840
that the aim was a society of _"possessors without masters"_ (rather than
wage-labourers and tenants _"controlled by proprietors"_) with _"leaders,
-instructors, superintendents"_ and so forth being _"chosen from the labourers
-by the labourers themselves."_ [**What is Property?**, p. 167 and p. 137]
-
-_"Mutuality, reciprocity exists,"_ Proudhon argued, _"when all the workers in
-an industry, instead of working for an **entrepreneur** who pays them and
-keeps their products, work for one another and thus collaborate in the making
-of a common product whose profits they share amongst themselves. Extend the
-principle of reciprocity as uniting the work of every group, to the Workers'
-Societies as units, and you have created a form of civilisation which from all
-points of view -- political, economic and aesthetic -- is radically different
-from all earlier civilisations."_ In summary: _"All associated and all free"_.
-[quoted by Martin Buber, **Paths in Utopia**, pp. 29-30 and p. 30]
+instructors, superintendents"_ and so forth being _"chosen from the workers by
+the workers themselves."_ _"__Workers’ Associations are the locus of a new
+principle and model of production ,"_ Proudhon argued 18 years later._"__There
+is mutuality,"_ he went in, _"__when in an industry, all the workers, instead
+of working for an owner who pays them and keeps their product, work for one
+another and thereby contribute to a common product from which they share the
+profit . . . extend the principle of mutuality that unites the workers of each
+group to all the Workers’ Associations as a unit, and you will have created a
+form of civilisation that, from all points of view -- political, economic,
+aesthetic -- differs completely from previous civilisations."_ In summary:
+_"All associated and all free."_ [**Property is Theft!**, p. 122, p. 119, p.
+616 and p. 12]
Nor was this idea invented by Proudhon and other anarchists. Rather, it was
first raised by workers themselves and subsequently taken up by the likes of
@@ -318,7 +318,7 @@ method of emancipation from wage labour. Proudhon even picked up the term
co-operative credit, exchange and production influenced him as surely as he
influenced them. In America, as Chomsky notes, _"[i]f we go back to the labour
activism from the early days of the industrial revolution, to the working
-class press in 1850s, and so on, its got a real anarchist strain to it. They
+class press in 1850s, and so on, it’s got a real anarchist strain to it. They
never heard of European anarchism . . . It was spontaneous. They took for
granted wage labour is little different from slavery, that workers should own
the mills"_ [**Anarchism Interview**] As we noted in [section
@@ -335,13 +335,13 @@ in every branch of labour and science."_ [**Basic Bakunin**, p. 153]
Therefore, even from the limited examples of co-operatives functioning in the
capitalist market, the essential features of a libertarian socialist economy
can be seen. The basic economic element, the workplace, will be a free
-association of individuals who will organise their joint work as equals. To
-quote Bakunin again, _"[o]nly associated labour, that is, labour organised
-upon the principles of reciprocity and co-operation, is adequate to the task
-of maintaining . . . civilised society."_ [**The Political Philosophy of
-Bakunin**, p. 341]
+association of individuals who will organise their joint work as equals:
+_"Only associated labour, that is, labour organised upon the principles of
+reciprocity and co-operation, is adequate to the task of maintaining . . .
+civilised society."_ [Bakunin, **The Political Philosophy of Bakunin**, p.
+341]
-**_Co-operation_** in this context means that the policy decisions related to their association will be based on the principle of "one member, one vote," with administrative staff elected and held accountable to the workplace as a whole. In the words of economist David Ellerman: _"Every enterprise should be legally reconstructured as a partnership of all who work in the enterprise. Every enterprise should be a democratic worker-owned firm."_ [**The Democratic Worker-Owned Firm**, p. 43] Anarchists, unsurprisingly, reject the Leninist idea that state property means the end of capitalism as simplistic and confused. Ownership is a juridical relationship. The **real** issue is one of management. Do the users of a resource manage it? If so, then we have a real (i.e. libertarian) socialist society. If not, we have some form of class society (for example, in the Soviet Union the state replaced the capitalist class but workers still had no official control over their labour or the product of that labour).
+**_Co-operation_** in this context means that the policy decisions related to their association will be based on the principle of "one member, one vote," with administrative staff elected and held accountable to the workplace as a whole. In the words of economist David Ellerman: _"Every enterprise should be legally reconstructured as a partnership of all who work in the enterprise. Every enterprise should be a democratic worker-owned firm."_ [**The Democratic Worker-Owned Firm**, p. 43] Anarchists, unsurprisingly, reject the Leninist idea that state property means the end of capitalism as simplistic and confused. Ownership is a juridical relationship. The **real** issue is one of management. Do the users of a resource manage it? If so, then we have a real (i.e. libertarian) socialist society. If not, we have some form of class society (for example, in the Soviet Union the state replaced the capitalist class but workers still had no control over their labour or the product of that labour).
Workplace self-management does not mean, as some apologists of capitalism
suggest, that knowledge and skill will be ignored and **all** decisions made
@@ -377,10 +377,10 @@ decisions:
> _"Of course in every large collective undertaking, a division of labour,
technical management, administration, etc. is necessary. But authoritarians
-clumsily play on words to produce a **raison dtre** for government out of the
-very real need for the organisation of work. Government, it is well to repeat,
-is the concourse of individuals who have had, or seized, the right and the
-means to make laws and to oblige people to obey; the administrator, the
+clumsily play on words to produce a **raison d’être** for government out of
+the very real need for the organisation of work. Government, it is well to
+repeat, is the concourse of individuals who have had, or seized, the right and
+the means to make laws and to oblige people to obey; the administrator, the
engineer, etc., instead are people who are appointed or assume the
responsibility to carry out a particular job and so on. Government means the
delegation of power, that is the abdication of initiative and sovereignty of
@@ -461,7 +461,7 @@ because of the harmful effects of markets we indicated in [section
I.1.3](secI1.html#seci13) could make co-operatives become, in effect,
"collective capitalists" and compete against each other in the market as
ferociously as actual capitalists. As Kropotkin put it, while co-operation had
-_"at its origin . . . an essentially mutual aid character"_, it _"is often
+_"at its origin" _an _"essentially mutual aid character"_, it _"is often
described as 'joint-stock individualism'"_ and _"such as it is now, it
undoubtedly tends to breed a co-operative egotism, not only towards the
community at large, but also among the co-operators themselves."_ [**Mutual
@@ -475,7 +475,7 @@ receive the full product of their labour and, moreover, any attempt to
overcome this problem holds numerous dangers to freedom. Other social
anarchists disagree. They think co-operation between workplaces can increase,
not reduce, freedom. Second, as discussed in [section
-I.1.4](secI1.html#seci14), distribution according to work does not take into
+I.1.4](secI1.html#seci14) , distribution according to work does not take into
account the different needs of the workers (nor non-workers like the ill, the
young and the old). As such, mutualism does not produce what most anarchists
would consider a decent society, one where people co-operate to make a decent
@@ -504,7 +504,7 @@ means of production as new members of a syndicate would have the same rights
and power as existing members. If this were not the case, then the new members
would be the wage slaves of existing ones and it is **precisely** to avoid
this that anarchists argue for socialisation (see [section
-I.3.3](secI3.html#seci33)). With socialisation, free access is guaranteed and
+I.3.3](secI3.html#seci33) ). With socialisation, free access is guaranteed and
so all workers are in the same position so ensuring self-management and no
return to workplace hierarchy.
@@ -518,12 +518,12 @@ of who will do unpleasant work, and for more on work allocation generally, in
an anarchist society).
Of course there may be the danger of a syndicate or guild trying to restrict
-entry from an ulterior motive, as such the exploitation of monopoly power vis
---vis other groups in society. However, in an anarchist society individuals
-would be free to form their own syndicates and this would ensure that such
-activity is self-defeating. In addition, in a non-individualist anarchist
-system, syndicates would be part of a confederation (see [section
-I.3.4](secI3.html#seci34)). It is a responsibility of the inter-syndicate
+entry from an ulterior motive, as such the exploitation of monopoly power
+vis-à-vis other groups in society. However, in an anarchist society
+individuals would be free to form their own syndicates and this would ensure
+that such activity is self-defeating. In addition, in a non-individualist
+anarchist system, syndicates would be part of a confederation (see [section
+I.3.4](secI3.html#seci34) ). It is a responsibility of the inter-syndicate
congresses to assure that membership and employment in the syndicates is not
restricted in any anti-social way. If an individual or group of individuals
felt that they had been unfairly excluded from a syndicate then an
@@ -542,7 +542,7 @@ seek them?
Perhaps unsurprisingly, neo-classical economics says no and equally
unsurprisingly this conclusion is based not on empirical evidence of real co-
-operatives but rather on an abstract model developed in 1958\. The model is
+operatives but rather on an abstract model developed in 1958. The model is
based on deducing the implications of assuming that a labour-managed
(_"'Illyrian"_) firm will seek to maximise net income per worker rather than,
in a capitalist firm, maximising net profit. This results in various perverse
@@ -556,7 +556,7 @@ No. 4, p. 580]
Of course, it would be churlish to note that, unlike the theory, actual
capitalism is marked by extensive unemployment (as noted in [section
-C.1.5](secC1.html#secc15), this is not surprising as it is required to secure
+C.1.5](secC1.html#secc15) , this is not surprising as it is required to secure
bosses' power over their wage slaves). It would be equally churlish to note
that, to quote one Yugoslav economist, this is _"a theory whose predictions
have absolutely nothing to do with the observed facts."_ [Branko Horvat, _"The
@@ -647,9 +647,9 @@ exploitative) wage labour and so did not place co-operatives at the centre of
their ideas. This position is very much a minority in the anarchist tradition
as it is not consistent with libertarian principles nor likely to end the
exploitation of labour (see [section G.4.1](secG4.html#secg41)), so making
-most anarchists think such individualism is inconsistent anarchism (see
-[section G.4.2](secG4.html#secg42)). Secondly, it is important to note that
-individuals who do not wish to join syndicates will be able to work for
+most anarchists think such individualism is not **_consistent_** anarchism
+(see [section G.4.2](secG4.html#secg42)). Secondly, it is i mportant to note
+that individuals who do not wish to join syndicates will be able to work for
themselves. There is no _"forced collectivisation"_ under **any** form of
libertarian socialism, because coercing people is incompatible with the basic
principles of anarchism. Those who wish to be self-employed will have free
@@ -663,16 +663,16 @@ I.3.7](secI3.html#seci37)).
Quite simply, workers' self-management (sometimes called _"workers' control"_)
means that all workers affected by a decision have an equal voice in making
it, on the principle of "one worker, one vote." Thus _"revolution has launched
-us on the path of industrial democracy."_ [**Selected Writings of Pierre-
-Joseph Proudhon**, p. 63] That is, workers _"ought to be the real managers of
-industries."_ [Peter Kropotkin, **Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow**,
-p. 157] This is essential to ensure _"a society of equals, who will not be
-compelled to sell their hands and their brains to those who choose to employ
-them . . . but who will be able to apply their knowledge and capacities to
-production, in an organism so constructed as to combine all the efforts for
-procuring the greatest possible well-being for all, while full, free scope
-will be left for every individual initiative."_ [Kropotkin, **Kropotkin:
-Selections from his Writings**, pp. 113-4] As Chomsky put it:
+us on the path of industrial democracy."_ [**Property is Theft!**, p. 12] That
+is, workers _"ought to be the real managers of industries."_ [Peter Kropotkin,
+**Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow**, p. 157] This is essential to
+ensure _"a society of equals, who will not be compelled to sell their hands
+and their brains to those who choose to employ them . . . but who will be able
+to apply their knowledge and capacities to production, in an organism so
+constructed as to combine all the efforts for procuring the greatest possible
+well-being for all, while full, free scope will be left for every individual
+initiative."_ [Kropotkin, **Memiors of a Revolutionist**, p. 372] As Chomsky
+put it:
> _"Compassion, solidarity, friendship are also human needs. They are driving
needs, no less than the desire to increase one's share of commodities or to
@@ -684,22 +684,22 @@ base."_ [**Radical Priorities**, p. 191]
As noted earlier, however, we need to be careful when using the term
_"workers' control,"_ as others use it and give it an entirely different
-meaning from the one intended by anarchists. Like the terms _"anarchist"_ and
-_"libertarian,"_ it has been co-opted by others to describe less than
-libertarian schemes.
+meaning from the one intended by anarchists. Like the terms anarchist and
+libertarian, it has been co-opted by others to describe less than libertarian
+schemes.
The first to do so were the Leninists, starting with Lenin, who have used the
-term "workers' control" to describe a situation were workers have a limited
+term "workers' control" to describe a situation were workers have limited
supervision over either the capitalists or the appointed managers of the so-
called workers' state. These do not equate to what anarchists aim for and,
moreover, such limited experiments have not lasted long (see [section
-H.3.14](secH3.html#sech314)). More recently, "workers' control" have been used
+H.3.14](secH3.html#sech314)). More recently, "workers' control" has been used
by capitalists to describe schemes in which workers' have more say in how
their workplaces are run while maintaining wage slavery (i.e. capitalist
ownership, power and ultimate control). So, in the hands of capitalists,
"workers' control" is now referred to by such terms as "participation", "co-
determination", "consensus", "empowerment", "Japanese-style management," etc.
-_"For those whose function it is solve the new problems of boredom and
+_"For those whose function it is to solve the new problems of boredom and
alienation in the workplace in advanced industrial capitalism, workers'
control is seen as a hopeful solution"_, Sam Dolgoff noted, _"a solution in
which workers are given a modicum of influence, a strictly limited area of
@@ -735,9 +735,9 @@ management means the organisation of all workers . . . into a workers' council
or factory committee (or agricultural syndicate), which makes all the
decisions formerly made by the owners and managers."_ [Dolgoff, **Op. Cit.**,
p. 81] Self-management means the end of hierarchy and authoritarian social
-relationships in workplace and their replacement by free agreement, collective
-decision-making, direct democracy, social equality and libertarian social
-relationships.
+relationships in the workplace and their replacement by free agreement,
+collective decision-making, direct democracy, social equality and libertarian
+social relationships.
As anarchists use the term, workers' self-management means collective worker
ownership, control and direction of all aspects of production, distribution
@@ -755,7 +755,7 @@ in terms of allocating investment funds or resources.
Workers' self-management is based around general meetings of the whole
workforce, held regularly in every industrial or agricultural syndicate. These
are the source of and final authority over decisions affecting policy within
-the workplace as well as relations with other syndicates. These meeting elect
+the workplace as well as relations with other syndicates. These meetings elect
workplace councils whose job is to implement the decisions of these assemblies
and to make the day to day administration decisions that will crop up. These
councils are directly accountable to the workforce and its members subject to
@@ -793,7 +793,7 @@ of production need not be exclusively monopolised by one or several
individuals. And managers are not at all entitled to more pay. The co-
operative workers associations have demonstrated that the workers themselves,
choosing administrators from their own ranks, receiving the same pay, can
-efficiency control and operate industry. The monopoly of administration, far
+efficiently control and operate industry. The monopoly of administration, far
from promoting the efficiency of production, on the contrary only enhances the
power and privileges of the owners and their managers."_ [**Bakunin on
Anarchism**, p. 424]
@@ -801,23 +801,23 @@ Anarchism**, p. 424]
What is important is that what is considered as important or trivial, policy
or administration rests with the people affected by the decisions and subject
to their continual approval. Anarchists do not make a fetish of direct
-democracy and recognise that there is more important things in life than
+democracy and recognise that there are more important things in life than
meetings and voting! While workers' assemblies play the key role in self-
-management, it is not the focal point of **all** decisions. Rather it is the
-place where all the important policy decisions are made, administrative
+management, they are not the focal point of **all** decisions. Rather it is
+the place where all the important policy decisions are made, administrative
decisions are ratified or rejected and what counts as a major decision
-determined. Needless to say, what is considered as important issues will be
+determined. Needless to say, what are considered as important issues will be
decided upon by the workers themselves in their assemblies.
Unsurprisingly, anarchists argue that, as well as being more free, workers
self-management is more efficient and productive than the hierarchical
capitalist firm (efficiency here means accomplishing goals without wasting
-valued assets). Capitalist firms fail to tap humanitys vast reservoir of
+valued assets). Capitalist firms fail to tap humanity’s vast reservoir of
practical knowledge, indeed they block it as any application of that knowledge
is used to enrich the owners rather than those who generate and use it. Thus
the hierarchical firm disenfranchises employees and reduces them to the level
of order-takers with an obvious loss of information, knowledge and insight (as
-discussed in [section I.1.1](secI1.html#seci11)). With self-management, that
+discussed in [section I.1.1](secI1.html#seci11) ). With self-management, that
vast source of knowledge and creativity can be expressed. Thus, self-
management and worker ownership _"should also reap other rewards through the
greater motivation and productivity of the workers."_ [David Ellerman, **The
@@ -848,7 +848,7 @@ This should be unsurprising, for as Geoffrey M. Hodgson notes, the neo-
classical model of co-operatives _"wrongly assume[s] that social relations and
technology are separable . . . Yet we have much evidence . . . to support the
contention that participation and co-operation can increase technological
-efficiency. Production involves people \-- their ideas and aspirations -- and
+efficiency. Production involves people -- their ideas and aspirations -- and
not simply machines operating under the laws of physics. It seems that, in
their search for pretty diagrams and tractable mathematical models, mainstream
economists often forget this."_ [**Economics and Utopia**, p. 223]
@@ -878,9 +878,9 @@ are part of the assembly of the workplace, just like other workers. They can
and have to be listened to, like anyone else, and their expert advice included
in the decision making process. Anarchists do not reject the idea of expertise
nor the rational authority associated with it. As we indicated in [section
-B.1](secB1.html), anarchists recognise the difference between being _**an**_
-authority (i.e. having knowledge of a given subject) and being _**in**_
-authority (i.e. having power over someone else). as discussed in [section
+B.1](secB1.html), anarchists recognise the difference between being **_an_**
+authority (i.e. having knowledge of a given subject) and being **_in_**
+authority (i.e. having power over someone else). As discussed in [section
H.4](secH4.html), we reject the latter and respect the former.
Such specialisation does not imply the end of self-management, but rather the
@@ -901,15 +901,15 @@ A workplace assembly is perfectly able to listen to an engineer, for example,
who suggests various ways of reaching various goals (i.e. if you want X, you
would have to do A or B. If you do A, then C, D and E is required. If B is
decided upon, then F, G, H and I are entailed). But it is the assembly,
-**not** the engineer, that decides what goals and methods to be implemented.
-As Cornelius Castoriadis put it: _"We are not saying: people will have to
-decide **what** to do, and then technicians will tell them **how** to do it.
-We say: after listening to technicians, people will decide what to do **and**
-how to do it. For the **how** is not neutral -- and the **what** is not
-disembodied. What and how are neither **identical**, nor **external** to each
-other. A 'neutral' technique is, of course, an illusion. A conveyor belt is
-linked to a type of product **and** a type of producer \-- and vice versa."_
-[**Social and Political Writings**, vol. 3, p. 265]
+**not** the engineer, that decides the goals and methods to be implemented. As
+Cornelius Castoriadis put it: _"We are not saying: people will have to decide
+**what** to do, and then technicians will tell them **how** to do it. We say:
+after listening to technicians, people will decide what to do **and** how to
+do it. For the **how** is not neutral -- and the **what** is not disembodied.
+What and how are neither **identical**, nor **external** to each other. A
+'neutral' technique is, of course, an illusion. A conveyor belt is linked to a
+type of product **and** a type of producer -- and vice versa."_ [**Social and
+Political Writings**, vol. 3, p. 265]
However, we must stress that while an anarchist society would "inherit" a
diverse level of expertise and specialisation from class society, it would not
@@ -954,7 +954,7 @@ Formerly, he [or she] invented very much . . . But since the great factory has
been enthroned, the worker, depressed by the monotony of his [or her] work,
invents no more."_ [**Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow**, p. 171]
-Must all the skills, experience and intelligence that very one has be swept
+Must all the skills, experience and intelligence that every one has be swept
away or crushed by hierarchy? Or could it not become a new fertile source of
progress under a better organisation of production? Self-management would
ensure that the independence, initiative and inventiveness of workers (which
@@ -999,7 +999,7 @@ work hours which is combated by bosses (who wins, of course, depends on
objective and subjective pressures which swing the balance of power towards
labour or capital).
-Self-management will built upon this already existing unofficial workers
+Self-management will build upon this already existing unofficial workers
control over production and, of course, our knowledge of the working process
which actually doing it creates. The conflict over who controls the shop floor
-- either those who do the work or those who give the orders -- not only shows
@@ -1082,26 +1082,24 @@ anarchism. Thus we find Proudhon arguing in 1840 that _"the land is
indispensable to our existence"_ and _"consequently a common thing,
consequently insusceptible of appropriation"_ and that _"all accumulated
capital being social property, no one can be its exclusive proprietor."_ This
-means _"the farmer does not appropriate the field which he sows"_ and _"all
-capital . . . being the result of collective labour"_ is _"collective
-property."_ Without this there is inequality and a restriction of freedom as
-_"the working-man holds his labour by the condescension and necessities of the
-master and proprietor."_ The _"civilised labourer who bakes a loaf that he may
-eat a slice of bread . . . is not free. His employer . . . is his enemy."_ In
-fact, _"neither a commercial, nor an industrial, nor an agricultural
+means that _"__all property "__ _must become_ __"__collective and undivided."_
+Without this there is inequality and a restriction of freedom as the worker
+lives on the_"__benevolence"_ proprietor _"__to whom he has sold and
+surrendered his liberty."_ The _"civilised labourer who bakes a loaf that he
+may eat a slice of bread . . . is not free. His employer . . . is his enemy."_
+In fact, _"neither a commercial, nor an industrial, nor an agricultural
association can be conceived of in the absence of equality."_ The aim was a
society of _"possessors without masters"_ rather than wage-labourers and
tenants _"controlled by proprietors."_ Within any economic association there
would be democracy, with _"leaders, instructors, superintendents"_ and so
forth being _"chosen from the labourers by the labourers themselves, and must
fulfil the conditions of eligibility. It is the same with all public
-functions, whether of administration or instruction."_ [**What is Property?**,
-p. 107, p. 130, p. 153, p. 128, p. 142, p. 227, p. 167 and p. 137]
+functions, whether of administration or instruction."_ [**Property is
+Theft!**, p. 105, p. 118, p. 137, p. 117, p. 7, p. 129, p. 122 and p. 119]
-This meant _"democratically organised workers associations"_ and _"[u]nder the
-law of association, transmission of wealth does not apply to the instruments
-of labour, so cannot become a cause of inequality."_ [Proudhon, **No Gods, No
-Masters**, vol. 1., p. 62] Thus workplaces _"are the common and undivided
+So _"__under universal association, ownership of the land and of the
+instruments of labour is **social** ownership"_ with _"democratically
+organised workers associations."_ Workplaces _"are the common and undivided
property of all those who take part therein"_ rather than _"companies of
stockholders who plunder the bodies and souls of the wage workers."_ This
meant free access, with _"every individual employed in the association"_
@@ -1109,15 +1107,15 @@ having _"an undivided share in the property of the company"_ and has _"a right
to fill any position"_ as _"all positions are elective, and the by-laws
subject to the approval of the members."_ Each member _"shall participate in
the gains and in the losses of the company, in proportion to his [or her]
-services."_ [Proudhon, **General Idea of the Revolution**, p. 219 and p. 222]
-Proudhon's idea of free credit from a People's Bank, it should be noted, is
-another example of free access, of socialisation. Needless to say, anarchists
-like Bakunin and Kropotkin based their arguments for socialisation on this
-vision of self-managed workplaces and free access to the means of life. For
-Bakunin, for example, _"the land, the instruments of work and all other
-capital may become the collective property of the whole of society and be
-utilised only by the workers, on other words, by the agricultural and
-industrial associations."_ [**Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings**, p. 174]
+services."_ [**Op. Cit**, p. 377 and pp. 584-5] Proudhon's idea of free credit
+from a People's Bank, it should be noted, is another example of free access,
+of socialisation. Needless to say, anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin based
+their arguments for socialisation on this vision of self-managed workplaces
+and free access to the means of life. For Bakunin, for example, _"the land,
+the instruments of work and all other capital may become the collective
+property of the whole of society and be utilised only by the workers, on other
+words, by the agricultural and industrial associations."_ [**Michael Bakunin:
+Selected Writings**, p. 174]
So the means of production are socialised in the mutualism, collectivism and
communism and all rest on the same principle of equal access. So when someone
@@ -1129,24 +1127,23 @@ of anarchism, but the associations that create them are rooted in the free
association of equals. In contrast, a capitalist society places the owner in
the dominant position and new members of the workforce are employees and so
subordinate members of an organisation which they have no say in (see [section
-B.1](secB1.html)).
-
-Socialisation would mean that workplaces would become _"little republics of
-workingmen."_ [Proudhon, quoted by Dorothy W. Douglas, _"Proudhon: A Prophet
-of 1848: Part II"_, pp. 35-59, **The American Journal of Sociology**, Vol. 35,
-No. 1, p. 45] As economist David Ellerman explains, the democratic workplace
-_"is a social community, a community of work rather than a community
-residence. It is a republic, or **res publica** of the workplace. The ultimate
-governance rights are assigned as personal rights . . . to the people who work
-in the firm . . . This analysis shows how a firm can be socialised and yet
-remain 'private' in the sense of not being government-owned."_ As noted in
-[section I.3.1](secI3.html#seci31), this means the end of the labour market as
-there would be free access to workplaces and so workers would not be wage-
-labourers employed by bosses. Instead, there would be a people seeking
-associations to join and associations seeking new associates to work with.
-_"Instead of abolishing the employment relation,"_ Ellerman argues, _"state
-socialism nationalised it . . . Only the democratic firm -- where the workers
-are jointly self-employed -- is a genuine alternatives to private or public
+B.1](secB1.html) ).
+
+Socialisation would mean that workplaces would become _"small worker
+republics."_ [Proudhon, **Property is Theft!**, p. 780] As economist David
+Ellerman explains, the democratic workplace _"is a social community, a
+community of work rather than a community residence. It is a republic, or
+**res publica** of the workplace. The ultimate governance rights are assigned
+as personal rights . . . to the people who work in the firm . . . This
+analysis shows how a firm can be socialised and yet remain 'private' in the
+sense of not being government-owned."_ As noted in [section
+I.3.1](secI3.html#seci31), this means the end of the labour market as there
+would be free access to workplaces and so workers would not be wage-labourers
+employed by bosses. Instead, there would be a people seeking associations to
+join and associations seeking new associates to work with. _"Instead of
+abolishing the employment relation,"_ Ellerman argues, _"state socialism
+nationalised it . . . Only the democratic firm -- where the workers are
+jointly self-employed -- is a genuine alternative to private or public
employment."_ [**The Democratic Worker-Owned Firm**, p. 76 and p. 209]
So libertarian socialism is based on decentralised decision making within the
@@ -1186,17 +1183,17 @@ This vision of socialisation, of free access, also applies to housing.
Proudhon, for example, suggested that payments of rent in housing under
capitalism would be _"carried over to the account of the purchase of the
property"_ and once paid for the house _"shall pass under the control of the
-town administration . . . in the name of all the tenants, and shall guarantee
-them all a domicile, in perpetuity, at the cost of the building."_ Rented farm
-land would be the same and would, once paid for, _"revert immediately to the
-town, which shall take the place of the former proprietor."_ Provision _"shall
-be made for the supervision of the towns, for the installation of cultivators,
-and for the fixing of the boundaries of possessions."_ [**General Idea of the
-Revolution**, p. 194 and p. 199] Kropotkin had a similar end in mind, namely
-_"the abolition of rent"_, but by different means, namely by _"the
-expropriation of houses"_ during a social revolution. This would be _"the
-communalising of houses and the right of each family to a decent dwelling."_
-[**The Conquest of Bread**, p. 91 and p. 95]
+communal administration . . . in the name of all the tenants, and shall
+guarantee them all a domicile, in perpetuity, at the cost of the building."_
+Rented farm land would be the same and would, once paid for, _"revert
+immediately to the commune, which shall take the place of the former
+proprietor."_ Provision _"shall be made for the supervision of the communes,
+for the installation of cultivators, and for the fixing of the boundaries of
+possessions."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 576 and p. 578] Kropotkin had a similar end
+in mind, namely _"the abolition of rent"_, but by different means, namely by
+_"the expropriation of houses"_ during a social revolution. This would be
+_"the communalising of houses and the right of each family to a decent
+dwelling."_ [**The Conquest of Bread**, p. 91 and p. 95]
It is important to note here that while anarchists tend to stress communes
(see [section I.5](secI5.html)) this does **not** imply communal living in the
@@ -1245,10 +1242,10 @@ operatives again.
In contrast, within anarcho-collectivism and anarcho-communism society as a
whole owns the means of life, which allows for the elimination of both
competition for survival and the tendency for workers to develop a proprietary
-interest the enterprises in which they work. As Kropotkin argued, _"[t]here is
-no reason why the factory . . . should not belong to the community . . . It is
-evident that now, under the capitalist system, the factory is the curse of the
-village, as it comes to overwork children and to make paupers of its male
+interest in the enterprises in which they work. As Kropotkin argued, _"[t]here
+is no reason why the factory . . . should not belong to the community . . . It
+is evident that now, under the capitalist system, the factory is the curse of
+the village, as it comes to overwork children and to make paupers of its male
inhabitants; and it is quite natural that it should be opposed by all means by
the workers . . . But under a more rational social organisation, the factory
would find no such obstacles; it would be a boon to the village."_ Needless to
@@ -1330,7 +1327,7 @@ so much, does not carry with it property in the means of production; that
seems to me to need no further demonstration . . . all . . . are proprietors
of their products -- not one is proprietor of the means of production. The
right to product is exclusive -- **jus in re**; the right to means is common
--- **jus ad rem**."_ [**What is Property?**, pp. 120-1]
+-- **jus ad rem**."_ [**Property is Theft!**, p. 112]
For libertarian communists, socialisation should be extended to the products
of labour as well. This means that as well as having free access to the means
@@ -1457,7 +1454,7 @@ needs of those using it. As Malatesta argued, _"it would be an absurd waste of
energy to produce blindly for all possible needs, rather than calculating the
actual needs and organising to satisfy them with as little effort as possible
. . . the solution lies in accord between people and in the agreements . . .
-that will come about"_ between them. [**At the Caf**, pp. 62-3] Hence the
+that will come about"_ between them. [**At the Café**, pp. 62-3] Hence the
pressing need for the classic anarchist ideas on free association, free
agreement and mutual aid! These direct links between producer and consumer can
communicate the information required to produce the right thing at the right
@@ -1480,14 +1477,13 @@ confederations of syndicates in the same industry or geographical area. It
should be noted that inter-workplace federations are not limited to
collectivist, syndicalist and communist anarchists. The idea of federations of
syndicates goes back to Proudhon's agro-industrial federation, first raised
-during the 1848 revolution and named as such in his 1863 book, **The Principle
-of Federation**. The French mutualist suggested an _"agro-industrial
-federation"_ as the structural support organisation for his system of self-
-managed co-operatives. These confederations of syndicates, are necessary to
-aid communication between workplaces. No syndicate exists in isolation, and so
-there is a real need for a means by which syndicates can meet together to
-discuss common interests and act on them. Thus confederations are
-complementary to free agreement and also reflect anarchist ideas of free
+during the 1848 revolution and named as such in his 1863 book, **The
+Federative Principle**. This is the structural support organisation for his
+system of self-managed co-operatives. These confederations of syndicates, are
+necessary to aid communication between workplaces. No syndicate exists in
+isolation, and so there is a real need for a means by which syndicates can
+meet together to discuss common interests and act on them. Thus confederations
+are complementary to free agreement and also reflect anarchist ideas of free
association and decentralised organisation as well as concern for practical
needs:
@@ -1585,7 +1581,7 @@ whereas in larger confederal bodies, voting would be carried out by temporary,
unpaid, mandated, and instantly recallable delegates, who would resume their
status as ordinary workers as soon as their mandate had been carried out.
-**Mandated** here means that the delegates from workers' assemblies and councils to meetings of higher confederal bodies would be instructed, at every level of confederation, by the workers who elected them on how to deal with any issue. They would be delegates, not representatives, and so would attend any confederal meeting with specific instructions on how to vote on a particular issue. **Recallable** means that if they do not vote according to that mandate they will be replaced and the results of the vote nullified. The delegates, in other words, would be given imperative mandates (binding instructions) that committed them to a framework of policies within which they would have to act, and they could be recalled and their decisions revoked at any time for failing to carry out the mandates they were given (this support for mandated delegates has existed in anarchist theory since at least 1848, when Proudhon argued that it was _"a consequence of universal suffrage"_ to ensure that _"the people . . . do not . . . abjure their sovereignty."_ [**No Gods, No Masters**, vol. 1, p. 63]). Because of this right of mandating and recalling their delegates, the workers' assemblies at the base would be the source of, and final "authority" (so to speak) over, policy for all higher levels of confederal co-ordination of the economy. Delegates will be ordinary workers rather than paid full-time representatives or union leaders, and they will return to their usual jobs as soon as the mandate for which they have been elected has been carried out. In this way, decision-making power remains with the workers' councils and does not become concentrated at the top of a bureaucratic hierarchy in an elite class of professional administrators or union leaders. What these confederations could do is discussed in the [next section](secI3.html#seci35).
+**Mandated** here means that the delegates from workers' assemblies and councils to meetings of higher confederal bodies would be instructed, at every level of confederation, by the workers who elected them on how to deal with any issue. They would be delegates, not representatives, and so would attend any confederal meeting with specific instructions on how to vote on a particular issue. **Recallable** means that if they do not vote according to that mandate they will be replaced and the results of the vote nullified. The delegates, in other words, would be given imperative mandates (binding instructions) that committed them to a framework of policies within which they would have to act, and they could be recalled and their decisions revoked at any time for failing to carry out the mandates they were given (this support for mandated delegates has existed in anarchist theory since at least 1848, when Proudhon argued that it was _"a consequence of universal suffrage"_ to ensure that _"the people . . . do not . . . abjure their sovereignty."_ [**Property is Theft!**, p. 379]). Because of this right of mandating and recalling their delegates, the workers' assemblies at the base would be the source of, and final "authority" (so to speak) over, policy for all higher levels of confederal co-ordination of the economy. Delegates will be ordinary workers rather than paid full-time representatives or union leaders, and they will return to their usual jobs as soon as the mandate for which they have been elected has been carried out. In this way, decision-making power remains with the workers' councils and does not become concentrated at the top of a bureaucratic hierarchy in an elite class of professional administrators or union leaders. What these confederations could do is discussed in the [next section](secI3.html#seci35).
In summary, a free society _"is freely organised, from the bottom to top,
staring from individuals that unite in associations which slowly grow bit by
@@ -1605,37 +1601,34 @@ tendencies back towards capitalism or some other class society identified and
acted upon.
This can be seen from Proudhon, who was the first to suggest the need for such
-federations. _"All my economic ideas developed over the last twenty-five
-years,"_ he stated, _"can be defined in three words: **Agro-industrial
-federation**"_ This was required because _"[h]owever impeccable in its basic
-logic the federal principle may be . . . it will not survive if economic
-factors tend persistently to dissolve it. In other words, political right
-requires to be buttressed by economic right"_. A free society could not
-survive if _"capital and commerce"_ existed, as it would be _"divided into two
-classes -- one of landlords, capitalists, and entrepreneurs, the other of
-wage-earning proletarians, one rich, the other poor."_ Thus _"in an economic
-context, confederation may be intended to provide reciprocal security in
-commerce and industry . . . The purpose of such specific federal arrangements
-is to protect the citizens . . . from capitalist and financial exploitation,
-both from within and from the outside; in their aggregate they form . . . an
-**agro-industrial federation**"_ [**The Principle of Federation**, p. 74, p.
-67 and p. 70]
-
-While capitalism results in _"interest on capital"_ and _"wage-labour or
-economic servitude, in short inequality of condition"_, the _"agro-industrial
-federation . . . will tend to foster increasing equality . . . through
-mutualism in credit and insurance . . . guaranteeing the right to work and to
-education, and an organisation of work which allows each labourer to become a
-skilled worker and an artist, each wage-earner to become his own master."_ The
-_"industrial federation"_ will apply _"on the largest scale"_ the _"principles
-of mutualism"_ and _"economic solidarity"_. As _"industries are sisters"_,
-they _"are parts of the same body"_ and _"one cannot suffer without the others
-sharing in its suffering. They should therefore federate . . . in order to
-guarantee the conditions of common prosperity, upon which no one has an
-exclusive claim."_ Thus mutualism sees _"all industries guaranteeing one
-another mutually"_ as well as _"organising all public services in an
-economical fashion and in hands other than the state's."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p.
-70, p. 71, p. 72 and p. 70]
+federations. _"All my economic ideas, elaborated for twenty-five years,"_ he
+stated, _"can be summarised in these three words: **Agricultural-Industrial
+Federation**"_ This was required because _"[h]owever irreproachable the
+federal constitution may be in its logic . . . it can only last as long as it
+does not encounter constant causes of dissolution in public economy. In other
+words, political right must have the buttress of economic right."_ A free
+society could not survive it was _"divided in two classes, one of owners-
+capitalists-entrepreneurs, the other of wage-earning proletarians; one rich,
+the other poor."_ Thus _"from an economic standpoint, one can federate for a
+mutual protection in commerce and industry . . . The aim of these particular
+federations is to shield the citizens . . . from bankocratic and capitalist
+exploitation, as much from the inside as from the outside; they form by their
+ensemble . . . an **agricultural-industrial federation**"_ [**Property is
+Theft!**, p. 714, p. 709 and p. 711]
+
+While capitalism results in _"interest on capital"_ and _"economic serfdom or
+wage-labour, in a word, the inequality of conditions and fortunes"_, the _
+"agricultural-industrial federation . . . tends to approximate equality more
+and more . . . by mutual credit and insurance . . . guaranteeing work and
+education, by a combination of work to allow each worker to evolve from a mere
+labourer to a skilled worker or even an artist, and from a wage-earner to
+their own master."_ The _"industrial federation"_ will apply _"on the highest
+scale"_ the _"principles of mutuality"_ and _"economic solidarity"_. As
+_"industries are sisters"_, they _"are parts of the same body"_ and _"one
+cannot suffer without the others suffering because of it. " _They should
+therefore_ "federate, not to absorb one another and merge, but to mutually
+guarantee the conditions of prosperity that are common to them all and on
+which none can claim a monopoly."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 712-3]
Later anarchists took up, built upon and clarified these ideas of economic
federation. There are two basic kinds of confederation: an industrial one
@@ -1707,7 +1700,7 @@ to mutual banks (a credit syndicate). Such syndicates would exist to provide
interest-free credit for self-management, new syndicate expansion and so on.
And if the experience of capitalism is anything to go by, mutual banks will
also reduce the business cycle as _"[c]ountries like Japan and Germany that
-are usually classifies as bank-centred -- because banks provide more outside
+are usually classified as bank-centred -- because banks provide more outside
finance than markets, and because more firms have long-term relationships with
their banks -- show greater growth in and stability of investment over time
than the market-centred ones, like the US and Britain . . . Further, studies
@@ -1716,7 +1709,7 @@ also show that firms with bank ties exhibit greater stability in investment
over the business cycle."_ [Doug Henwood, **Wall Street**, pp. 174-5]
One argument against co-operatives is that they do not allow the
-diversification of risk (all the worker's eggs are on one basket). Ignoring
+diversification of risk (all the worker's eggs are in one basket). Ignoring
the obvious point that most workers today do not have shares and are dependent
on their job to survive, this objection can be addressed by means of _"the
**horizontal association** or grouping of enterprises to pool their business
@@ -1785,9 +1778,10 @@ syndicate remains self-governing. This ensures decentralisation of power and
direct control, initiative, and experimentation by those involved in doing the
work.
-It should be noted that during the Spanish Revolution successfully federated
-in different ways. Gaston Leval noted that these forms of confederation did
-not harm the libertarian nature of self-management:
+It should be noted that during the Spanish Revolution the self-managed
+workplaces successfully federated in many different ways. Gaston Leval noted
+that these forms of confederation did not harm the libertarian nature of self-
+management:
> _"Everything was controlled by the syndicates. But it must not therefore be
assumed that everything was decided by a few higher bureaucratic committees
@@ -1829,9 +1823,9 @@ other land workers who hold inferior land. That is why in our scheme for
liquidation [of capitalism] we stipulated that every variety of cultivation
should pay a proportional contribution, destined to accomplish a balancing of
returns among farm workers and an assurance of products."_ In addition, _"all
-the towns of the Republic shall come to an understanding for equalising among
-them the quality of tracts of land, as well as accidents of culture."_
-[**General Idea of the Revolution**, p. 209 and p. 200]
+the communes of the Republic shall come to an understanding for equalising
+among them the quality of tracts of land, as well as accidents of culture."_
+[**Property is Theft!**, p. 582 and p. 578]
By federating together, workers can ensure that _"the earth will . . . be an
economic domain available to everyone, the riches of which will be enjoyed by
@@ -1899,15 +1893,15 @@ control over a specific technology or resource. Hence Proudhon's suggestion
that _"advocates of mutualism"_ would _"regulate the market"_ to ensure _"an
honest breakdown of cost prices"_, fix _"after amicable discussion of a
**maximum** and **minimum** profit margin"_ and _"the organising of regulating
-societies."_ [**Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon**, p. 70] It seems
-likely that the agro-industrial federation would be the body which ensures
-that. Similarly, the federation would be the means by which to air, and deal
-with, suggestions that syndicates are monopolising their resources, i.e.,
-treating them as private property rather than socialised possessions. Thus the
-federation would unite workers _"to guarantee the mutual use of the tools of
-production"_ which are, _"by a reciprocal contract"_, the _"collective
-property of the whole."_ [James Guillaume, _"On Building the New Social
-Order"_, pp. 356-79, **Bakunin on Anarchism**, p. 376]
+societies."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 33-4] It seems likely that the agro-industrial
+federation would be the body which ensures that. Similarly, the federation
+would be the means by which to air, and deal with, suggestions that syndicates
+are monopolising their resources, i.e., treating them as private property
+rather than socialised possessions. Thus the federation would unite workers
+_"to guarantee the mutual use of the tools of production"_ which are, _"by a
+reciprocal contract"_, the _"collective property of the whole."_ [James
+Guillaume, _"On Building the New Social Order"_, pp. 356-79, **Bakunin on
+Anarchism**, p. 376]
The inter-industry confederations help ensure that when the members of a
syndicate change work to another syndicate in another (or the same) branch of
@@ -1918,7 +1912,7 @@ essential to ensure that a co-operative society remains co-operative, as the
system is based on the principle of _"one person, one vote"_ by all those
involved the work process. If specific syndicates **are** restricting access
and so producing wage-labour, monopolising resources and so charging monopoly
-prices, the federation would be forum to publicly shame such syndicates and
+prices, the federation would be a forum to publicly shame such syndicates and
organise boycotts of them. Such anti-social activity is unlikely to be
tolerated by a free people seeking to protect that freedom.
@@ -1930,20 +1924,20 @@ industry confederation may decide to rationalise itself at one of its
congresses. Murray Bookchin sketches the response to this situation as
follows:
-> _"[L]et us suppose that a board of highly qualified technicians is
-established [by this congress] to propose changes in the steel industry. This
-board . . . advances proposals to rationalise the industry by closing down
-some plants and expanding the operation of others . . . Is this a
-'centralised' body or not? The answer is both yes and no. Yes, only in the
-sense that the board is dealing with problems that concern the country as a
-whole; no, because it can make no decision that **must** be executed for the
-country as a whole. The board's plan must be examined by all the workers in
-the plants [that are affected] . . . The board itself has no power to enforce
-'decisions'; it merely makes recommendations. Additionally, its personnel are
-controlled by the plant in which they work and the locality in which they live
-. . . they would have no decision-making powers. The adoption, modification or
-rejection of their plans would rest entirely with . . . [those] involved."_
-[**Post Scarcity Anarchism**, p. 180]
+> _"let us suppose that a board of highly qualified technicians is established
+[by this congress] to propose changes in the steel industry. This board . . .
+advances proposals to rationalise the industry by closing down some plants and
+expanding the operation of others . . . Is this a 'centralised' body or not?
+The answer is both yes and no. Yes, only in the sense that the board is
+dealing with problems that concern the country as a whole; no, because it can
+make no decision that **must** be executed for the country as a whole. The
+board's plan must be examined by all the workers in the plants [that are
+affected] . . . The board itself has no power to enforce 'decisions'; it
+merely makes recommendations. Additionally, its personnel are controlled by
+the plant in which they work and the locality in which they live . . . they
+would have no decision-making powers. The adoption, modification or rejection
+of their plans would rest entirely with . . . [those] involved."_ [**Post
+Scarcity Anarchism**, p. 180]
Therefore, confederations would not be in positions of power over the
individual syndicates. No attempt is made to determine which plants produce
@@ -2017,13 +2011,13 @@ power to eliminate exploitation. For these anarchists it is a case of
capitalism perverting competition and so are not against competition itself.
Other anarchists think that whatever gains might accrue from competition
(assuming there are, in fact, any) would be more than offset by its negative
-effects, which are outlined in [section I.1.3](secI1.html#seci13). It is to
+effects, which are outlined in [section I.1.3](secI1.html#seci13) . It is to
these anarchists that the question is usually asked.
Before continuing, we would like to point out that individuals trying to
improve their lot in life is not against anarchist principles. How could it
-be? _"Selfish is not a crime,"_ John Most and Emma Goldman noted, _"it only
-becomes a crime when conditions are such as to give an individual the
+be? Being selfish_ "is not a crime,"_ John Most and Emma Goldman noted, _"it
+only becomes a crime when conditions are such as to give an individual the
opportunity to satisfy his selfishness to the detriment of others. In an
anarchistic society everyone will seek to satisfy his ego"_ but in order to do
so he _"will extend his aid to those who will aid him, and then selfishness
@@ -2032,16 +2026,15 @@ Flag**, no. 228, p. 28] Thus anarchists see co-operation and mutual aid as an
expression of "self-interest", in that working with people as equals is in our
joint benefit. In the words of John O'Neill:
-> _"[F]or it is the institutions themselves that define what counts as one's
+> _"for it is the institutions themselves that define what counts as one's
interests. In particular, the market encourages egoism, not primarily because
-it encourages an individual to be 'self-interested' \-- it would be
-unrealistic not to expect individuals to act for the greater part in a 'self-
-interested' manner -- but rather because it defines an individual's interests
-in a particularly narrow fashion, most notably in terms of possession of
-certain material goods. In consequence, where market mechanism enter a
-particular sphere of life, the pursuit of goods outside this narrow range of
-market goods is institutionally defined as an act of altruism."_ [**The
-Market**, p. 158]
+it encourages an individual to be 'self-interested' -- it would be unrealistic
+not to expect individuals to act for the greater part in a 'self-interested'
+manner -- but rather because it defines an individual's interests in a
+particularly narrow fashion, most notably in terms of possession of certain
+material goods. In consequence, where market mechanism enter a particular
+sphere of life, the pursuit of goods outside this narrow range of market goods
+is institutionally defined as an act of altruism."_ [**The Market**, p. 158]
As such, anarchists would suggest that we should not confuse competition with
self-interest and that a co-operative society would tend to promote
@@ -2097,7 +2090,7 @@ against the dispossessed. So inequality, not equality, leads to the creation
of states. It is no co-incidence that the anarchic communities that existed
for millennia were also egalitarian.
-Secondly, as noted in [section A.2.5](secA2.html#seca25), anarchists do not
+Secondly, as noted in [section A.2.5](secA2.html#seca25) , anarchists do not
consider _"equal"_ to mean _"identical."_ Therefore, to claim that wage
differences mean the end of anarchism makes sense only if one thinks that
_"equality"_ means everyone getting **exactly** equal shares. As anarchists do
@@ -2153,7 +2146,7 @@ workers who will be happy working in conditions of liberty and equality. This
will ensure that differentials between workers can be minimised. In the long
run, however, popularisation of non-authoritarian methods of child-rearing and
education (see [section J.6](secJ6.html)) are particularly important because,
-as we suggested in [section B.1.5](secB1.html#secb15), secondary drives such
+as we suggested in [section B.1.5](secB1.html#secb15) , secondary drives such
as greed and the desire the exercise power over others are products of
authoritarian upbringing based on punishments and fear. Only if the prevalence
of such drives is reduced among the general population can we be sure that an
@@ -2185,16 +2178,16 @@ experience of the Mondragon co-operatives, where the wage difference between
the highest paid and lowest paid worker was 4 to 1. This was only increased
when they had to compete with large capitalist companies, and even then the
new ratio of 9 to 1 is **far** smaller than those in capitalist companies (in
-America the ratio is 200 to 1 and beyond!). Thus, even under capitalism,
-_"[t]here is evidence that the methods of distribution chosen by worker-
-controlled or self-managed firms are more egalitarian than distribution
-according to market precepts."_ [Christopher Eaton Gunn, **Workers' Self-
-Management in the United States**, p. 45] Given that market precepts fail to
-take into account power differences, this is unsurprising. Thus we can predict
-that a fully self-managed economy would be just, if not, more egalitarian as
-differences in power would be eliminated, as would unemployment (James K.
-Galbraith, in his book **Created Unequal**, has presented extensive evidence
-that unemployment increases inequality, as would be expected).
+America the ratio is 200 to 1 and beyond!). Thus, even under capitalism, there
+_"is evidence that the methods of distribution chosen by worker-controlled or
+self-managed firms are more egalitarian than distribution according to market
+precepts."_ [Christopher Eaton Gunn, **Workers' Self-Management in the United
+States**, p. 45] Given that market precepts fail to take into account power
+differences, this is unsurprising. Thus we can predict that a fully self-
+managed economy would be just as, if not, more egalitarian as differences in
+power would be eliminated, as would unemployment (James K. Galbraith, in his
+book **Created Unequal**, has presented extensive evidence that unemployment
+increases inequality, as would be expected).
It is a common myth that managers, executives and so on are paid so highly
because of their unique abilities. Actually, they are so highly paid because
@@ -2248,9 +2241,9 @@ capitalism who put forward this argument forget that the pursuit of self-
interest is universal, meaning that everyone would be interested in maximising
his or her liberty, and so would be unlikely to allow inequalities to develop
which threatened that liberty. It would be in the interests of communes and
-syndicates which to share with others instead of charging high prices for them
-as they may find themselves boycotted by others, and so denied the advantages
-of social co-operation. Moreover, they may be subject to such activities
+syndicates to share with others instead of charging high prices for them as
+they may find themselves boycotted by others, and so denied the advantages of
+social co-operation. Moreover, they may be subject to such activities
themselves and so it would wise for them to remember to _"treat others as you
would like them to treat you under similar circumstances."_ As anarchism will
never come about unless people desire it and start to organise their own
@@ -2282,12 +2275,12 @@ onwards (with rising inequality marked by falling growth, lower wage growth,
rising unemployment and increased economic instability) the impact of
increased competition and inequality harms the vast majority. It is doubtful
that people aware of these tendencies (and that, as we argued in [section
-F.3](secF3.html), _"free exchange"_ in an unequal society tends to
+F.3](secF3.html) , "free exchange" in an unequal society tends to
**increase**, not decrease, inequality) would create such a regime.
-Unsurprisingly, examples of anarchism in action show that there is working
-together to reduce the dangers of isolation and competition. One thing to
-remember is that anarchy will not be created "overnight" and so potential
+Unsurprisingly, examples of anarchism in action show that there are ways of
+working together to reduce the dangers of isolation and competition. One thing
+to remember is that anarchy will not be created "overnight" and so potential
problems will be worked out over time. Underlying all these kinds of
objections is the assumption that co-operation will **not** be more beneficial
to all involved than competition. However, in terms of quality of life, co-
@@ -2331,13 +2324,13 @@ employed people being forced into syndicates as the result of a popular
movement. The answer is no. This is because the destruction of title deeds
would not harm the independent worker, whose real title is possession and the
work done. What anarchists want to eliminate is not possession but capitalist
-_**property**_. Thus such workers _"may prefer to work alone in his own small
+**_property_**. Thus such workers _"may prefer to work alone in his own small
shop"_ rather than join an association or a federation. [James Guillaume, _"On
Building the New Social Order"_, pp. 356-79, **Bakunin on Anarchism**, p. 362]
This means that independent producers will still exist within an anarchist
society, and some workplaces -- perhaps whole areas -- will not be part of a
-confederation. This is natural in a free society, for different people have
+confederation. This is natural in a free society for different people to have
different ideas and ideals. Nor does such independent producers imply a
contradiction with libertarian socialism, for _"[w]hat we concerned with is
the destruction of the titles of proprietors who exploit the labour of others
@@ -2356,8 +2349,8 @@ operative need to confederate with others. Given we have discussed the issue
of freedom of economic arrangements at length in [section
G.2.1](secG2.html#secg21) we will leave this discussion here.
-## I.3.8 Do anarchists seek _"small autonomous communities, devoted to small
-scale production"_?
+## I.3.8 Do anarchists seek "small autonomous communities, devoted to small
+scale production"?
No. The idea that anarchism aims for small, self-sufficient, communes is a
Leninist slander. They misrepresent anarchist ideas on this matter, suggesting
@@ -2370,9 +2363,9 @@ mountains."_ [Pat Stack, _"Anarchy in the UK?"_, **Socialist Review**, no.
Proudhon wanting a federation of _"tiny economic units"_. [**The Paris
Commune**, p. 75]
-While it may be better to cover this issue in [section H.2](secH2.html), we
+While it may be better to cover this issue in [section H.2](secH2.html) , we
discuss it here simply because it relates directly to what an anarchist
-society could look like and so it allows us to that more fully.
+society could look like.
So what do anarchists make of the assertion that we aim for _"small autonomous
communities, devoted to small scale production"_? Simply put, we think it is
@@ -2384,18 +2377,17 @@ anarchist book, pamphlet or programme such an 'ideal' is set out, or even such
a hard and fast rule!"_ [_"Anarchy and 'Scientific' Communism"_, pp. 13-49,
**The Poverty of Statism**, Albert Meltzer (ed.), p. 21]
-If we look at, say, Proudhon, we soon see no such argument for _"small scale"_
-production. For Proudhon, _"[l]arge industry . . . come to us by big monopoly
-and big property: it is necessary in the future to make them rise from the
-[workers] association."_ [quoted by K. Steven Vincent, **Proudhon and the Rise
-of French Republican Socialism**, p. 156] In fact, The Frenchman
-**explicitly** rejected the position Stack inflicts on him by arguing that it
-_"would be to retrograde"_ and _"impossible"_ to wish _"the division of
-labour, with machinery and manufactures, to be abandoned, and each family to
-return to the system of primitive indivision, - that is, to **each one by
-himself, each one for himself**, in the most literal meaning of the words."_
-[**System of Economic Contradictions**, p. 206] As historian K. Steven Vincent
-correctly summarises:
+If we look at, say, Proudhon, we soon see no such argument for "small scale"
+production: _"Large industry and high culture come to us by big monopoly and
+big property: it is necessary in the future to make them rise from the
+[workers] association."_ In fact, he **_explicitly_** rejected the position
+Stack inflicts on him by arguing that it _"would be to retrograde"_ and
+_"impossible"_ to wish _"the division of labour, with machinery and
+manufactures, to be abandoned, and each family to return to the system of
+primitive indivision, - that is, to **each one by himself, each one for
+himself**, in the most literal meaning of the words."_ [**Property is
+Theft!**, p. 11 and p. 194] As historian K. Steven Vincent correctly
+summarises:
> _"On this issue, it is necessary to emphasise that, contrary to the general
image given in the secondary literature, Proudhon was not hostile to large
@@ -2408,8 +2400,8 @@ socialise it so that the worker would not be the mere appendage to a machine.
Such a humanisation of large industries would result, according to Proudhon,
from the introduction of strong workers' associations. These associations
would enable the workers to determine jointly by election how the enterprise
-was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day basis."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p.
-156]
+was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day basis."_ [**Proudhon and the
+Rise of French Republican Socialism,** p. 156]
Moreover, Proudhon did not see an anarchist society as one of isolated
communities or workplaces. Like other anarchists, as we discussed in [section
@@ -2441,7 +2433,7 @@ decentralisation of power and decision making as did Proudhon and Bakunin, he
did not reject the necessity of federations to co-ordinate activity. As he put
it, the _"commune of tomorrow will know that it cannot admit any higher
authority; above it there can only be the interests of the Federation, freely
-accepted by itself as well as the other communes"_/ For anarchists the commune
+accepted by itself as well as the other communes"_. For anarchists the commune
_"no longer means a territorial agglomeration; it is rather a generic name, a
synonym for the grouping of equals which knows neither frontiers nor walls . .
. Each group in the Commune will necessarily be drawn towards similar groups
@@ -2465,11 +2457,11 @@ on a detailed analysis of current economic statistics and trends.
Kropotkin did not see such an anarchist economy as being based around the
small community, taking the basic unit of a free society as one _"large enough
-to dispose of a certain variety of natural resources \-- it may be a nation,
-or rather a region -- produces and itself consumes most of its own
-agricultural and manufactured produce."_ Such a region would _"find the best
-means of combining agriculture with manufacture -- the work in the field with
-a decentralised industry."_ Moreover, he recognised that the _"geographical
+to dispose of a certain variety of natural resources -- it may be a nation, or
+rather a region -- produces and itself consumes most of its own agricultural
+and manufactured produce."_ Such a region would _"find the best means of
+combining agriculture with manufacture -- the work in the field with a
+decentralised industry."_ Moreover, he recognised that the _"geographical
distribution of industries in a given country depends . . . to a great extent
upon a complexus of natural conditions; it is obvious that there are spots
which are best suited for the development of certain industries . . . The[se]
@@ -2477,18 +2469,18 @@ industries always find some advantages in being grouped, to some extent,
according to the natural features of separate regions."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 26,
p. 27 and pp. 154-5]
-Kropotkin stressed that agriculture _"cannot develop without the aid of
-machinery and the use of a perfect machinery cannot be generalised without
-industrial surroundings . . . The village smith would not do."_ He supported
-the integration of agriculture and industry, with _"the factory and workshop
-at the gates of your fields and gardens"_ in which a _"variety of
-agricultural, industrial and intellectual pursuits are combined in each
-community"_ to ensure _"the greatest sum total of well-being."_ He thought
-that _"large establishments"_ would still exist, but these would be _"better
-placed at certain spots indicated by Nature."_ He stressed that it _"would be
-a great mistake to imagine industry ought to return to its hand-work stage in
-order to be combined with agriculture. Whenever a saving of human labour can
-be obtained by means of a machine, the machine is welcome and will be resorted
+He stressed that agriculture _"cannot develop without the aid of machinery and
+the use of a perfect machinery cannot be generalised without industrial
+surroundings . . . The village smith would not do."_ He supported the
+integration of agriculture and industry, with _"the factory and workshop at
+the gates of your fields and gardens"_ in which a _"variety of agricultural,
+industrial and intellectual pursuits are combined in each community"_ to
+ensure _"the greatest sum total of well-being."_ He thought that _"large
+establishments"_ would still exist, but these would be _"better placed at
+certain spots indicated by Nature."_ He stressed that it _"would be a great
+mistake to imagine industry ought to return to its hand-work stage in order to
+be combined with agriculture. Whenever a saving of human labour can be
+obtained by means of a machine, the machine is welcome and will be resorted
to; and there is hardly one single branch of industry into which machinery
work could not be introduced with great advantage, at least at some of the
stages of the manufacture."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 156, p. 197, p. 18, pp. 154-5
@@ -2536,7 +2528,7 @@ geared to local and district needs complementing larger factories which would
meet regional and wider needs.
Anarchism rejects the idea of small-scale production and isolated communes
-and, as we discussed in [section H.2.3](secH2.html#sech23), it does **not**
+and, as we discussed in [section H.2.3](secH2.html#sech23) , it does **not**
look backwards for its ideal. The same applies to other forms of libertarian
socialism with, for example, G.D.H. Cole arguing that we _"cannot go back to
'town economy', a general regime of handicraft and master-craftmanship, tiny-
@@ -2545,19 +2537,19 @@ dismantle our factories nor conduct our large-scale enterprises under a system
developed to fit the needs of a local market and a narrowly-restricted
production."_ The aim is _"to reintroduce into industry the communal spirit,
by re-fashioning industrialism in such a way as to set the communal motives
-free to co-operate."_ [**Guild Socialism Reststed**, pp. 45-6 and p. 46]
+free to co-operate."_ [**Guild Socialism Restated**, pp. 45-6 and p. 46]
The obvious implication of Leninist comments arguments against anarchist ideas
on industrial transformation after a revolution is that they think that a
socialist society will basically be the same as capitalism, using the
technology, industry and industrial structure developed under class society
-without change (as noted in [section H.3.12](secH3.html#sech312), Lenin did
+without change (as noted in [section H.3.12](secH3.html#sech312) , Lenin did
suggest that was the case). Needless to say, capitalist industry, as Kropotkin
was aware, has not developed neutrally nor purely because of technical needs.
Rather it has been distorted by the twin requirements to maintain capitalist
profits and power. One of the first tasks of a social revolution will be to
transform the industrial structure, not keep it as it is. You cannot use
-capitalist means for socialist ends. So while we will "inherent" an industrial
+capitalist means for socialist ends. So while we will "inherit" an industrial
structure from capitalism it would be the greatest possible error to leave it
unchanged and an even worse one to accelerate the processes by which
capitalists maintain and increase their power (i.e. centralisation and
@@ -2567,7 +2559,7 @@ We are sorry to have laboured this point, but this issue is one which arises
with depressing frequency in Marxist accounts of anarchism. It is best that we
indicate that those who make the claim that anarchists seek _"small scale"_
production geared for _"small autonomous communities"_ simply show their
-ignorance. In actually, anarchists see production as being geared to whatever
+ignorance. In actuality, anarchists see production as being geared to whatever
makes most social, economic and ecological sense. Some production and
workplaces will be geared to the local commune, some will be geared to the
district federation, some to the regional federation, and so on. It is for
@@ -2582,3 +2574,7 @@ bigger than anarchist ones. As has been proven, anarchists advocate
**appropriately sized** workplaces and are not hung-up about their size. Why
Leninists are could be a fruitful area of research...
+[‹ I.2 Is this a blueprint for an anarchist society?](/afaq/secI2.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secIcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [I.4 How could
+an anarchist economy function? ›](/afaq/secI4.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secI4.md b/markdown/secI4.md
index 7a6bc3cc20189dfcc714ab0cd402e42aebd1e940..074df54bf044b73443b40d10da8b3e1c81b0f859 100644
--- a/markdown/secI4.md
+++ b/markdown/secI4.md
@@ -27,14 +27,14 @@ free communities there will be afforded every opportunity."_ [**Anarcho-
Syndicalism**, p. 9]
So given the common ideals and aims of anarchists, it is unsurprising that the
-economic systems we suggest has common features such as workers' self-
+economic systems we suggest have common features such as workers' self-
management, federation, free agreement and so on (as discussed in [last
-section](secI3.html)). For all anarchists, _"[t]he task for a modern
-industrial society is to achieve what is now technically realisable, namely, a
-society which is really based on free voluntary participation of people who
-produce and create, live their lives freely within institutions they control,
-and with limited hierarchical structures, possibly none at all."_ [Noam
-Chomsky, quoted by Albert and Hahnel, **Looking Forward**, p. 62]
+section](secI3.html)). For all anarchists, the _"task for a modern industrial
+society is to achieve what is now technically realisable, namely, a society
+which is really based on free voluntary participation of people who produce
+and create, live their lives freely within institutions they control, and with
+limited hierarchical structures, possibly none at all."_ [Noam Chomsky, quoted
+by Albert and Hahnel, **Looking Forward**, p. 62]
This achieved by means of _"voluntary association that will organise labour,
and be the manufacturer and distributor of necessary commodities"_ and this
@@ -59,9 +59,9 @@ socialists of his time, Stirner went on to ask _"for whom is time to be gained
[by association]? For what does man require more time than is necessary to
refresh his wearied powers of labour? Here Communism is silent."_ He then
answers his own question by arguing it is gained for the individual _"[t]o
-take comfort in himself as unique, after he has done his part as man!"_ [Max
-Stirner, **The Ego and Its Own**, p. 268 and p. 269] Which is exactly what
-libertarian communists argue:
+take comfort in himself as unique, after he has done his part as man!"_ [**The
+Ego and Its Own**, p. 268 and p. 269] Which is exactly what libertarian
+communists argue:
> _"[We] recognise that man [sic!] has other needs besides food, and as the
strength of Anarchy lies precisely in that it understands **all** human
@@ -125,13 +125,13 @@ industrial progress."_ [**Collected Works**, vol. III, p. 754]
The aim of anarchism is far more than the end of inequality. Hence Proudhon's
comment that socialism's _"underlying dogma"_ is that the _"objective of
-socialism is the emancipation of the proletariat and the eradication of
-poverty."_ This emancipation would be achieved by ending _"wage slavery"_ via
-_"democratically organised workers' associations."_ [**No Gods, No Masters**,
-vol. 1, p. 57 and p. 62] Or, to use Kropotkin's expression, _"well-being for
-all"_ \-- physical, mental, emotional and ethical! Indeed, by concentrating on
-just poverty and ignoring the emancipation of the proletariat, the real aims
-of socialism are obscured:
+socialism is the liberation of the proletariat and the eradication of
+poverty."_ This emancipation would be achieved by ending _"wage-labour"_ via
+_"democratically organised workers' associations."_ [**Property is Theft!**,
+p. 372 and p. 377] Or, to use Kropotkin's expression, _"well-being for all"_
+\-- physical, mental, emotional and ethical! Indeed, by concentrating on just
+poverty and ignoring the emancipation of the proletariat, the real aims of
+socialism are obscured:
> _"The 'right to well-being' means the possibility of living like human
beings, and of bringing up children to be members of a society better than
@@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ merely suggestions, possibilities.
## I.4.1 What is the point of economic activity in anarchy?
The basic point of economic activity is an anarchist society is to ensure, to
-use Kropotkin's expression, _**"well-being for all"**_. Rather than toil to
+use Kropotkin's expression, **_"well-being for all"_**. Rather than toil to
make the rich richer, people in a free society would work together to _"ensure
to society as a whole its life and further development."_ Such an economy
would be based upon _"giving society the greatest amount of useful products
@@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ Therefore, for anarchists, _"[r]eal wealth consists of things of utility and
beauty, in things that help create strong, beautiful bodies and surroundings
inspiring to live in."_ Anarchism's _"goal is the freest possible expression
of all the latent powers of the individual"_ and this _"is only possible in a
-state of society where man [sec!] is free to choose the mode of work, the
+state of society where man [sic!] is free to choose the mode of work, the
conditions of work, and the freedom to work. One whom making a table, the
building of a house, or the tilling of the soil is what the painting is to the
artist and the discovery to the scientist -- the result of inspiration, of
@@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ of the producers (and the planet we live on) when meeting the wants of
consumers. Thus, there would be a balance sought. _"What we would like,"_
continued Malatesta, _"is for everybody to live in the best possible way: so
that everybody with a minimum amount of effort will obtain maximum
-satisfaction."_ [**At the Caf**, p. 61]
+satisfaction."_ [**At the Café**, p. 61]
So while the basic aim of economic activity in an anarchist society is,
obviously, producing wealth -- i.e., satisfying individual needs -- without
@@ -352,11 +352,11 @@ preferences develop over time, to access long-term efficiency we must access
the impact of economic institutions on people's development."_ Capitalism, as
we have explained before, is highly inefficient in this light due to the
effects of hierarchy and the resulting marginalisation and disempowerment of
-the majority of society. As Albert and Hahnel go on to note, _"self-
-management, solidarity, and variety are all legitimate valuative criteria for
-judging economic institutions . . . Asking whether particular institutions
-help people attain self-management, variety, and solidarity is sensible."_
-[**The Political Economy of Participatory Economics**, p. 9]
+the majority of society. As they go on to note, _"self-management, solidarity,
+and variety are all legitimate valuative criteria for judging economic
+institutions . . . Asking whether particular institutions help people attain
+self-management, variety, and solidarity is sensible."_ [**The Political
+Economy of Participatory Economics**, p. 9]
In other words, anarchists think that any economic activity in a free society
is to do useful things in such a way that gives those doing it as much
@@ -455,11 +455,11 @@ her boss. Therefore, a libertarian that does not support economic liberty
Capitalism bases its rationale for itself on consumption and this results in a
viewpoint which minimises the importance of the time we spend in productive
-activity. Anarchists consider that it is essential for individual's to use and
+activity. Anarchists consider that it is essential for individuals to use and
develop their unique attributes and capacities in all walks of life, to
maximise their powers. Therefore, the idea that "work" should be ignored in
favour of consumption is totally mad. Productive activity is an important way
-of developing our inner-powers and express ourselves; in other words, be
+of developing our inner-powers and expressing ourselves; in other words, be
creative. Capitalism's emphasis on consumption shows the poverty of that
system. As Alexander Berkman argued:
@@ -508,7 +508,7 @@ terms of the first, _"we need to cut down massively the amount of working
being done"_ (luckily, _"most work is useless or worse and we should simply
get rid of it"_). For the second, _"we have to take what useful work remains
and transform it into a pleasing variety of game-like and craft-like pastimes,
-indistinguishable from other pleasurable pastimes, except that the happen to
+indistinguishable from other pleasurable pastimes, except that they happen to
yield useful end-products."_ [Bob Black, **Op. Cit.**, p. 17 and p. 28]
This means that in an anarchist society every effort would be made to reduce
@@ -645,7 +645,7 @@ goods (rather than working long and hard to produce surplus value for the
few).
However, anarchists do not see it as simply a case of reducing the hours of
-work will keeping the remaining work as it. That would be silly. We aim to
+work while keeping the remaining work as it is. That would be silly. We aim to
transform what useful productive activity is left. When self-management
becomes universal we will see the end of division of labour as mental and
physical work becomes unified and those who do the work also manage it. This
@@ -715,7 +715,7 @@ and manual workers we oppose the combination of both kinds of activities . . .
we advocate the **education integrale** [integral education], or complete
education, which means the disappearance of that pernicious division."_
Anarchists are, needless to say, aware that training and study are required to
-qualify you to so some tasks and a free society would ensure that individuals
+qualify you to do some tasks and a free society would ensure that individuals
would achieve the necessary recognised levels before undertaking them (by
means of, say, professional bodies who organise a certification process).
Kropotkin was aware, however, that both individuals and society would benefit
@@ -771,13 +771,13 @@ As an aside, supporters of capitalism argue that **integrated** labour must be
more inefficient than **divided** labour as capitalist firms have not
introduced it. This is false for numerous reasons.
-Firstly, we have to put out the inhuman logic of the assertion. After all, few
-would argue in favour of slavery if it were, in fact, **more** productive than
-wage labour but such is the logical conclusion of this argument. If someone
-did argue that the only reason slavery was not the dominant mode of labour
-simply because it was inefficient we would consider them as less than human.
-Simply put, it is a sick ideology which happily sacrifices individuals for the
-sake of slightly more products. Sadly, that is what many defenders of
+Firstly, we have to point out the inhuman logic of the assertion. After all,
+few would argue in favour of slavery if it were, in fact, **more** productive
+than wage labour but such is the logical conclusion of this argument. If
+someone did argue that the only reason slavery was not the dominant mode of
+labour simply because it was inefficient we would consider them as less than
+human. Simply put, it is a sick ideology which happily sacrifices individuals
+for the sake of slightly more products. Sadly, that is what many defenders of
capitalism do, ultimately, argue for.
Secondly, capitalist firms are not neutral structures but rather a system of
@@ -794,14 +794,14 @@ secure their profits and power, **not** that it is less efficient.
Thirdly, the attempts by managers and bosses to introduce "flexibility" by
eliminating unions suggests that integration **is** more efficient. After all,
-one of the major complains directed towards union contracts are that they
+one of the major complaints directed towards union contracts are that they
explicitly documented what workers could and could not do (for example, union
members would refuse to do work which was outside their agreed job
descriptions). This is usually classed as an example of the evil of
regulations. However, if we look at it from the viewpoint of contract and
division of labour, it exposes the inefficiency and inflexibility of both as a
-means of co-operation. After all, what is this refusal actually mean? It means
-that the worker refuses to do work that is not specified in his or her
+means of co-operation. After all, what does this refusal actually mean? It
+means that the worker refuses to do work that is not specified in his or her
contract! Their job description indicates what they have been contracted to do
and anything else has not been agreed upon in advance. The contract specifies
a clear, specified and agreed division of labour in a workplace between worker
@@ -905,8 +905,8 @@ starting and finishing times, require notice if individuals want to change
degree of co-operation and agreement. Moreover, between syndicates, an
agreement would be reached (in all likelihood) that determined the minimum
working hours required by all members of society able to work. As Kropotkin
-argued, an communist anarchist society would be based upon the such a minimum-
-hour _"contract"_ between its members:
+argued, a communist anarchist society would be based upon the such a minimum-
+hour "contract" between its members:
> _"We undertake to give you the use of our houses, stores, streets, means of
transport, schools, museums, etc., on condition that, from twenty to forty-
@@ -1305,22 +1305,22 @@ possibility of how a libertarian communist economy could make informed
decisions about production. It is not meant as a blue-print nor is it set-in-
stone.
-## I.4.5 What about _"supply and demand"_?
+## I.4.5 What about "supply and demand"?
Anarchists do not ignore the facts of life, namely that at a given moment
there is so much a certain good produced and so much of it is desired to be
consumed or used. Neither do we deny that different individuals have different
-interests and tastes. However, this is not what is usually meant by _"supply
-and demand."_ Often in general economic debate, this formula is given a
-certain mythical quality which ignores its underlying realities as well as
-some unwholesome implications of the theory (for example, as discussed in
-[section C.1.5](secC1.html#secc15) the market can very efficiently create
-famines by exporting food to areas where there is demand for it). At the very
-least, the _"the law of supply and demand"_ is not the "most efficient" means
-of distribution in an unequal society as decisions are skewed in favour of the
+interests and tastes. However, this is not what is usually meant by "supply
+and demand." Often in general economic debate, this formula is given a certain
+mythical quality which ignores its underlying realities as well as some
+unwholesome implications of the theory (for example, as discussed in [section
+C.1.5](secC1.html#secc15) the market can very efficiently create famines by
+exporting food to areas where there is demand for it). At the very least, the
+_"the law of supply and demand"_ is not the "most efficient" means of
+distribution in an unequal society as decisions are skewed in favour of the
rich.
-As far as _"supply and demand"_ in terms of allocating scare resources is
+As far as "supply and demand" in terms of allocating scare resources is
concerned, anarchists are well aware of the need to create and distribute
necessary goods to those who require them. The question is, in an anarchist
society, how do you know that valuable labour and materials are not being
@@ -1521,13 +1521,14 @@ requests that really need copper (i.e., do not have realistic substitutes
available for it). This would result in the demand falling with respect to the
current supply (as indicated by requests from other syndicates and to maintain
buffer stock levels). Thus a general message has been sent across the economy
-that copper has become (relatively) scare and syndicate plans have changed in
+that copper has become (relatively) scarce and syndicate plans have changed in
light of this information. No central planner made these decisions nor was
money required to facilitate them. We have a decentralised, non-market system
-based on the free exchange of products between self-governing associations.
+based on the free distribution of products between self-governing
+associations.
-Looking at the wider picture, the question of how to response to this change
-in supply/requests for copper presents itself. The copper syndicate federation
+Looking at the wider picture, the question of how to respond to this change in
+supply/requests for copper presents itself. The copper syndicate federation
and cross-industry syndicate federations have regular meetings and the
question of the changes in the copper situation present themselves and they
must consider how to response to these changes. Part of this is to determine
@@ -1564,8 +1565,8 @@ ordination achieved by equality of association and not the hierarchy of the
corporate structure.
While anarchists are aware of the _"isolation paradox"_ (see [section
-B.6](secB6.html)) this does not mean that they think the commune should make
-decisions **for** people on what they were to consume. That would be a prison.
+B.6](secB6.html)) this does not mean that we think the commune should make
+decisions **for** people on what they are to consume. That would be a prison.
No, all anarchists agree that is up to the individual to determine their own
needs and for the collectives they join to determine social requirements like
parks, infrastructure improvements and so on. However, social anarchists think
@@ -1601,11 +1602,10 @@ these assumptions are of limited use in real life. Therefore, co-operatives
would produce goods with different features and production would change to
meet the demand these differences suggest (for example, factory A produces a
new CD player, and consumption patterns indicate that this is popular and so
-the rest of the factories convert). This is in addition to R&D;
-experiments and test populations. In this way consumer choice would be
-maintained, and enhanced as people would be able to influence the decisions of
-the syndicates as producers (in some cases) and through syndicate/commune
-dialogue.
+the rest of the factories convert). This is in addition to R&D experiments
+and test populations. In this way consumer choice would be maintained, and
+enhanced as people would be able to influence the decisions of the syndicates
+as producers (in some cases) and through syndicate/commune dialogue.
Finally, it would be churlish, but essential, to note that capitalism only
equates supply and demand in the fantasy world of neo-classical economics. Any
@@ -1613,11 +1613,10 @@ equates supply and demand in the fantasy world of neo-classical economics. Any
I.1.5](secI1.html#seci15) is marked by uncertainty and a tendency to over-
produce in the response to the higher profits caused by previously under-
producing goods, with resulting periods of crisis in which falling effective
-demand sees a corresponding fall in supply. Not to the mention the awkward
-fact that real needs (demand) are not met simply because people are too poor
-to pay for the goods (i.e., no effective demand). As such, to suggest that
-only non-market systems have a problem ensuring demand and supply meet is
-mistaken.
+demand sees a corresponding fall in supply. Not to mention the awkward fact
+that real needs (demand) are not met simply because people are too poor to pay
+for the goods (i.e., no effective demand). As such, to suggest that only non-
+market systems have a problem ensuring demand and supply meet is mistaken.
To conclude, anarchists do not ignore _"supply and demand."_ Instead, they
recognise the limitations of the capitalist version of this truism and point
@@ -1627,7 +1626,7 @@ anarchists advocate a system based on horizontal links between producers which
effectively communicates information across society about the relative changes
in supply and demand which reflect actual needs of society and not bank
balances. The investment response to changes in supply and demand will be
-discussed in [section I.4.8 ](secI4.html#seci48) while [section
+discussed in [section I.4.8](secI4.html#seci48) while [section
I.4.13](secI4.html#seci413) will discuss the allocation of work tasks.
## I.4.6 Surely anarchist-communism would just lead to demand exceeding
@@ -1683,7 +1682,7 @@ or just that the community in order to satisfy excessive needs, otherwise
called caprices, of a few individuals, should undertake work, out of
proportion to the utility being produced . . . What we would like is for
everybody to live in the best possible way: so that everybody with a minimum
-amount of effort will obtain maximum satisfaction."_ [**At the Caf**, pp.
+amount of effort will obtain maximum satisfaction."_ [**At the Café**, pp.
60-1]
Communist-anarchists recognise that production, like consumption, must be
@@ -1735,7 +1734,7 @@ that the advertisers themselves create if this were the case. Crude it may be,
but advertising is based on the creation of insecurities, preying on fears and
obscuring rational thought. In an alienated society in which people are
subject to hierarchical controls, feelings of insecurity and lack of control
-and influence would be natural. It is these fears that advertising multiples
+and influence would be natural. It is these fears that advertising multiplies
-- if you cannot have real freedom, then at least you can buy something new.
Advertising is the key means of making people unhappy with what they have and
who they are. It is naive to claim that advertising has no effect on the
@@ -1747,7 +1746,7 @@ would not exist in a libertarian communist society.
However, there is a deeper point to be made here about consumerism. Capitalism
is based on hierarchy, not liberty. This leads to a weakening of individuality
-as well as a lose of self-identity and sense of community. Both these senses
+as well as a loss of self-identity and sense of community. Both these senses
are a deep human need and consumerism is often a means by which people
overcome their alienation from their selves and others (religion, ideology and
drugs are other means of escape). Therefore the consumption within capitalism
@@ -1762,9 +1761,9 @@ social organisation. People 'want' fast food because they have to hurry back
to work, because processed supermarket food doesn't taste much better anyway,
because the nuclear family (for the dwindling minority who have even that to
go home to) is too small and too stressed to sustain much festivity in cooking
-and eating \-- and so forth. It is only people who can't get what they want
-who resign themselves to want more of what they can get. Since we cannot be
-friends and lovers, we wail for more candy."_ [**Friendly Fire"**, p. 57]
+and eating -- and so forth. It is only people who can't get what they want who
+resign themselves to want more of what they can get. Since we cannot be
+friends and lovers, we wail for more candy."_ [**Friendly Fire**, p. 57]
Therefore, most anarchists think that consumerism is a product of a
hierarchical society within which people are alienated from themselves and the
@@ -1834,13 +1833,13 @@ given to the sick and the old, to children, and to women during and after
pregnancy."_ [**What is Anarchism?**, p. 216] Another possibility was
suggested by James Guillaume who argued that as long as a product was _"in
short supply it will to a certain extent have to be rationed. And the easiest
-way to do this would be to **sell** these scare products"_ but as production
+way to do this would be to **sell** these scarce products"_ but as production
grows then _"it will not be necessary to ration consumption. The practice of
selling, which was adopted as a sort of deterrent to immoderate consumption,
will be abolished"_ and goods _"will be distribute[d] . . . in accordance with
the needs of the consumers."_ [_"On Building the New Social Order"_, pp.
356-79, **Bakunin on Anarchism**, p. 368] Other possibilities may include
-communes deciding that certain scare goods are only available to those who do
+communes deciding that certain scarce goods are only available to those who do
the unpleasant work (such as collecting the rubbish) or that people have equal
access but the actual goods are shared and used for short periods of time (as
is currently the case with public libraries). As Situationist Ken Knabb
@@ -1901,7 +1900,7 @@ of Exchange (or directly to other syndicates or communes) and so they would
adjust their output accordingly. Of course, there are problems with these
systems due to their basis in the market (as discussed in [section
I.1.3](secI1.html#seci13)), although these problems were recognised by
-Proudhon who argued for an agro-industrial federation to protect self-
+Proudhon who argued for an agricultural-industrial federation to protect self-
management from the negative effects of market forces (as noted in [section
I.3.5](secI3.html#seci35)).
@@ -1944,7 +1943,7 @@ While, at first glance, this appears to be a possible problem on closer
inspection it is flawed. This is because anarchism is based not only on
**_"exit"_** but also **_"voice"_**. Unlike capitalism, libertarian communism
is based on association and communication. Each syndicate and commune is in
-free agreement and confederation with all the others. Thus, is a specific
+free agreement and confederation with all the others. Thus, if a specific
syndicate was producing bad goods or not pulling its weight, then those in
contact with them would soon realise this. First, those unhappy with a
syndicate's work would appeal to them directly to get their act together. If
@@ -1953,7 +1952,7 @@ associate with them in the future (i.e. they would use their power of
**_"exit"_** as well as refusing to provide the syndicate with any goods
**it** requires). They would also let society as a whole know (via the media)
as well as contacting consumer groups and co-operatives and the relevant
-producer and communal confederations which they and the other syndicate are
+producer and communal confederations which they and the other syndicates are
members of, who would, in turn, inform their members of the problems (the
relevant confederations could include local and regional communal
confederations, the general cross-industry confederation, its own
@@ -1993,22 +1992,22 @@ product of its labour and would soon return to the fold.
Kropotkin argued in these terms over 100 years ago:
-> _ "When a railway company, federated with other companies, fails to fulfil
+> _"When a railway company, federated with other companies, fails to fulfil
its engagements, when its trains are late and goods lie neglected at the
stations, the other companies threaten to cancel the contract, and that threat
usually suffices. _
-> _ "It is generally believed . . . that commerce only keeps to its
-engagements from fear of lawsuits. Nothing of the sort; nine times in ten the
-trader who has not kept his word will not appear before a judge . . . the sole
-fact of having driven a creditor to bring a lawsuit suffices for the vast
-majority of merchants to refuse for good to have any dealings with a man who
-has compelled one of them to go to law. _
+> _"It is generally believed . . . that commerce only keeps to its engagements
+from fear of lawsuits. Nothing of the sort; nine times in ten the trader who
+has not kept his word will not appear before a judge . . . the sole fact of
+having driven a creditor to bring a lawsuit suffices for the vast majority of
+merchants to refuse for good to have any dealings with a man who has compelled
+one of them to go to law. _
-> _ "This being so, why should means that are used today among . . . traders
-in the trade, and railway companies in the organisation of transport, not be
-made use of in a society based on voluntary work?"_ [**The Conquest of
-Bread**, p. 153]
+> _"This being so, why should means that are used today among . . . traders in
+the trade, and railway companies in the organisation of transport, not be made
+use of in a society based on voluntary work?"_ [**The Conquest of Bread**, p.
+153]
Thus, to ensure producer accountability of production to consumption, no
bureaucratic body is required in libertarian communism (or any other form of
@@ -2033,7 +2032,7 @@ under effective community control.
The mutualists see the solution to the problems of investment as creating a
system of mutual banks, which reduce interest rates to zero. This would be
-achieved _"[b]y the organisation of credit, on the principle of reciprocity or
+achieved by _"the organisation of credit, on the principle of reciprocity or
mutualism . . . In such an organisation credit is raised to the dignity of a
social function, managed by the community; and, as society never speculates
upon its members, it will lend its credit . . . at the actual cost of
@@ -2166,7 +2165,7 @@ find workers willing to do that work. This would be applicable for small scale
investment decisions or those which other communes/syndicates do not think of
as essential.
-This we have two inter-related investment strategies. A communist-anarchist
+Thus we have two inter-related investment strategies. A communist-anarchist
society would prioritise certain forms of investment by the use of
**_"necessary"_** and **_"optional"_** investment projects. This socialisation
of investment will allow a free society to ensure that social needs are meet
@@ -2329,22 +2328,21 @@ viewpoint, but with a healthy dose of practical Luddism when viewing how
technology is (ab)used in capitalism (_"The worker will only respect machinery
**in the day** when it becomes his friend, shortening his work, rather than as
**today,** his enemy, taking away jobs, killing workers."_ [Emile Pouget
-quoted by David Noble, **Op. Cit.**, p. 15]). Vernon Richards stated the
-obvious:
+quoted by Noble, **Op. Cit.**, p. 15]). Vernon Richards stated the obvious:
-> _ "We maintain that the term 'productivity' has meaning, or is socially
+> _"We maintain that the term 'productivity' has meaning, or is socially
important, only when all production serves a public need . . . _
-> _ "Productivity has meaning if it results both in a raising of living
+> _"Productivity has meaning if it results both in a raising of living
standards and an increase of leisure for all._
-> _ "'Productivity' in the society we live in, because it is not a means to a
+> _"'Productivity' in the society we live in, because it is not a means to a
social end, but is the means whereby industrialists hope to make greater
profits for themselves and their shareholders, should be resolutely resisted
by the working people, for it brings them neither greater leisure nor
liberation from wage-slavery. Indeed for many it means unemployment . . . _
-> _ "The attempts by managers and the technocrats to streamline industry are
+> _"The attempts by managers and the technocrats to streamline industry are
resisted intuitively by most work people even if they haven't two political
ideas in their heads to knock together, not because they are resistant to
change **per se** but because they cannot see that 'change' will do them any
@@ -2383,13 +2381,13 @@ unthinking application. As discussed in [section A.3.9](secA3.html#seca39),
while a few anarchists do seek to eliminate all forms of technology, most
would agree with Bakunin when he argued that _"to destroy . . . all the
instruments of labour . . . would be to condemn all humanity -- which is
-infinity too numerous today to exist . . . on the simple gifts of nature . . .
--- to . . . death by starvation."_ His solution to the question of technology
-was, like Kropotkin's, to place it at the service of those who use it, to
-create _"the intimate and complete union of capital and labour"_ so that it
-would _"not . . . remain concentrated in the hands of a separate, exploiting
-class."_ Only this could _"smash the tyranny of capital."_ [**The Basic
-Bakunin**, pp. 90-1] So most anarchists seek to transform rather then
+infinitely too numerous today to exist . . . on the simple gifts of nature . .
+. -- to . . . death by starvation."_ His solution to the question of
+technology was, like Kropotkin's, to place it at the service of those who use
+it, to create _"the intimate and complete union of capital and labour"_ so
+that it would _"not . . . remain concentrated in the hands of a separate,
+exploiting class."_ Only this could _"smash the tyranny of capital."_ [**The
+Basic Bakunin**, pp. 90-1] So most anarchists seek to transform rather then
eliminate technology and to do that we need to be in possession of the means
of production before we can decide what to keep, what to change and what to
throw away as inhuman. In other words, it is not enough to get rid of the
@@ -2433,10 +2431,10 @@ transformation of work, industry and technology. Technological change would
develop along new lines, ones which will take into account human and
ecological needs rather the power and profits of a minority.
-Explicit in anarchism is the believe that capitalist and statist methods
-cannot be used for socialist and libertarian ends. In our struggle for
-workers' and community self-management is the awareness that workplaces are
-not merely sites of production -- they are also sites of **re**production, the
+Explicit in anarchism is the belief that capitalist and statist methods cannot
+be used for socialist and libertarian ends. In our struggle for workers' and
+community self-management is the awareness that workplaces are not merely
+sites of production -- they are also sites of **re**production, the
reproduction of certain social relationships based on specific relations of
authority between those who give orders and those who take them. The battle to
democratise the workplace, to place the collective initiative of the direct
@@ -2600,10 +2598,10 @@ services of specialists -- all was paid for by the collective."_ This was also
done for education, with collectives forming and running schools, colleges and
universities. For example, Regional Peasant Federation of Levant saw each
collective organise _"one or two free schools for the children"_ and _"almost
-wiped out illiteracy"_ (over 70% of rural Spain was literate before the Civil
-War). It also organised a _"University of Moncada"_ which _"gave courses in
-animal husbandry, poultry raising. animal breeding, agriculture, tree science,
-etc."_ [Gaston Leval, **Op. Cit.**, p. 156 and p. 125]
+wiped out illiteracy"_ (over 70% of rural Spain was illiterate before the
+Civil War). It also organised a _"University of Moncada"_ which _"gave courses
+in animal husbandry, poultry raising. animal breeding, agriculture, tree
+science, etc."_ [Gaston Leval, **Op. Cit.**, p. 156 and p. 125]
These examples, social anarchists argue, show that co-operation ensures that
resources are efficiently allocated and waste is minimised by cutting down
@@ -2616,7 +2614,7 @@ consumer co-operatives and productive units, there is little danger that
rationalisation in production will hurt the interests of the consumer).
Another way in which wide distribution of surplus can be advantageous is in
-Research and Development (R&D;). By creating a fund for research and
+Research and Development (R&D). By creating a fund for research and
development which is independent of the fortunes of individual syndicates,
society as a whole can be improved by access to useful new technologies and
processes. Therefore, in a libertarian socialist society, people (both within
@@ -2647,7 +2645,7 @@ stressed that basic research is not something which free-market capitalism
does well. As Doug Henwood notes, basic science research _"is heavily funded
by the public sector and non-profit institutions like universities."_ The
internet and computer, for example, were both projects for the Pentagon and
-_"the government picked up the basic R&D; tab for decades, when neither
+_"the government picked up the basic R&D tab for decades, when neither
Wall Street nor private industry showed any interest. In fact, capital only
became interested when the start-up costs had all been borne by the public
sector and there were finally profits to be made . . . good American
@@ -2671,7 +2669,7 @@ innovations if it had not been for the Pentagon system, the space race and so
on? Take the Internet, for example -- it is unlikely that this would have got
off the ground if it had not been for public funding. Needless to say, of
course, much of this technology has been developed for evil reasons and
-purposes and would be in need of drastic change (or, in many some, abolition)
+purposes and would be in need of drastic change (or in some cases abolition)
before it could be used in a libertarian society. However, the fact remains
that it is unlikely that a pure market based system could have generated most
of the technology we take for granted. As Noam Chomsky argues:
@@ -2688,17 +2686,15 @@ most of the hardware, the software, new ideas, technology, and so on. In just
the last couple of years it has been handed over to people like Bill Gates . .
. In the case of the Internet, consumer choice was close to zero, and during
the crucial development stages that same was true of computers, information
-processing, and all the rest . . .
-
->
+processing, and all the rest . . . _
-> "In fact, of all the examples that Greenspan gives, the only one that maybe
+> _"In fact, of all the examples that Greenspan gives, the only one that maybe
rises above the level of a joke is transistors, and they are an interesting
case. Transistors, in fact, were developed in a private laboratory -- Bell
-Telephone Laboratories of AT&T; \-- which also made major contributions to
+Telephone Laboratories of AT&T -- which also made major contributions to
solar cells, radio astronomy, information theory, and lots of other important
things. But what is the role of markets and consumer choice in that? Well,
-again, it turns out, zero. AT&T; was a government supported monopoly, so
+again, it turns out, zero. AT&T was a government supported monopoly, so
there was no consumer choice, and as a monopoly they could charge high prices:
in effect a tax on the public which they could use for institutions like Bell
Laboratories . . . So again, it's publicly subsidised. As if to demonstrate
@@ -2714,16 +2710,16 @@ disseminated to industry."_ [**Rogue States**, pp. 192-3]
The free market can also have a negative impact on innovation. This is
because, in order to please shareholders with higher share prices, companies
-may reduce funds available for real investment as well as R&D; which would
+may reduce funds available for real investment as well as R&D which would
also depress growth and employment in the long term. What shareholders might
-condemn as "uneconomic" (investment projects and R&D;) can, and does, make
+condemn as "uneconomic" (investment projects and R&D) can, and does, make
society as a whole better off. However, these gains are over the long term
and, within capitalism, it is short-term gains which count. Higher share
prices in the here and now are essential in order to survive and so see the
long-run.
A socialised economy with a wide-scale sharing of surpluses and resources
-could easily allocate resources for R&D;, long term investment, innovation
+could easily allocate resources for R&D, long term investment, innovation
and so on. Via the use of mutual banks or confederations of syndicates and
communes, resources could be allocated which take into account the importance
of long-term priorities, as well as social costs, which are not taken into
@@ -2772,7 +2768,7 @@ has inspired all the great inventors. The Social Revolution alone can give
this impulse to thought, this boldness, this knowledge, this conviction of
working for all._
-> _ "Then we shall have vast institutes . . . immense industrial laboratories
+> _"Then we shall have vast institutes . . . immense industrial laboratories
open to all inquirers, where men will be able to work out their dreams, after
having acquitted themselves of their duty towards society; . . . where they
will make their experiments; where they will find other comrades, experts in
@@ -2782,11 +2778,11 @@ ideas and experiences causing the longed-for solution to be found."_ [**The
Conquest of Bread**, p. 117]
The example of free software (operating systems, programming languages,
-specific packages and code) today show the potential this. Thus socialisation
-would aid innovation and scientific development by providing the necessary
-resources (including free time) for such work. Moreover, it would also provide
-the community spirit required to push the boundaries of science forward. As
-John O'Neil argues:
+specific packages and code) today shows the potential of this. Thus
+socialisation would aid innovation and scientific development by providing the
+necessary resources (including free time) for such work. Moreover, it would
+also provide the community spirit required to push the boundaries of science
+forward. As John O'Neil argues:
> _"There is, in a competitive market economy, a disincentive to communicate
information. The market encourages secrecy, which is inimical to openness in
@@ -2815,7 +2811,7 @@ Cit.**, p. 117 and pp. 116-7]
Social anarchists would also suggest that socialisation would produce more
benefits by looking at existing societies. The evidence from the UK, USA,
-Australia, New Zealand and China shows that privatisations of nationalised
+Australia, New Zealand and China shows that privatisation of nationalised
industries associated with neo-liberalism failed in its stated aims of cheaper
and better services while more than succeeding in their unstated aim of
redistributing wealth upwards (for details see **In Government we Trust:
@@ -2828,7 +2824,7 @@ UK after 30 years of Thatcherite policies (first under the Tories and then New
Labour) the readers of the right-wing press who supported it are subjected to
article after article complaining about _"Rip off Britain"_ and yet more
increases in the prices charged for privatised utilities, services and goods.
-This, it must be stressed, if not to suggest that anarchists aim for
+This, it must be stressed, is not to suggest that anarchists aim for
nationalisation (we do not, we aim for socialisation and workers' self-
management) but rather to indicate that privatising resources does not benefit
the majority of people in a given society.
@@ -2861,12 +2857,12 @@ health care produces can be seen as a benefit of socialisation which cannot be
reflected in, say, GDP or similar economic measures (not to mention the
ethical statement it makes).
-Significantly, though, non-privatised system of health care are more
+Significantly, though, non-privatised systems of health care are more
efficient. Competition as well as denying people treatment also leads to
inefficiencies as prices are inflated to pay for advertising, competition
related administration costs, paying dividends to share-holders and so on.
This drives up the cost for those lucky enough to be covered, not to mention
-the stress produced by the constant fear of losing insurance or being denying
+the stress produced by the constant fear of losing insurance or being denied
payment due to the insurance company deciding against the patient and their
doctor. For example, in 1993, Canada's health plans devoted 0.9% of spending
to overhead, compared to U.S. figures of 3.2% for Medicare and 12% for private
@@ -2930,7 +2926,7 @@ terms of health indicators, the US people are not getting value for money.
Life expectancy is higher in Canada, Sweden, Germany, Japan and Britain. The
USA has the highest levels of infant mortality and is last in basic health
indicators as well as having fewer doctors per 1,000 people than the OECD
-average. All in all, the US system is miles begin the universal systems of
+average. All in all, the US system is miles behind the universal systems of
other countries.
Of course, it will be argued that the USA is not a pure "free market" and so
@@ -2939,7 +2935,7 @@ system, the more privatised system, is less efficient and less fair than the
universal systems. It also seems strange that defenders of competition happily
use examples from "actually existing" capitalism to illustrate their politics
but reject negative examples as being a product of an "impure" system. They
-want to have their cake and eat it to.
+want to have their cake and eat it too.
Significantly, we should note that the use of surplus for communal services
(such as hospitals and education) can be seen from the Spanish Revolution.
@@ -2947,25 +2943,24 @@ Many collectives funded new hospitals and colleges for their members,
providing hundreds of thousands with services they could never have afforded
by their own labour. This is a classic example of co-operation helping the co-
operators achieve far more than they could by their own isolated activities.
-This libertarian health system was run and how other public services would be
-organised in a free society are discussed in [section
+How this libertarian health system was run and how other public services would
+be organised in a free society are discussed in [section
I.5.12](secI5.html#seci512).
So we can generalise from our experiences of different kinds of capitalism. If
you want to live in a society of well-educated people, working today as equals
-in pleasant surroundings with more than ample leisure time to pursue their own
+in pleasant surroundings with more than ample leisure time to pursue your own
projects and activities, then a wide sharing of the social surplus is
required. Otherwise, you could live in a society where people work long and
hard to survive on the market, without the time or opportunity for education
-and leisure, and be bossed about for most of their waking hours to enrich the
+and leisure, and be bossed about for most of your waking hours to enrich the
wealthy few so that they can live a life of leisure (which, in turn, will
-inspire you to be work harder in spite of the fact that such high inequality
-produces low social mobility). The first society, according to some, would be
-one of self-sacrificing altruism and "collectivism" while the latter is,
-apparently, one based on "individualism" and self-interest...
+apparently inspire you to work harder in spite of the fact that such high
+inequality produces low social mobility). The first society, according to
+some, would be one of self-sacrificing altruism and "collectivism" while the
+latter is, apparently, one based on "individualism" and self-interest...
-## I.4.11 If socialism eliminates the profit motive, won't performance
-suffer?
+## I.4.11 If socialism eliminates the profit motive, won't performance suffer?
Firstly, just to be totally clear, by the profit motive we mean money profit.
As anarchists consider co-operation to be in our self-interest -- i.e. we will
@@ -2990,19 +2985,19 @@ society.
According to Kohn, a growing body of psychological research suggests that
rewards can lower performance levels, especially when the performance involves
-creativity. His books summarise the related series of studies shows which show
-that intrinsic interest in a task -- the sense that something is worth doing
-for its own sake -- typically declines when someone is rewarded for doing it.
-Much of the research on creativity and motivation has been performed by
-Theresa Amabile, associate professor of psychology at Brandeis University and
-she has found consistently that those were promised rewards did the least
-creative work. Thus _"rewards killed creativity, and this was true regardless
-of the type of task, the type of reward, the timing of the reward or the age
-of the people involved."_ [**Punished by Rewards**, p. 45] Such research casts
-doubt on the claim that financial reward is the only effective way -- or even
-the best way -- to motivate people. They challenge the behaviourist assumption
-that any activity is more likely to occur or be better in terms of outcome if
-it is rewarded.
+creativity. His books summarise the related series of studies which show that
+intrinsic interest in a task -- the sense that something is worth doing for
+its own sake -- typically declines when someone is rewarded for doing it. Much
+of the research on creativity and motivation has been performed by Theresa
+Amabile, associate professor of psychology at Brandeis University. She has
+consistently found that those promised rewards did the least creative work:
+_"rewards killed creativity, and this was true regardless of the type of task,
+the type of reward, the timing of the reward or the age of the people
+involved."_ [**Punished by Rewards**, p. 45] Such research casts doubt on the
+claim that financial reward is the only effective way -- or even the best way
+-- to motivate people. They challenge the behaviourist assumption that any
+activity is more likely to occur or be better in terms of outcome if it is
+rewarded.
These findings re-enforce the findings of other scientific fields. Biology,
social psychology, ethnology and anthropology all present evidence that
@@ -3093,7 +3088,7 @@ not only leads to a weakening of individuality and social disruption, but also
to economic inefficiency as energy is wasted in class conflict and invested in
building bigger and better cages to protect the haves from the have-nots.
Instead of creating useful things, human activity is spent in useless toil
-reproducing an injustice and authoritarian system.
+reproducing an injust and authoritarian system.
All in all, the results of competition (as documented by a host of scientific
disciplines) show its poverty as well as indicating that co-operation is the
@@ -3102,7 +3097,7 @@ means by which the fittest survive.
Moreover, the notion that material rewards result in better work is simply not
true. Basing itself on simple behaviourist psychology, such arguments fail to
meet the test of long-term success (and, in fact, can be counter-productive).
-Indeed, it means treating human beings as little better that pets or other
+Indeed, it means treating human beings as little better than pets or other
animals (Kohn argues that it is _"not an accident that the theory behind 'Do
this and you'll get that' derives from work with other species, or that
behaviour management is frequently described in words better suited to
@@ -3217,19 +3212,19 @@ countervailing forces . . . existed to restrict the market economy. No less
significantly, many precapitalist societies raised what they thought were
insuperable obstacles to the penetration of the State into social life."_ He
pointed to _"the power of village communities to resist the invasion of trade
-and despotic political forms into society's abiding communal substrate." _
-[**The Ecology of Freedom**, pp. 207-8] Anarchist anthropologist David Graeber
-notes that in the ancient Mediterranean world _"[w]hile one does periodically
-run into evidence of arrangements which to the modern eye look like wage-
-labour contracts, on closer examination they almost always actually turn out
-to be contracts to rent slaves . . . Free men and women thus avoided anything
-remotely like wage-labour, seeing it as a matter, effectively, of slavery,
-renting themselves out."_ This means that wage labour _"(as opposed to, say,
-receiving fees for professional services) involves a degree of subordination:
-a labourer has to be to some degree at the command of his or her employer.
-This is exactly why, through most of history, free men and women tended to
-avoid wage-labour, and why, for most of history, capitalism . . . never
-emerged."_ [**Possibilities**, p. 92]
+and despotic political forms into society's abiding communal substrate."
+_[**The Ecology of Freedom**, pp. 207-8] Anarchist anthropologist David
+Graeber notes that in the ancient Mediterranean world _"[w]hile one does
+periodically run into evidence of arrangements which to the modern eye look
+like wage-labour contracts, on closer examination they almost always actually
+turn out to be contracts to rent slaves . . . Free men and women thus avoided
+anything remotely like wage-labour, seeing it as a matter, effectively, of
+slavery, renting themselves out."_ This means that wage labour _"(as opposed
+to, say, receiving fees for professional services) involves a degree of
+subordination: a labourer has to be to some degree at the command of his or
+her employer. This is exactly why, through most of history, free men and women
+tended to avoid wage-labour, and why, for most of history, capitalism . . .
+never emerged."_ [**Possibilities**, p. 92]
Thus while the idea that people will happily become wage slaves may be
somewhat common place today (particularly with supporters of capitalism) the
@@ -3423,16 +3418,16 @@ fire them for not obeying orders. Thus capitalism forbids such elemental
freedoms as association and speech -- at least for the majority, for the wage
slaves. Why would people seek such "freedom" in a free society?
-Of course, Nozick's reply to this point would be that the individual's
-involved have "consented" to these rules when they signed their contract. Yet
-the same can be said of an anarchist society -- it is freely joined and freely
-left. To join a communist-anarchist society it would simply be a case of
-agreeing to "exchange" the product of ones labour freely with the other
-members of that society and not to create oppressive or exploitation social
-relationships within it. If this is "authoritarian" then so is capitalism --
-and we must stress that at least anarchist associations are based on self-
-management and so the individuals involved have an equal say in the
-obligations they live under.
+Of course, Nozick's reply to this point would be that the individuals involved
+have "consented" to these rules when they signed their contract. Yet the same
+can be said of an anarchist society -- it is freely joined and freely left. To
+join a communist-anarchist society it would simply be a case of agreeing to
+"exchange" the product of ones labour freely with the other members of that
+society and not to create oppressive or exploitative social relationships
+within it. If this is "authoritarian" then so is capitalism -- and we must
+stress that at least anarchist associations are based on self-management and
+so the individuals involved have an equal say in the obligations they live
+under.
Notice also that Nozick confused exchange with capitalism (_"I offer you a
lecture once a week in exchange for other things"_). This is a telling mistake
@@ -3459,11 +3454,11 @@ Thus an anarchist society would have a flexible approach to Nozick's (flawed)
argument. Individuals, in their free time, could _"exchange"_ their time and
possessions as they saw fit. These are **not** _"capitalist acts"_ regardless
of Nozick's claims. However, the moment an individual employs wage labour
-then, by this act, they have broken their agreements with their fellows and,
-therefore, no longer part of _"socialist society."_ This would involve them no
-longer having access to the benefits of communal life and to communal
+then, by this act, they have broken their agreements with their fellows and
+are, therefore, no longer part of _"socialist society."_ This would involve
+them no longer having access to the benefits of communal life and to communal
possessions. They have, in effect, placed themselves outside of their
-community and must fair for themselves. After all, if they desire to create
+community and must fend for themselves. After all, if they desire to create
_"private property"_ (in the capitalist sense) then they have no right of
access to communal possessions without paying for that right. For those who
become wage slaves, a socialist society would, probably, be less strict. As
@@ -3491,7 +3486,7 @@ it should be keep in mind that the destruction of commonly held resources,
such as village commons, was imposed by the state -- see [section
F.8.3](secF8.html#secf83)). As pointed out in [section F.2](secF2.html),
right-wing "libertarians" would better be termed _"Propertarians"_ (why is
-liberty according a primary importance when arguing against socialism but not
+liberty accorded a primary importance when arguing against socialism but not
when private property restricts liberty?). As Cheyney C. Ryan points out,
Nozick _"invoke[s] personal liberty as the decisive ground for rejecting
patterned principles of justice [such as socialism] and restrictions on the
@@ -3550,7 +3545,7 @@ in the more enjoyable "jobs" while the boring and dangerous ones would suffer
from a scarcity of willing workers. Hence, so the argument goes, a socialist
society would have to force people to do certain jobs and that requires a
state. Obviously, this argument ignores the fact that under capitalism usually
-it is the boring, dangerous work which is the least well paid with the worse
+it is the boring, dangerous work which is the least well paid with the worst
working conditions. In addition, this argument ignores the fact that under
workers self-management boring, dangerous work would be minimised and
transformed as much as possible. Only under capitalist hierarchy are people in
@@ -3584,9 +3579,9 @@ However, the possibility of mass desertions does exist and so must be
addressed. So how would a libertarian socialist society deal with a majority
of its workers deciding to all do interesting work, leaving the boring and/or
dangerous work undone? It, of course, depends on the type of anarchism in
-question and each offers alternative ways to ensure that individual
-preferences for certain types of work matches the requirements of social
-demand for labour.
+question and each offers alternative ways to ensure that individual preference
+for certain types of work matches the requirements of social demand for
+labour.
Under individualist anarchism and mutualism, those who desired a certain form
of work done would reach an agreement with workers or a co-operative and pay
@@ -3595,10 +3590,10 @@ person's _"education, instruction, and apprenticeship should . . . be so
directed that, while permitting him to do his share of unpleasant and
disagreeable tasks, they may also give variety of work and knowledge, and may
assure him . . . an encyclopaedic attitude and a sufficient income."_
-[**General Idea of the Revolution**, p. 222] In terms of unpleasant tasks for
-other people (for example, collecting and processing a community's rubbish)
-then individuals would form co-operatives which would have to find their place
-on the market and this would ensure that such work was done as they would
+[**Property is Theft!**, pp.585-6] In terms of unpleasant tasks for other
+people (for example, collecting and processing a community's rubbish) then
+individuals would form co-operatives which would have to find their place on
+the market and this would ensure that such work was done as they would
contract with others to provide the appropriate services. However, this could
lead to some people doing unpleasant work all the time and so is hardly a
solution. As in capitalism, we may see some people doing terrible work because
@@ -3616,7 +3611,8 @@ Priorities**, p. 220] Another way, somewhat complementary to these two, would
be to take a leaf from _"peasant attitudes toward labour"_ and their _"most
striking feature"_, the extent _"to which any kind of communal toil, however
onerous, can be transformed by the workers themselves into festive occasions
-that serve to reinforce community ties."_ [**The Ecology of Freedom**, p. 342]
+that serve to reinforce community ties."_ [Murray Bookchin, **The Ecology of
+Freedom**, p. 342]
It would be easy to imagine a free community sharing such tasks as fairly as
possible between a community's members by, for example, allocating a few days
@@ -3692,11 +3688,11 @@ It will be clear what is considered unpleasant work in any society -- few
people (if any) will volunteer to do it. As in any advanced society,
communities and syndicates who required extra help would inform others of
their need by the various form of media that existed. In addition, it would be
-likely that each community would have a _"division of activity"_ syndicate
-whose work would be to distribute information about these posts and to which
-members of a community would go to discover what placements existed for the
-line of "work" they were interested in. So we have a means by which syndicates
-and communes can ask for new associates and the means by which individuals can
+likely that each community would have a "division of activity" syndicate whose
+work would be to distribute information about these posts and to which members
+of a community would go to discover what placements existed for the line of
+"work" they were interested in. So we have a means by which syndicates and
+communes can ask for new associates and the means by which individuals can
discover these placements. Obviously, some tasks will still require
qualifications and that will be taken into account when syndicates and
communes "advertise" for help.
@@ -3734,8 +3730,8 @@ pursue the work they are interested in would be investigated. If a possible
solution can be found, we are sure that it will. What a free society would
make sure of was that neither the capitalist market redeveloped (which ensures
that the majority are marginalised into wage slavery) or a state socialist
-_"labour army"_ type allocation process developed (which would ensure that
-free socialism did not remain free or socialist for long).
+"labour army" type allocation process developed (which would ensure that free
+socialism did not remain free or socialist for long).
In this manner, anarchism will be able to ensure the principle of voluntary
labour and free association as well as making sure that unpleasant and
@@ -3800,7 +3796,7 @@ refuse to work.
On this question there is some disagreement. Some anarchists argue that the
lazy should not be deprived of the means of life. Social pressure, they argue,
-would ensure those who take from, but do not contribute, to the community to
+would ensure those who take from, but do not contribute, to the community
listen to their conscience and start producing for the community that supports
them. If this did not happen, then the person who refused to contribute would
be asked to leave (freedom of association means the freedom **not** to
@@ -3811,7 +3807,7 @@ principle of free work, were really menaced by loafers, it could protect
itself without the authoritarian organisation we have nowadays, and without
having recourse to wagedom [i.e., payment by deeds]? _
-> _ "Let us take a group of volunteers, combining for some particular
+> _"Let us take a group of volunteers, combining for some particular
enterprise. Having its success at heart, they all work with a will, save one
of the associates, who is frequently absent from his post . . . some day the
comrade who imperils their enterprise will be told: 'Friend, we should like to
@@ -3819,12 +3815,12 @@ work with you; but as you are often absent from your post, and you do your
work negligently, we must part. Go and find other comrades who will put up
with your indifference!' _
-> _ "This is so natural that it is practised everywhere, even nowadays, in all
+> _"This is so natural that it is practised everywhere, even nowadays, in all
industries . . . [I]f [a worker] does his work badly, if he hinders his
comrades by his laziness or other defects, if he is quarrelsome, there is an
end of it; he is compelled to leave the workshop. _
-> _ "Authoritarians pretend that it is the almighty employer and his overseers
+> _"Authoritarians pretend that it is the almighty employer and his overseers
who maintain regularity and quality of work in factories. In reality . . . it
is the factory itself, the workmen [and women] who see to the good quality of
the work."_ [**The Conquest of Bread**, pp. 152-3]
@@ -3914,7 +3910,7 @@ So, enlightened self-interest would secure the voluntary labour and
egalitarian distribution anarchists favour in the vast majority of the
population. The parasitism associated with capitalism would be a thing of the
past. Thus the problem of the "lazy" person fails to understand the nature of
-humanity nor the revolutionising effects of freedom on the nature and content
+humanity or the revolutionising effects of freedom on the nature and content
of work.
## I.4.15 What will the workplace of tomorrow look like?
@@ -3947,17 +3943,17 @@ The future workplace would be expanded to include education and classes in
individual development. This follows Proudhon's suggestion made during the
1848 revolution that we should _"[o]rganise association, and by the same
token, every workshop becoming a school, every worker becomes a master, every
-student an apprentice."_ [**No Gods, No Masters**, vol. 1, pp. 62-3] This
-means that in a free society _"Workers' associations have a very important
-role to play . . . Linked to the system of public education, they will become
-both centres of production and centres and for education . . . The working
-masses will be in daily contact with the youthful army of agricultural and
-industrial workers. Labour and study, which have for so long and so foolishly
-been kept apart, will finally emerge side by side in their natural state of
-union. Instead of being confined to narrow, specialised fields, vocational
-education will include a variety of different types of work which, taken as a
-whole, will insure that each student becomes an all-round worker."_ [Proudhon,
-**Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon**, p. 87]
+student an apprentice."_ [**Property is Theft!**, p. 378] This means that in a
+free society _"Workers' associations have a very important role to play . . .
+Linked to the system of public education, they will become both centres of
+production and centres for education . . . The working masses will be in daily
+contact with the youthful army of agricultural and industrial workers. Labour
+and study, which have for so long and so foolishly been kept apart, will
+finally emerge side by side in their natural state of union. Instead of being
+confined to narrow, specialised fields, vocational education will include a
+variety of different types of work which, taken as a whole, will insure that
+each student becomes an all-round worker."_ [Proudhon, **Selected Writings of
+Pierre-Joseph Proudhon**, p. 87]
This would allow work to become part of a wider community, drawing in people
from different areas to share their knowledge and learn new insights and
@@ -4006,15 +4002,15 @@ agricultural and manufactured produce."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 26]
The future workplace would be an expression of the desires of those who worked
there. It would be based around a pleasant working environment, within gardens
-and with extensive library, resources for education classes and other leisure
-activities. All this, and more, will be possible in a society based upon self-
-realisation and self-expression and one in which individuality is not crushed
-by authority and capitalism. To quote Kropotkin, the future workplace would be
-_"airy and hygienic, and consequently economical, factories in which human
-life is of more account than machinery and the making of extra profits."_
-[**Op. Cit.**, p. 197] For, obviously, _"if most of the workshops we know are
-foul and unhealthy, it is because the workers are of no account in the
-organisation of factories"_. [**The Conquest of Bread**, p. 121]
+and with an extensive library, resources for education classes and other
+leisure activities. All this, and more, will be possible in a society based
+upon self-realisation and self-expression and one in which individuality is
+not crushed by authority and capitalism. To quote Kropotkin, the future
+workplace would be _"airy and hygienic, and consequently economical, factories
+in which human life is of more account than machinery and the making of extra
+profits."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 197] For, obviously, _"if most of the workshops
+we know are foul and unhealthy, it is because the workers are of no account in
+the organisation of factories"_. [**The Conquest of Bread**, p. 121]
_"So in brief,"_ argued William Morris, _"our buildings will be beautiful with
their own beauty of simplicity as workshops"_ and _"besides the mere
@@ -4060,7 +4056,7 @@ would be interested in promoting efficiency and productiveness during
production.
A free society will undoubtedly create new criteria for what counts as an
-efficient use of resources and time. What passes for "efficient" use
+efficient use of resources and time. What passes for "efficient" use under
capitalism often means what is efficient in increasing the power and profits
of the few, without regard to the wasteful use of individual time, energy and
potential as well as environmental and social costs. Such a narrow criteria
@@ -4120,7 +4116,7 @@ peers. This will produce an environment which will encourage efficient use of
resources and time.
All these factors, the possibility of increased free time, the respect and
-resources gained for an efficient and excellent work and the possibility of a
+resources gained for efficient and excellent work and the possibility of a
lack of co-operation with others for inefficient use of resources, would
ensure that an anarchist-communist or anarchist-collectivist society would
have no need to fear inefficiency. Indeed, by placing the benefits of
@@ -4146,3 +4142,8 @@ guarantee . . . the happiness that can be found in the full and varied
exercise of the different capacities of the human being, in work that need not
be overwork."_ [**Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow**, pp. 198-9]
+[‹ I.3 What could the economic structure of anarchy look
+like?](/afaq/secI3.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secIcon.html "Go to
+parent page" ) [I.5 What could the social structure of anarchy look like?
+›](/afaq/secI5.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secI5.md b/markdown/secI5.md
index b50bb79f5f5a97b34b15db591525ed18239703e7..dc00caebaf95a97ffb230391a49b4093581f16c0 100644
--- a/markdown/secI5.md
+++ b/markdown/secI5.md
@@ -1,13 +1,14 @@
# I.5 What could the social structure of anarchy look like?
-The social and political structure of anarchy is similar to that of its
+The social and political structure of anarchy is similar to that of the
economic structure, i.e., it is based on a voluntary federation of
-decentralised, directly democratic community assemblies (communes). In these
-grassroots political units and their confederations, the concept of **_"self-
-management"_** becomes that of **_"self-government"_**, a form of municipal
-organisation in which people take back control of their living places from the
-bureaucratic state and the capitalist class whose interests it serves.
-Bakunin's comments are very applicable here:
+decentralised, directly democratic policy-making bodies. These are the
+neighbourhood and community assemblies and their confederations. In these
+grassroots political units, the concept of **_"self-management"_** becomes
+that of **_"self-government"_**, a form of municipal organisation in which
+people take back control of their living places from the bureaucratic state
+and the capitalist class whose interests it serves. Bakunin's comments are
+very applicable here:
> _"[A] truly popular organisation begins from below, from the association,
from the commune. Thus starting out with the organisation of the lowest
@@ -36,11 +37,11 @@ fraud, and the sovereignty of the People a joke, it must be admitted that each
citizen in the sphere of his [or her] industry, each municipal, district or
provincial council within its own territory, is the only natural and
legitimate representative of the Sovereign, and that therefore each locality
-should act directly and by itself in administering the interests which it
+should act direct and by itself in administering the interests which it
includes, and should exercise full sovereignty in relation to them."_
-[**General Idea of the Revolution**, p. 276] While anarchists have various
-different conceptions of how this communal system would be constituted (as we
-will see), they is total agreement on these basic visions and principles.
+[**Propert is Theft!**, p. 595] While anarchists have various different
+conceptions of how this communal system would be constituted (as we will see),
+there is total agreement on these basic visions and principles.
The aim is _"to found an order of things wherein the principle of the
sovereignty of the people, of man and of the citizen, would be implemented to
@@ -50,25 +51,25 @@ any social organisation _"would concern itself solely with collective matters;
where as a consequence, there would be certain common matters but no
centralisation."_ This means that the _"federative, mutualist republican
sentiment"_ (as summarised these days by the expression self-management) will
-_"bring about the victory of Worker Democracy right around the world."_
-[Proudhon, **Anarchism**, vol. 1, Robert Graham (ed.), p. 74 and p. 77]
+_"bring about the victory of Labour Democracy right around the world."_
+[Proudhon, **Op. Cit.**, p. 574 and p. 763]
This empowerment of ordinary citizens through decentralisation and direct
-democracy will eliminate the alienation and apathy that are now rampant and
-(as always happens when people are free) unleash a flood of innovation in
-dealing with the social breakdown now afflicting our world. The gigantic
-metropolis with its hierarchical and impersonal administration, its atomised
-and isolated "residents," will be transformed into a network of humanly scaled
-participatory communities, each with its own unique character and forms of
-self-government, which will be co-operatively linked through federation with
-other communities, from the municipal through the bio-regional to the global
-level.
+democracy will eliminate the alienation and apathy that are now rampant in the
+modern city and town, and (as always happens when people are free) unleash a
+flood of innovation in dealing with the social breakdown now afflicting our
+urban wastelands. The gigantic metropolis with its hierarchical and impersonal
+administration, its atomised and isolated "residents," will be transformed
+into a network of humanly scaled participatory communities (usually called
+"communes"), each with its own unique character and forms of self-government,
+which will be co-operatively linked through federation with other communities
+at several levels, from the municipal through the bioregional to the global.
This means that the social perspective of libertarian socialism is as
distinctive as its economic vision. While mainstream socialism is marked by
support for centralised states, anarchists stay true to socialism as equality
and argue that means decentralisation. Thus socialism _"wears two distinct
-faces. When it is said that a man is a Socialist, it is implies that he
+faces. When it is said that a man is a Socialist, it is implied that he
regards the monopoly of private property in the means of production as the
cause of the existing unequal distribution of wealth and its attendant ills .
. . Socialists are divided into the centralising and decentralising parties,
@@ -80,25 +81,24 @@ equality through mass participation and self-management.
Of course, it can (and has) been argued that people are just not interested in
"politics." Further, some claim that this disinterest is why governments exist
-- people delegate their responsibilities and power to others because they
-have better things to do.
-
-Such an argument, however, is flawed on empirical grounds. As we indicated in
-[section B.2.6](secB2.html#secb26), centralisation of power in both the French
-and American revolutions occurred **because** the wealthy few thought that
-working class people were taking **too much** interest in politics and social
+have better things to do. Such an argument, however, is flawed on empirical
+grounds. As we indicated in [section B.2.6](secB2.html#secb26), centralisation
+of power in both the French and American revolutions occurred **because**
+working people were taking **too much** interest in politics and social
issues, not the reverse (_"To attack the central power, to strip it of its
prerogatives, to decentralise, to dissolve authority, would have been to
abandon to the people the control of its affairs, to run the risk of a truly
popular revolution. That is why the bourgeoisie sought to reinforce the
central government even more. . ."_ [Kropotkin, **Words of a Rebel**, p.
-143]). Simply put, the state is centralised to facilitate **minority rule** by
+143]).
+
+Simply put, the state is centralised to facilitate **minority rule** by
excluding the mass of people from taking part in the decision making processes
within society. This is to be expected as social structures do not evolve by
chance -- rather they develop to meet specific needs and requirements. The
specific need of the ruling class is to rule and that means marginalising the
bulk of the population. Its requirement is for minority power and this is
-reflected in the structure of the state (see [section
-H.3.7](secH3.html#sech37)).
+transformed into the structure of the state.
Even if we ignore the historical evidence on this issue, anarchists do not
draw this conclusion from the current apathy that surrounds us. In fact, we
@@ -116,13 +116,15 @@ own decisions (we doubt that workers would subject themselves to unsafe
working conditions, for example). In others, such as the question of personal
morality and acts, a free people would have no interest in (unless it harmed
others, of course). This, again, would reduce the number of issues that would
-be discussed in a free commune. Also, via decentralisation, a free people
-would be mainly discussing local issues, so reducing the complexity of many
-questions and solutions. Wider issues would, of course, be discussed but these
-would be on specific issues and so more focused in their nature than those
-raised in the legislative bodies of the state. So, a combination of
-centralisation and an irrational desire to discuss every and all questions
-also helps make "politics" seem boring and irrelevant.
+be discussed in a free commune.
+
+Also, via decentralisation, a free people would be mainly discussing local
+issues, so reducing the complexity of many questions and solutions. Wider
+issues would, of course, be discussed but these would be on specific issues
+and so more focused in their nature than those raised in the legislative
+bodies of the state. So, a combination of centralisation and an irrational
+desire to discuss every and all questions also helps make "politics" seem
+boring and irrelevant.
As noted above, this result is not an accident and the marginalisation of
"ordinary" people is actually celebrated in bourgeois "democratic" theory. As
@@ -145,9 +147,9 @@ the service of the rich and powerful, a minor footnote regularly forgotten."_
This marginalisation of the public from political life ensures that the
wealthy can be _"left alone"_ to use their power as they see fit. In other
words, such marginalisation is a necessary part of a fully functioning
-capitalist society and so libertarian social structures have to be
-discouraged. Or as Chomsky put it, the _"rabble must be instructed in the
-values of subordination and a narrow quest for personal gain within the
+capitalist society. Hence, under capitalism, libertarian social structures
+have to be discouraged. Or as Chomsky puts it, the _"rabble must be instructed
+in the values of subordination and a narrow quest for personal gain within the
parameters set by the institutions of the masters; meaningful democracy, with
popular association and action, is a threat to be overcome."_ [**Op. Cit.**,
p. 18] This philosophy can be seen in the statement of a US Banker in
@@ -176,24 +178,24 @@ liberating experience. Once people become active subjects, making things
happen in one aspect of their lives, they are less likely to remain passive
objects, allowing things to happen to them, in other aspects.
-All in all, "politics" is far too important an subject to leave to
-politicians, the wealthy and bureaucrats. After all, it is (or, at least, it
-should be) what affects, your friends, community, and, ultimately, the planet
-you live on. Such issues cannot be left to anyone but you.
+All in all, "politics" is far too important a subject to leave to politicians,
+the wealthy and bureaucrats. After all, it is (or, at least, it should be)
+what affects, your friends, community, and, ultimately, the planet you live
+on. Such issues cannot be left to anyone but you.
Hence a meaningful communal life based on self-empowered individuals is a
distinct possibility (indeed, it has repeatedly appeared throughout history).
It is the hierarchical structures in statism and capitalism, marginalising and
-disempowering the majority, which is at the root of the current wide scale
+disempowering the majority, which are at the root of the current wide scale
apathy in the face of increasing social and ecological disruption. Libertarian
socialists therefore call for a radically new form of political system to
replace the centralised nation-state, a form that would be based around
-confederations of self-governing communities: _"**Society is a society of
-societies; a league of leagues of leagues; a commonwealth of commonwealths of
-commonwealths; a republic of republics of republics.** Only there is freedom
-and order, only there is spirit, a spirit which is self-sufficiency and
-community, unity and independence."_ [Gustav Landauer, **For Socialism**, pp.
-125-126]
+confederations of self-governing communities. In other words, in anarchism
+_"**[s]ociety is a society of societies; a league of leagues of leagues; a
+commonwealth of commonwealths of commonwealths; a republic of republics of
+republics.** Only there is freedom and order, only there is spirit, a spirit
+which is self-sufficiency and community, unity and independence."_ [Gustav
+Landauer, **For Socialism**, pp. 125-126]
To create such a system would require dismantling the nation-state and
reconstituting relations between communities on the basis of self-
@@ -209,37 +211,35 @@ anarchists to paint their own pictures of a possible future.
## I.5.1 What are participatory communities?
A key concept in anarchist thought is that of the participatory community.
-Traditionally, these participatory communities are called **communes** in
+Traditionally, these participatory communities were called **communes** in
anarchist theory (_"The basic social and economic cell of the anarchist
society is the free, independent commune"_ [A. Grachev, quoted by Paul Avrich,
-**The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution**, p. 64]).
+**The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution**, p. 64]). These are seen as the
+way people participate in the decisions that affect them and their
+neighbourhoods, regions and, ultimately, planet. These are the means for
+transforming our social environment from one disfigured by economic and
+political power and its needs to one fit for human beings to live and flourish
+in.
+
+The creation of a network of participatory communities ("communes") based on
+self-government through direct, face-to-face democracy in grassroots
+neighbourhood assemblies is the means to that end. As we argued in [section
+I.2.3](secI2.html#seci23) such assemblies will be born in social struggle and
+so reflect the needs of the struggle and those within it so our comments here
+must be considered as generalisations of the salient features of such
+communities and **not** blue-prints.
The reason for the use of the term commune is due to anarchism's roots in
-France where it refers to the lowest level of administrative division in the
-Republic. In France, a commune can be a city of 2 million inhabitants (hence
-the Paris Commune of 1871); a town of 10,000; or just a 10-person hamlet. It
-appeared in the 12th century from Medieval Latin **communia**, which means a
-gathering of people sharing a common life (from Latin **communis**, things
-held in common). Proudhon used the term to describe the social units of a non-
-statist society and subsequent anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin followed
-his lead. As the term "commune", since the 1960s, often refers to "intentional
+France where it refers to a organisation unit of the state which can be of any
+size, from the smallest hamlet to the biggest city (hence the Paris Commune).
+Proudhon used the term to describe the social units of a non-statist society
+and subsequent anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin followed his lead. As the
+term "commune" has, since the 1960s, often referred to "intentional
communities" where people drop out of society and form their own counter-
cultural groups and living spaces we have, in order to avoid confusion,
-decided to use "participatory community" as well (anarchists have also used
+decided to use "participatory community" as well (other anarchists have used
other terms, including _"free municipality"_).
-These community organisations are seen as the way people participate in the
-decisions that affect them and their neighbourhoods, regions and, ultimately,
-planet. These are the means for transforming our social environment from one
-disfigured by economic and political power and its needs to one fit for human
-beings to life and flourish in. The creation of a network of participatory
-communities ("communes") based on self-government through direct, face-to-face
-democracy in grassroots neighbourhood assemblies is the means to that end. As
-we argued in [section I.2.3](secI2.html#seci23) such assemblies will be born
-in social struggle and so reflect the needs of the struggle and those within
-it so our comments here must be considered as generalisations of the salient
-features of such communities and **not** blue-prints.
-
Within anarchist thought, there are two main conceptions of the free commune.
One vision is based on workplace delegates, the other on neighbourhood
assemblies. We will sketch each in turn.
@@ -273,46 +273,44 @@ class actually manages society.
Other anarchists counterpoise neighbourhood assemblies to workers' councils.
These assemblies will be general meetings open to all citizens in every
-neighbourhood, town, and village, and will be the source of public policy for
-all levels of confederal co-ordination. Such "town meetings" will bring people
-directly into the political process and give them an equal voice in the
-decisions that affect their lives. Such anarchists point to the experience of
-the French Revolution of 1789 and the _"sections"_ of the Paris Commune as the
-key example of _"a people governing itself directly -- when possible --
-without intermediaries, without masters."_ It is argued, based on this
-experience, that _"the principles of anarchism . . . dated from 1789, and that
-they had their origin, not in theoretical speculations, but in the **deeds**
-of the Great French Revolution."_ [Peter Kropotkin, **The Great French
-Revolution**, vol. 1, p. 210 and p. 204] Anarchists also point to the clubs
-created during the 1848 Revolution in France and in the Paris Commune of 1871
-not to mention the community assemblies created in Argentina during the revolt
-against neo-liberalism at the start of the 21st century.
-
-Critics of workers' councils point out that not all people work in traditional
-workplaces (many are parents who look after children, for example). By basing
-the commune around the workplace, such people are automatically excluded.
-Moreover, in most modern cities many people do not live near where they work.
-It would mean that local affairs could not be effectively discussed in a
-system of workers' councils as many who take part in the debate are unaffected
-by the decisions reached. In addition, some anarchists argue that workplace
-based systems automatically generate "special interests" and so exclude
-community issues. Only community assemblies can _"transcend the traditional
-special interests of work, workplace, status, and property relations, and
-create a **general** interest based on shared community problems."_ [Murray
-Bookchin, **From Urbanisation to Cities**, p. 254]
-
-However, such communities assemblies can only be valid if they can be
-organised rapidly in order to make decisions and to mandate and recall
-delegates. In the capitalist city, many people work far from where they live
-and so such meetings have to be called for after work or at weekends (thus the
-key need is to reduce the working day/week and to communalise industry). For
-this reason, many anarchists continue to support the workers' council vision
-of the commune, complemented by community assemblies for those who live in an
-area but do not work in a traditional workplace (e.g. parents bringing up
-small children, the old, the sick and so on). It should be noted that this is
-something which the supporters of workers' councils **have** noticed and some
-argue for councils which are delegates from both the inhabitants **and** the
-enterprises of an area.
+neighbourhood, town, and village, and will be the source of and final
+_"authority"_ over public policy for all levels of confederal co-ordination.
+Such _"town meetings"_ will bring ordinary people directly into the political
+process and give them an equal voice in the decisions that affect their lives.
+Such anarchists point to the experience of the French Revolution of 1789 and
+the _"sections"_ of the Paris Commune as the key example of _"a people
+governing itself directly -- when possible -- without intermediaries, without
+masters."_ It is argued, based on this experience, that _"the principles of
+anarchism . . . dated from 1789, and that they had their origin, not in
+theoretical speculations, but in the **deeds** of the Great French
+Revolution."_ [Peter Kropotkin, **The Great French Revolution**, vol. 1, p.
+210 and p. 204]
+
+Critics of workers' councils point out that not all working class people work
+in factories or workplaces. Many are parents who look after children, for
+example. By basing the commune around the workplace, such people are
+automatically excluded. Moreover, in most modern cities many people do not
+live near where they work. It would mean that local affairs could not be
+effectively discussed in a system of workers' councils as many who take part
+in the debate are unaffected by the decisions reached (this is something which
+the supporters of workers' councils **have** noticed and some argue for
+councils which are delegates from both the inhabitants **and** the enterprises
+of an area). In addition, some anarchists argue that workplace based systems
+automatically generate "special interests" and so exclude community issues.
+Only community assemblies can _"transcend the traditional special interests of
+work, workplace, status, and property relations, and create a **general**
+interest based on shared community problems."_ [Murray Bookchin, **From
+Urbanisation to Cities**, p. 254]
+
+However, such community assemblies can only be valid if they can be organised
+rapidly in order to make decisions and to mandate and recall delegates. In the
+capitalist city, many people work far from where they live and so such
+meetings have to be called for after work or at weekends. Thus the key need is
+to reduce the working day/week and to communalise industry. For this reason,
+many anarchists continue to support the workers' council vision of the
+commune, complemented by community assemblies for those who live in an area
+but do not work in a traditional workplace (e.g. parents bring up small
+children, the old, the sick and so on).
These positions are not hard and fast divisions, far from it. Puente, for
example, thought that in the countryside the dominant commune would be _"all
@@ -330,8 +328,8 @@ given community will depend on local conditions, needs and aspirations and it
is useless to draw hard and fast rules. It is likely that some sort of
combination of the two approaches will be used, with workers' councils being
complemented by community assemblies until such time as a reduced working week
-and decentralisation of urban centres make purely community assemblies the
-more realistic option. It is likely that in a fully libertarian society,
+and decentralisation of urban centres will make purely community assemblies
+the more realistic option. It is likely that in a fully libertarian society,
community assemblies will be the dominant communal organisation but in the
period immediately after a revolution this may not be immediately possible.
Objective conditions, rather than predictions, will be the deciding factor.
@@ -340,9 +338,9 @@ community **and** industrial unionism in the class struggle (see sections
[J.5.1](secJ5.html#secj51) and [J.5.2](secJ5.html#secj52)).
Regardless of the exact make up of the commune, it has certain key features.
-It would be free a association, based upon the self-assumed obligation of
-those who join them. In free association, participation is essential simply
-because it is the **only** means by which individuals can collectively govern
+It would be a free association, based upon the self-assumed obligation of
+those who join. In free association, participation is essential simply because
+it is the **only** means by which individuals can collectively govern
themselves (and unless they govern themselves, someone else will). _"As a
unique individual,"_ Stirner argued, _"you can assert yourself alone in
association, because the association does not own you, because you are one who
@@ -380,36 +378,35 @@ created by taking over the current state or creating a new one as doomed to
failure. Instead, he recognised that socialism would only be built using new
organisations that reflect the spirit of socialism (such as freedom, self-
government and so on). He, like Proudhon and Bakunin before him, therefore
-argued that _"**[t]his was the form that the social revolution must take** \--
-the independent commune. . . [whose] inhabitants have decided that they
-**will** communalise the consumption of commodities, their exchange and their
-production."_ [Kropotkin, **Anarchism**, p. 184 and p. 163]
+argued that the _"** was the form that the social revolution must take** \--
+the independent commune" _whose_ "inhabitants have decided that they **will**
+communalise the consumption of commodities, their exchange and their
+production."_ [**Anarchism**, p. 184 and p. 163]
In a nutshell, a participatory community is a free association, based upon the
mass assembly of people who live in a common area, the means by which they
make the decisions that affect them, their communities, bio-regions and the
planet. Their essential task is to provide a forum for raising public issues
-and deciding upon them. Moreover, these assemblies will be a key way of
-generating a community (and community spirit) and building and enriching
-social relationships between individuals and, equally important, of developing
-and enriching individuals by the very process of participation in communal
+and deciding them. Moreover, these assemblies will be a key way of generating
+a community (and community spirit) and building and enriching social
+relationships between individuals and, equally important, of developing and
+enriching individuals by the very process of participation in communal
affairs. By discussing, thinking and listening to others, individuals develop
their own abilities and powers while at the same time managing their own
affairs, so ensuring that no one else does (i.e. they govern themselves and
are no longer governed from above by others). As Kropotkin argued, self-
management has an educational effect on those who practice it:
-> _"The 'permanence' of the general assemblies of the sections \-- that is,
-the possibility of calling the general assembly whenever it was wanted by the
+> _"The 'permanence' of the general assemblies of the sections -- that is, the
+possibility of calling the general assembly whenever it was wanted by the
members of the section and of discussing everything in the general assembly. .
-. will educate every citizen politically. . . The section in permanence \--
-the forum always open -- is the only way . . . to assure an honest and
-intelligent administration."_ [**The Great French Revolution**, vol. 1, pp.
-210-1]
+. will educate every citizen politically. . . The section in permanence -- the
+forum always open -- is the only way . . . to assure an honest and intelligent
+administration."_ [**The Great French Revolution**, vol. 1, pp. 210-1]
As well as integrating the social life of a community and encouraging the
political and social development of its members, these free communes will also
-be integrated into the local ecology. Humanity would life in harmony with
+be integrated into the local ecology. Humanity would live in harmony with
nature as well as with itself -- as discussed in [section E.2](secE2.html),
these would be **eco**-communities part of their local eco-systems with a
balanced mix of agriculture and industry (as described by Kropotkin in his
@@ -451,13 +448,14 @@ able to express the joy of living, by living together."_ [Tom Brown,
The size of the neighbourhood assemblies will vary, but it will probably
fluctuate around some ideal size, discoverable in practice, that will provide
a viable scale of face-to-face interaction and allow for both a variety of
-personal contacts. This suggests that any town or city would itself be a
-confederation of assemblies -- as was, of course, practised very effectively
-in Paris during the Great French Revolution.
+personal contacts and the opportunity to know and form a personal estimation
+of everyone in the neighbourhood. This suggests that any town or city would
+itself be a confederation of assemblies -- as was, of course, practised very
+effectively in Paris during the Great French Revolution.
Such assemblies would meet regularly, at the very least monthly (probably more
-often, particularly during periods which require fast and frequent decision
-making, like a revolution) and deal with a variety of issues. In the words of
+often, particularly during periods which require fast and often decision
+making, like a revolution), and deal with a variety of issues. In the words of
the CNT's resolution on libertarian communism:
> _"the foundation of this administration will be the commune. These communes
@@ -471,7 +469,7 @@ commune will have the duty to concern itself with whatever may be of interest
to the individual._
> _"It will have to oversee organising, running and beautification of the
-settlement. It will see that its inhabitants are housed and that items and
+settlement. It will see that its inhabitants; are housed and that items and
products be made available to them by the producers' unions or associations._
> _"Similarly, it is to concern itself with hygiene, the keeping of communal
@@ -494,12 +492,12 @@ among themselves their internal problems."_ [quoted by Jose Peirats, **The CNT
in the Spanish Revolution**, vol. 1, pp. 106-7]
Thus the communal assembly discusses that which affects the community and
-those within it. As these local community associations will be members of
+those within it. As these local community associations, will be members of
larger communal bodies, the communal assembly will also discuss issues which
affect wider areas, as indicated, and mandate their delegates to discuss them
at confederation assemblies. This system, we must note, was applied with great
-success during numerous revolutions (see [section J.5.4](secJ5.html#secj54))
-and so cannot be dismissed as wishful thinking.
+success during the Spanish revolution (see [section I.8](secI8.html)) and so
+cannot be dismissed as wishful thinking.
However, of course, the actual framework of a free society will be worked out
in practice. As Bakunin correctly argued, society _"can, and must, organise
@@ -510,13 +508,13 @@ will be required. We turn to this in the [next section](secI5.html#seci52).
## I.5.2 Why are confederations of participatory communities needed?
-Since not all issues are local, the community assemblies will also elect
-mandated and recallable delegates to the larger-scale units of self-government
-in order to address issues affecting urban districts, the city or town as a
-whole, the county, the bio-region, and ultimately the entire planet. Thus the
-assemblies will confederate at several levels in order to develop and co-
-ordinate common policies to deal with common problems. In the words of the
-CNT's resolution on libertarian communism:
+Since not all issues are local, the neighbourhood and community assemblies
+will also elect mandated and recallable delegates to the larger-scale units of
+self-government in order to address issues affecting larger areas, such as
+urban districts, the city or town as a whole, the county, the bio-region, and
+ultimately the entire planet. Thus the assemblies will confederate at several
+levels in order to develop and co-ordinate common policies to deal with common
+problems. In the words of the CNT's resolution on libertarian communism:
> _"The inhabitants of a commune are to debate among themselves their internal
problems . . . Federations are to deliberate over major problems affecting a
@@ -571,16 +569,30 @@ goals is not centralisation and those who confuse the two make a serious error
-- they fail to understand the different relations of authority each generates
and confuse obedience with co-operation.
-As in the economic federation of syndicates, the lower levels will control the
-higher, thus eliminating the current pre-emptive powers of centralised
+As in the economic federation of collectives, the lower levels will control
+the higher, thus eliminating the current pre-emptive powers of centralised
government hierarchies. Delegates to higher-level co-ordinating councils or
conferences will be instructed, at every level of confederation, by the
-assemblies they come from on how to deal with any issues. These instructions
-will be binding, committing delegates to a framework of policies within which
-they must act and providing for their recall and the nullification of their
-decisions if they fail to carry out their mandates. Delegates may be selected
-by election and/or sortition (i.e. random selection by lot, as for jury duty
-currently). As Murray Bookchin argued:
+assemblies they represent, on how to deal with any issue. As Proudhon argued
+in March 1848:
+
+_"In the end, we are all voters; we can choose the most worthy._
+
+_"We can do more; we can follow them step-by-step in their legislative acts
+and their votes; we will make them transmit our arguments and our documents;
+we will suggest our will to them, and when we are discontented, we will recall
+and dismiss them. _
+
+_"The choice of talents, the imperative mandate [**mandate impertif**], and
+permanent revocability are the most immediate and incontestable consequences
+of the electoral principle. It is the inevitable program of all democracy."_
+[**Property is Theft!**, p. 273]
+
+So these instructions will be binding, committing delegates to a framework of
+policies within which they must act and providing for their recall and the
+nullification of their decisions if they fail to carry out their mandates.
+Delegates may be selected by election and/or sortition (i.e. random selection
+by lot, as for jury duty currently). As Murray Bookchin argued:
> _"A confederalist view involves a clear distinction between policy making
and the co-ordination and execution of adopted policies. Policy making is
@@ -598,13 +610,7 @@ self-government, and each citizen will have his or her turn to participate in
the co-ordination of public affairs. In other words, self-government will be
the people themselves organised in their community assemblies and their
confederal co-ordinating councils, with any delegates limited to implementing
-policy formulated by the people. Such policies will still be subject to
-approval by the neighbourhood and community assemblies through their right to
-recall their delegates and revoke their decisions. Needless to say, the higher
-the confederation the less often it would meet and the less it would have to
-consider in terms of issues to decide. On such a level, only the most general
-issues and decisions could be reached (in effect, only guidelines which the
-member confederations would apply as they saw fit).
+policy formulated by the people.
In such a system there will, undoubtedly, be the need for certain individuals
to be allocated certain tasks to do. We stress the word "tasks" because their
@@ -633,7 +639,7 @@ localism:
do so. Economically, the wide range of resources that are needed to make many
of our widely used goods preclude self-enclosed insularity and parochialism.
Far from being a liability, this interdependence among communities and regions
-can well be regarded as an asset \-- culturally as well as politically . . .
+can well be regarded as an asset -- culturally as well as politically . . .
Divested of the cultural cross-fertilisation that is often a product of
economic intercourse, the municipality tends to shrink into itself and
disappear into its own civic privatism. Shared needs and resources imply the
@@ -641,20 +647,6 @@ existence of sharing and, with sharing, communication, rejuvenation by new
ideas, and a wider social horizon that yields a wider sensibility to new
experiences."_ [Bookchin, **Op. Cit.**, p. 237]
-Combined with this consideration, we must also raise the issue of economies of
-scale. A given level of confederation may be required to make certain social
-and economic services efficient (we are thinking of economies of scale for
-such social needs as universities, hospitals, and cultural institutions).
-While every commune may have a doctor, nursery, local communal stores and
-small-scale workplaces, not all can have a university, hospital, factories and
-so forth. These would be organised on a wider level, so necessitating the
-appropriate confederation to exist to manage them. Ties between bio-regions or
-larger territories based on the distribution of such things as geographically
-concentrated mineral deposits, climate dependent crops, and production
-facilities that are most efficient when concentrated in one area will unite
-communities confederally on the basis of common material needs as well as
-values.
-
This means that the scale and level of the confederations created by the
communes will be varied and extensive. It would be hard to generalise about
them, particularly as different confederations will exist for different tasks
@@ -662,6 +654,16 @@ and interests. Moreover, any system of communes would start off based on the
existing villages, towns and cities of capitalism. That is unavoidable and
will, of course, help determine the initial scale and level of confederations.
+It seems likely that the scale of the confederation will be dependent on the
+inhabited area in question. A village, for example, would be based on one
+assembly and (minimally) be part of a local confederation covering all the
+villages nearby. In turn, this local confederation would be part of a district
+confederation, and so on up to (ultimately) a continental and world scale.
+Needless to say, the higher the confederation the less often it would meet and
+the less it would have to consider in terms of issues to decide. On such a
+level, only the most general issues and decisions could be reached (in effect,
+only guidelines which the member confederations would apply as they saw fit).
+
In urban areas, the town or city would have to be broken down into
confederations and these confederations would constitute the town or city
assembly of delegates. Given a huge city like London, New York or Mexico City
@@ -673,38 +675,70 @@ metropolis into smaller units, integrated with the local environment. However,
a social revolution will take place in these vast metropolises and so we have
to take them into account in our discussion.
+Thus the issue of size would determine when a new level of confederation would
+be needed. A town or village of several thousand people could be organised
+around the basic level of the commune and it may be that a libertarian
+socialist society would probably form another level of confederation once this
+level has been reached. Such units of confederation would, as noted above,
+include urban districts within today's large cities, small cities, and rural
+districts composed of several nearby towns. The next level of confederation
+would, we can imagine, be dependent on the number of delegates required. After
+a certain number, the confederation assembly may became difficult to manage,
+so implying that another level of confederation is required. This would,
+undoubtedly, be the base for determining the scale and level of confederation,
+ensuring that any confederal assembly can actually manage its activities and
+remain under the control of lower levels.
+
+Combined with this consideration, we must also raise the issue of economies of
+scale. A given level of confederation may be required to make certain social
+and economic services efficient (we are thinking of economies of scale for
+such social needs as universities, hospitals, and cultural institutions).
+While every commune may have a doctor, nursery, local communal stores and
+small-scale workplaces, not all can have a university, hospital, factories and
+so forth. These would be organised on a wider level, so necessitating the
+appropriate confederation to exist to manage them.
+
+Moreover, face-to-face meetings of the whole population are impractical at
+this size. Therefore, the decision making body at this level would be the
+**confederal council,** which would consist of mandated, recallable, and
+rotating delegates from the neighbourhood assemblies. These delegates would
+co-ordinate policies which have been discussed and voted on by the
+neighbourhood assemblies, with the votes being summed across the district to
+determine district policy. The issues to be discussed by these confederal
+meetings/assemblies would be proposed by local communes, the confederal
+council would collate these proposals and submit them to the other communes in
+the confederation for discussion. Thus the flow of decision making would be
+from the bottom up, with the "lowest" bodies having the most power,
+particularly the power to formulate, suggest, correct and, if need be, reject
+decisions made at "higher" levels in the confederation.
+
+Ties between bioregions or larger territories based on the distribution of
+such things as geographically concentrated mineral deposits, climate dependent
+crops, and production facilities that are most efficient when concentrated in
+one area will unite communities confederally on the basis of common material
+needs as well as values. At the bioregional and higher levels of
+confederation, councils of mandated, recallable, and rotating delegates will
+co-ordinate policies at those levels, but such policies will still be subject
+to approval by the neighbourhood and community assemblies through their right
+to recall their delegates and revoke their decisions.
+
In summary, the size and scale of confederations will depend on practical
considerations, based on what people found were optimal sizes for their
neighbourhood assemblies and the needs of co-operation between them, towns,
cities, regions and so on. We cannot, and have no wish, to predict the
development of a free society. Therefore the scale and levels of confederation
-will be decided by those actually creating an anarchist world although it is
-almost certain that levels of confederation would be dependent on the number
-of delegates required. After a certain number, the confederation assembly may
-became difficult to manage, so implying that another level of confederation is
-required. This would, undoubtedly, be the base for determining the scale and
-level of confederation, ensuring that any confederal assembly can actually
-manage its activities and remain under the control of lower levels.
-
-Finally, confederations are required to ensure solidarity can be expressed in
-the unlikely situation of local oppression. After all, history is full of
-local communities which have been oppressive to minorities within them (most
-obviously, the American South) and so confederation is required so that
-members of any such minority can appeal for help and mutual aid to end its
-domination. Equally, though, confederation is needed to ensure that local
-communes can experiment and try out new ideas without having to wait until the
-majority agree to it as would be required in a centralised system.
+will be decided by those actually creating an anarchist world. All we can do
+is make a few suggestions of what seems likely.
Thus confederations of communes are required to co-ordinate joint activity and
-discuss common issues and interests. It is also required to protect
-individual, community and social freedom as well as allowing social
-experimentation and protecting the distinctiveness, dignity, freedom and self-
-management of communities and so society as a whole. Thus _"socialism is
-federalist"_ and _"true federalism, the political organisation of socialism,
-will be attained only when these popular grass-roots institutions [namely,
-_"communes, industrial and agricultural associations"_] are organised in
-progressive stages from the bottom up."_ [Bakunin, **Bakunin on Anarchism**,
-p. 402]
+discuss common issues and interests. Confederation is also required to protect
+individual, community and social freedom, allow social experimentation and
+protect the distinctiveness, dignity, freedom and self-management of
+communities and so society as a whole. This is why _"socialism is federalist"_
+and _"true federalism, the political organisation of socialism, will be
+attained only" _when_ "popular grass-roots institutions"_ like_ "communes,
+industrial and agricultural associations"_ are_ "organised in progressive
+stages from the bottom up."_ [**Bakunin on Anarchism**, p. 402]
## I.5.3 Would confederations produce bureaucrats and politicians?
@@ -712,7 +746,7 @@ Of course, **any** organisation holds the danger that the few who have been
given tasks to perform could misuse their position for personal benefit or,
over time, evolve into a bureaucracy with power over the rest of society. As
such, some critics of social anarchism suggest that a system of communes and
-confederations would simply be a breeding ground for politicians and
+confederation would simply be a breeding ground for politicians and
bureaucrats. This is obviously the case with the state and many generalise
from this experience for **all** forms of social organisation, including the
anarchist commune.
@@ -720,19 +754,18 @@ anarchist commune.
While recognising that this **is** a danger, anarchists are sure that such
developments are unlikely in an anarchy. This is because, based on our
analysis and critique of the state, we have long argued for various
-institutional arrangements which reduce the danger of such things developing.
-These include electing delegates rather than representatives, giving these
-delegates a binding mandate and subjecting them to instant recall by their
-electors. They would **not**, in general, be paid and so, in other words,
-delegates are expected, as far as possible, to remain in their current
-communities and conduct their communal tasks after their usual work. For the
-few exceptions to this that may occur, delegates would receive the average pay
-of their commune, in mutualism and collectivism or, in communism, no special
-access to communal resources. Moreover, it seems likely that regular rotation
-of delegates would be utilised and, perhaps, random selection as happens in
-jury duty today in many countries. Lastly, communes could leave any
-confederation if its structure was becoming obviously misshapen and
-bureaucratic.
+institutional arrangements which, we think, reduce the danger of such things
+developing. These include electing delegates rather than representatives,
+giving these delegates a binding mandate and subjecting them to instant recall
+by their electors. They would **not**, in general, be paid and so delegates
+are expected, as far as possible, to remain in their current communities,
+conducting their communal tasks after their usual work. For the few exceptions
+to this that may occur, delegates would receive the average pay of their
+commune, in mutualism and collectivism or, in communism, no special access to
+communal resources. Moreover, it seems likely that regular rotation of
+delegates would be utilised and, perhaps random selection as happens in jury
+duty today in many countries. Lastly, communes could leave any confederation
+if its structure was becoming obviously misshapen and bureaucratic.
By these methods, delegates to communal bodies would remain under the control
of their electors and not, as in the state, become their masters. Moreover,
@@ -743,9 +776,10 @@ bureaucrats. This means, as Bakunin put it in 1868, that _"the Communal
Council"_ (made up of delegates _"with binding mandates and accountable and
revocable at all times"_) would create _"separate executive committees from
among its membership for each branch of the Commune's revolutionary
-administration."_ [Bakunin, **No Gods, No Masters**, vol. 1, p. 155] Thus
+administration."_ [Bakunin, **No Gods, No Masters**, vol. 1, p. 155] This
would no longer be a body of people, a government, separate from the delegates
-of the people. This, it should be noted, echoed Proudhon's comments from 1848:
+of the people. This, it should be noted, repeats Proudhon's comments from
+1848:
> _"It is up to the National Assembly, through organisation of its committees,
to exercise executive power, just the way it exercises legislative power . . .
@@ -778,21 +812,18 @@ it is based upon _"**distrust of all executive powers.**"_ [**The Great French
Revolution**, Vol. 1, p. 211]
The current means of co-ordinating wide scale activity -- centralism via the
-state -- is a threat to freedom as, to quote Proudhon, _"the citizen divests
-himself of sovereignty, the town and the Department and province above it,
-absorbed by central authority, are no longer anything but agencies under
-direct ministerial control."_ _"The Consequences"_ he continued, _"soon make
-themselves felt: the citizen and the town are deprived of all dignity, the
-state's depredations multiply, and the burden on the taxpayer increases in
-proportion. It is no longer the government that is made for the people; it is
-the people who are made for the government. Power invades everything,
-dominates everything, absorbs everything."_ [**The Principle of Federation**,
-p. 59] In such a regime, the generation of a specific caste of politicians and
-bureaucrats is inevitable.
-
-
-
- Moreover, _"[t]he principle of political centralism is openly opposed to all
+state -- is a threat to freedom as, to quote Proudhon, _"the citizens resign
+their sovereignty" _and_ _the commune_, _the department and province _"are
+absorbed into the central authority, becoming mere agencies under the
+immediate direction of the ministry."_ The consequences are obvious_: "the
+citizen and the commune being deprived of all dignity, the invasions of the
+State increase . . . It is no longer the government that is made for the
+people, it is the people that is made for the government. Power invades
+everything, seizes everything, claims everything."_ [**Property is Theft!**,
+p. 706] In such a regime, the generation of a specific caste of politicians
+and bureaucrats is inevitable.
+
+Moreover, _"[t]he principle of political centralism is openly opposed to all
laws of social progress and of natural evolution. It lies in the nature of
things that every cultural advance is first achieved within a small group and
only gradually finds adoption by society as a whole. Therefore, political
@@ -800,7 +831,7 @@ decentralisation is the best guaranty for the unrestricted possibilities of
new experiments. For such an environment each community is given the
opportunity to carry through the things which it is capable of accomplishing
itself without imposing them on others. Practical experimentation is the
-parent of ever development in society. So long as each distinct is capable of
+parent of every development in society. So long as each district is capable of
effecting the changes within its own sphere which its citizens deem necessary,
the example of each becomes a fructifying influence on the other parts of the
community since they will have the chance to weigh the advantages accruing
@@ -822,23 +853,19 @@ effect no changes without the consent of the central government, the most
progressive districts will be condemned to stagnate while the most backward
districts will set the norm."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 17]
+Little wonder anarchists have always stressed what Kropotkin termed _"local
+action"_ and argued that the libertarian social revolution would _"proceed by
+proclaiming independent Communes" _which _"will endeavour to accomplish the
+economic transformation within . . . their respective surroundings."_ [**Act
+For Yourselves**, p. 43] Thus the advanced communities will inspire the rest
+to follow them by showing them a practical example of what is possible. Only
+decentralisation and confederation can promote the freedom and resulting
+social experimentation which will ensure social progress and make society a
+good place to live.
-
- Little wonder anarchists have always stressed what Kropotkin termed _"local
-action"_ and considered the libertarian social revolution as _"proceed[ing] by
-proclaiming independent Communes which Communes will endeavour to accomplish
-the economic transformation within . . . their respective surroundings."_
-[Peter Kropotkin, **Act For Yourselves**, p. 43] Thus the advanced communities
-will inspire the rest to follow them by showing them a practical example of
-what is possible. Only decentralisation and confederation can promote the
-freedom and resulting social experimentation which will ensure social progress
-and make society a good place to live.
-
-
-
- Moreover, confederation is required to maximise self-management and reduce
-the possibility that delegates will become isolated from the people who
-mandated them. As Rocker explained:
+Moreover, confederation is required to maximise self-management and reduce the
+possibility that delegates will become isolated from the people who mandated
+them. As Rocker explained:
> _"In a smaller community, it is far easier for individuals to observe the
political scene and become acquainted with the issues which have to be
@@ -854,17 +881,13 @@ criticise the conduct of his representative, the class of professional
politicians is given added opportunity to fish in troubled waters."_ [**Op.
Cit.**, p. 17-18]
+These principles, it must be stressed, have been successfully applied on a
+mass scale. For example, this is how anarcho-syndicalist unions operate and,
+as was the case with the CNT in Spain in the 1930s, worked well with over one
+million members. They were also successfully applied during the Spanish
+Revolution and the federations of collectives produced by it.
-
- These principles, it must be stressed, have worked well on a mass scale For
-example, this is how anarcho-syndicalist unions operate and, as was the case
-with the CNT in Spain in the 1930s, worked well with over one million members.
-There were also successfully applied during the Spanish Revolution and the
-federations of collectives produced by it.
-
-
-
- So the way communes and confederations are organised protect society and the
+So the way communes and confederations are organised protect society and the
individual against the dangers of centralisation, from the turning of
delegates into representatives and bureaucrats. As Bakunin stressed, there are
two ways of organising society, _"as it is today, from high to low and from
@@ -880,40 +903,32 @@ mandates, recall, decentralisation, federalism, etc.) which will reduce such
developments to a small, and so manageable, level (if not eliminate it
totally).
+## I.5.4 How will anything ever be decided by all these meetings?
-
- ## I.5.4 How will anything ever be decided by all these meetings?
-
-
-
- Anarchists have little doubt that the confederal structure will be an
+Anarchists have little doubt that the confederal structure will be an
efficient means of decision making and will not be bogged down in endless
-meetings. We have various reasons for thinking this. After all, as Murray
-Bookchin once noted, _"[h]istory does provide us with a number of working
-examples of forms that are largely libertarian. It also provides us with
-examples of confederations and leagues that made the co-ordination of self-
-governing communities feasible without impinging on their autonomy and
-freedom."_ [**The Ecology of Freedom**, p. 436]
-
-
-
- Firstly, we doubt that a free society will spend all its time in assemblies
-or organising confederal conferences. Certain questions are more important
-than others and few anarchists desire to spend all their time in meetings. The
-aim of a free society is to allow individuals to express their desires and
-wants freely -- they cannot do that if they are continually at meetings (or
+meetings. We have various reasons for thinking this. As Murray Bookchin once
+noted: _"History does provide us with a number of working examples of forms
+that are largely libertarian. It also provides us with examples of
+confederations and leagues that made the coordination of self-governing
+communities feasible without impinging on their autonomy and freedom."_ [**The
+Ecology of Freedom**, p. 436]
+
+Firstly, we doubt that a free society will spend all its time in assemblies or
+organising confederal conferences. Certain questions are more important than
+others and few anarchists desire to spend all their time in meetings. The aim
+of a free society is to allow individuals to express their desires and wants
+freely -- they cannot do that if they are continually at meetings (or
preparing for them). So while communal and confederal assemblies will play an
important role in a free society, do not think that they will be occurring all
the time or that anarchists desire to make meetings the focal point of
individual life. Far from it!
-
-
- Thus communal assemblies may occur, say, once a week, or fortnightly or
+Thus communal assemblies may occur, say, once a week, or fortnightly or
monthly in order to discuss truly important issues. There would be no real
desire to meet continuously to discuss every issue under the sun and few
people would tolerate this occurring. This would mean that such meetings would
-current regularly and when important issues needed to be discussed, **not**
+occur regularly and when important issues needed to be discussed, **not**
continuously (although, if required, continuous assembly or daily meetings may
have to be organised in emergency situations but this would be rare). Nor is
it expected that everyone will attend every meeting for _"[w]hat is decisive,
@@ -922,14 +937,12 @@ not the compulsive need to do so."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 435] This suggests that
meetings will be attended by those with a specific interest in an issue being
discussed and so would be focused as a result.
-
-
- Secondly, it is extremely doubtful that a free people would desire waste vast
-amounts of time at such meetings. While important and essential, communal and
-confederal meetings would be functional in the extreme and not forums for hot
-air. It would be the case that those involved in such meetings would quickly
-make their feelings known to time wasters and those who like the sound of
-their own voices. Thus Cornelius Castoriadis:
+Secondly, it is extremely doubtful that a free people would desire to waste
+vast amounts of time at such meetings. While important and essential, communal
+and confederal meetings would be functional in the extreme and not forums for
+hot air. It would be the case that those involved in such meetings would
+quickly make their feelings known to time wasters and those who like the sound
+of their own voices. Thus Cornelius Castoriadis:
> _"It might be claimed that the problem of numbers remains and that people
never would be able to express themselves in a reasonable amount of time. This
@@ -948,126 +961,121 @@ revolutionary assemblies, see Trotsky's account of the Petrograd soviet of
1905 -- or accounts of the meetings of factory representatives in Budapest in
1956."_ [**Political and Social Writings**, vol. 2, pp. 144-5]
-
-
- As we shall see below, this was definitely the case during the Spanish
+As we shall see below, this was definitely the case during the Spanish
Revolution as well.
-
-
- Thirdly, as these assemblies and congresses are concerned purely with joint
-activity and co-ordination. Different associations and syndicates have a
-functional need for co-operation and so would meet more regularly and take
-action on practical activity which affects a specific section of a community
-or group of communities. Not every issue that a member of a community is
-interested in is necessarily best discussed at a meeting of all members of a
-community or at a confederal conference. As Herbert Read suggested, anarchism
-_"proposes to liquidate the bureaucracy first by federal devolution"_ and so
-_"hands over to the syndicates all . . . administrative functions"_ related to
-such things as _"transport, and distribution, health and education."_
-[**Anarchy and Order**, p. 101] Such issues will be mainly discussed in the
-syndicates involved and so community discussion would be focused on important
-issues and themes of general policy rather than the specific and detailed laws
-discussed and implemented by politicians who know nothing about the issues or
-industries at hand.
-
-
-
- By reducing conferences to functional bodies based on concrete issues, the
-problems of endless discussions can be reduced, if not totally eliminated. In
-addition, as functional groups would exist outside of these communal
-confederations (for example, industrial collectives would organise conferences
-about their industry with invited participants from consumer groups), there
-would be a limited agenda in most communal get-togethers.
-
-
-
- In other words, communal assemblies and conferences will have specific, well
+Thirdly, as these assemblies and congresses are concerned purely with joint
+activity and co-ordination, it is likely that they will not be called very
+often. Different associations, syndicates and co-operatives have a functional
+need for co-operation and so would meet more regularly and take action on
+practical activity which affects a specific section of a community or group of
+communities. Not every issue that a member of a community is interested in is
+necessarily best discussed at a meeting of all members of a community or at a
+confederal conference. As Herbert Read suggested, anarchism _"proposes to
+liquidate the bureaucracy first by federal devolution"_ and so _"hands over to
+the syndicates all . . . administrative functions"_ related to such things as
+_"transport, and distribution, health and education."_ [**Anarchy and Order**,
+p. 101] Such issues will be mainly discussed in the syndicates involved and so
+community discussion would be focused on important issues and themes of
+general policy rather than the specific and detailed laws discussed and
+implemented by politicians who know nothing about the issues or industries at
+hand.
+
+In other words, communal assemblies and conferences will have specific, well-
defined agendas, and so there is little danger of "politics" (for want of a
better word!) taking up everyone's time. Hence, far from discussing abstract
-laws and pointless motions on everything under the sun and on which no one
+laws and pointless motions on everything under the sun and which no one
actually knows much about, the issues discussed in these conferences will be
on specific issues which are important to those involved. In addition, the
standard procedure may be to elect a sub-group to investigate an issue and
report back at a later stage with recommendations. The conference can change,
-accept, or reject any proposals. As Kropotkin argued, anarchy would be based
-on _"free agreement, by exchange of letters and proposals, and by congresses
-at which delegates met to discuss well specified points, and to come to an
-agreement about them, but not to make laws. After the congress was over, the
-delegates [would return] . . . not with a law, but with the draft of a
-contract to be accepted or rejected."_ [**Conquest of Bread**, p. 131]
+accept, or reject any proposals.
+As Kropotkin argued, anarchy would be based on _"free agreement, by exchange
+of letters and proposals, and by congresses at which delegates met to discuss
+well specified points, and to come to an agreement about them, but not to make
+laws. After the congress was over, the delegates" _would return_ "not with a
+law, but with the draft of a contract to be accepted or rejected."_
+[**Conquest of Bread**, p. 131]
+By reducing conferences to functional bodies based on concrete issues, the
+problems of endless discussions can be reduced, if not totally eliminated. In
+addition, as functional groups would exist outside of these communal
+confederations (for example, industrial collectives would organise conferences
+about their industry with invited participants from consumer groups), there
+would be a limited agenda in most communal get-togethers.
- Is this system fantasy? Given that such a system has existed and worked at
+The most important issues would be to agree on the guidelines for industrial
+activity, communal investment (e.g. houses, hospitals, etc.) and overall co-
+ordination of large scale communal activities. In this way everyone would be
+part of the commonwealth, deciding on how resources would be used to maximise
+human well-being and ecological survival. The problems associated with _"the
+tyranny of small decisions"_ would be overcome without undermining individual
+freedom. (In fact, a healthy community would enrich and develop individuality
+by encouraging independent and critical thought, social interaction, and
+empowering social institutions based on self-management).
+
+Is such a system fantasy? Given that such a system has existed and worked at
various times, we can safely argue that it is not. Obviously we cannot cover
**every** example, so we point to just two -- revolutionary Paris and Spain.
-
-
- As Murray Bookchin points out, Paris _"in the late eighteenth century was, by
+As Murray Bookchin points out, Paris _"in the late eighteenth century was, by
the standards of that time, one of the largest and economically most complex
cities in Europe: its population approximated a million people . . . Yet in
1793, at the height of the French Revolution, the city was managed
**institutionally** almost entirely by [48] citizen assemblies. . . and its
affairs were co-ordinated by the **Commune** .. . and often, in fact, by the
assemblies themselves, or sections as they were called, which established
-their own interconnections without recourse to the **Commune.**"_
-[_"Transition to the Ecological Society"_, pp. 92-105, **Society and Nature**,
-no. 3, p. 96]
-
-
-
- Here is his account of how communal self-government worked in practice:
-
-> _"What, then, were these little-know forty-eight sections of Paris . . . How
-were they organised? And how did they function?
-
-"Ideologically, the **sectionnaires** (as their members were called) believed
-primarily in sovereignty of the people. This concept of popular sovereignty,
-as Albert Soboul observes, was for them 'not an abstraction, but the concrete
-reality of the people united in sectional assemblies and exercising all their
-rights.' It was in their eyes an inalienable right, or, as the section de la
-Cite declared in November 1792, 'every man who assumes to have sovereignty
-will be regarded as a tyrant, usurper of public liberty and worthy of death.'
-
-"Sovereignty, in effect, was to be enjoyed by **all** citizens, not pre-empted
-by 'representatives' . . . The radical democrats of 1793 thus assumed that
-every adult was, to one degree or another, competent to participate in
+their own interconnections without recourse to the **Commune.**"_ ["Transition
+to the Ecological Society", pp. 92-105, **Society and Nature**, no. 3, p. 96]
+
+Here is his account of how communal self-government worked in practice:
+
+> _"What, then, were these little-known forty-eight sections of Paris . . .
+How were they organised? And how did they function? _
+
+> _"Ideologically, the **sectionnaires** (as their members were called)
+believed primarily in sovereignty of the people. This concept of popular
+sovereignty, as Albert Soboul observes, was for them 'not an abstraction, but
+the concrete reality of the people united in sectional assemblies and
+exercising all their rights.' It was in their eyes an inalienable right, or,
+as the section de la Cite declared in November 1792, 'every man who assumes to
+have sovereignty [over others] will be regarded as a tyrant, usurper of public
+liberty and worthy of death.' _
+
+> _"Sovereignty, in effect, was to be enjoyed by **all** citizens, not pre-
+empted by 'representatives' . . . The radical democrats of 1793 thus assumed
+that every adult was, to one degree or another, competent to participate in
management public affairs. Thus, each section . . . was structured around a
**face-to-face democracy**: basically a general assembly of the people that
formed the most important deliberative body of a section, and served as the
incarnation of popular power in a given part of the city . . . each elected
six deputies to the Commune, presumably for the purpose merely of co-
-ordinating all the sections in the city of Paris.
+ordinating all the sections in the city of Paris. _
-"Each section also had its own various administrative committees, whose
+> _"Each section also had its own various administrative committees, whose
members were also recruited from the general assembly."_ [**The Third
Revolution**, vol. 1, p. 319]
+Little wonder Kropotkin argued that these "sections" showed _"the principles
+of anarchism"_ had_ "their origin, not in theoretical speculations, but in the
+**deeds** of the Great French Revolution"_ [**The Great French Revolution**,
+vol. 1, p. 204]
-
- Little wonder Kropotkin argued that these "sections" showed _"the principles
-of anarchism . . . had their origin, not in theoretical speculations, but in
-the **deeds** of the Great French Revolution"_ [**The Great French
-Revolution**, vol. 1, p. 204]
-
-
-
- Communal self-government was also practised, and on a far wider scale, in
-revolutionary Spain where workers and peasants formed communes and federations
-of communes (see [section I.8](secI8.html) for fuller details). Gaston Leval
-summarised the experience:
+Communal self-government was also practised, and on a far wider scale, in
+revolutionary Spain. All across Republican Spain, workers and peasants formed
+communes and federations of communes (see [section I.8](secI8.html) for fuller
+details). Gaston Leval summarised the experience:
> _"There was, in the organisation set in motion by the Spanish Revolution and
by the libertarian movement, which was its mainspring, a structuring from the
bottom to the top, which corresponds to a real federation and true democracy .
-. . the controlling and co-ordinating Comites, clearly indispensable, do not
-go outside the organisation that has chosen them, they remain in their midst,
-always controllable by and accessible to the members. If any individuals
-contradict by their actions their mandates, it is possible to call them to
-order, to reprimand them, to replace them. It is only by and in such a system
-that the 'majority lays down the law.'_
+. . the controlling and co-ordinating **Comités** [Committees], clearly
+indispensable, do not go outside the organisation that has chosen them, **they
+remain in their midst**, always controllable by and accessible to the members.
+If any individuals contradict by their actions their mandates, it is possible
+to call them to order, to reprimand them, to replace them. It is only by and
+in such a system that the 'majority lays down the law.'_
> _"The syndical assemblies were the expression and the practice of
libertarian democracy, a democracy having nothing in common with the democracy
@@ -1095,16 +1103,16 @@ awareness of the duties, responsibilities of each spread all the time to a
determining and decisive degree . . . _
> _"The practice of this democracy also extended to the agricultural regions .
-. . the decision to nominate a local management Comite for the villages was
-taken by general meetings of the inhabitants of villages, how the delegates in
-the different essential tasks which demanded an indispensable co-ordination of
-activities were proposed and elected by the whole assembled population. But it
-is worth adding and underlining that in all the collectivised villages and all
-the partially collectivised villages, in the 400 Collectives in Aragon, in the
-900 in the Levante region, in the 300 in the Castilian region, to mention only
-the large groupings . . . the population was called together weekly,
-fortnightly or monthly and kept fully informed of everything concerning the
-commonweal. _
+. . the decision to nominate a local management **Comité** for the villages
+was taken by general meetings of the inhabitants of villages, how the
+delegates in the different essential tasks which demanded an indispensable co-
+ordination of activities were proposed and elected by the whole assembled
+population. But it is worth adding and underlining that in all the
+collectivised villages and all the partially collectivised villages, in the
+400 Collectives in Aragon, in the 900 in the Levante region, in the 300 in the
+Castilian region, to mention only the large groupings . . . the population was
+called together weekly, fortnightly or monthly and kept fully informed of
+everything concerning the commonweal. _
> _"This writer was present at a number of these assemblies in Aragon, where
the reports on the various questions making up the agenda allowed the
@@ -1116,36 +1124,27 @@ democratically elected without the possibility of objecting, did not happen
there. The assemblies were public, the objections, the proposals publicly
discussed, everybody being free, as in the syndical assemblies, to participate
in the discussions, to criticise, propose, etc. Democracy extended to the
-whole of social life."_ [**Collectives in the Spanish Revolution**, pp. 205-7]
-
+whole of social life."_ [**Collectives in the Spanish Revolution**, pp. 204-7]
-
- These collectives organised federations embracing thousands of communes and
+These collectives organised federations embracing thousands of communes and
workplaces, whole branches of industry, hundreds of thousands of people and
whole regions of Spain. As such, it was a striking confirmation of Proudhon's
argument that under federalism _"the sovereignty of the contracting parties .
. . serves as a positive guarantee of the liberty of . . . communes and
individuals. So, no longer do we have the abstraction of people's sovereignty
-. . . but an effective sovereignty of the labouring masses."_ The _"labouring
-masses are actually, positively and effectively sovereign: how could they not
-be when the economic organism -- labour, capital, property and assets --
-belongs to them entirely . . . ?"_ [**Anarchism**, vol. 1, Robert Graham
-(ed.), p. 75]
-
-
+. . . but an effective sovereignty of the labouring masses"_and_ "the
+labouring masses are actually, positively and effectively sovereign: how could
+they not be when the economic organism -- labour, capital, property and assets
+-- belongs to them entirely."_ [**Property is Theft!**, pp. 760-1]
- In other words, it **is** possible. It **has** worked. With the massive
+> In other words, it **is** possible. It **has** worked. With the massive
improvements in communication technology it is even more viable than before.
Whether or not we reach such a self-managed society depends on whether we
desire to be free or not.
+## I.5.5 Aren't participatory communities and confederations just new states?
-
- ## I.5.5 Aren't participatory communities and confederations just new states?
-
-
-
- No. As we have seen in [section B.2](secB2.html), a state can be defined both
+No. As we have seen in [section B.2](secB2.html), a state can be defined both
by its structure and its function. As far as structure is concerned, a state
involves the politico-military and economic domination of a certain
geographical territory by a ruling elite, based on the delegation of power
@@ -1153,57 +1152,49 @@ into the hands of the few, resulting in hierarchy (centralised authority). As
such, it would be a massive theoretical error to confuse any form of social
organisation with the specific form which is the state.
-
-
- As we have discussed in [section H.3.7](secH3.html#sech37), the state has
-evolved its specific characteristics as a result of its function as an
-instrument of class rule. If a social organisation does not have these
-characteristics then it is not a state. Thus, for anarchists, _"the essence of
-the state"_ is _"centralised power **or to put it another way the coercive
-authority** of which the state enjoys the monopoly, in that organisation of
-violence know as 'government'; in the hierarchical despotism, juridical,
-police and military despotism that imposes laws on everyone."_ [Luigi Fabbri,
-_"Anarchy and 'Scientific' Communism"_, in **The Poverty of Statism**, pp.
-13-49, Albert Meltzer (ed.), pp. 24-5] This is why Malatesta stressed that the
-state _"means the delegation of power, that is the abdication of initiative
-and sovereignty of all into the hands of a few."_ [**Anarchy**, p. 41] If a
-social organisation is **not** centralised and top-down then it is not a
-state.
-
-
-
- In a system of federated participatory communities there is no ruling elite,
+As we have discussed in [section H.3.7](secH3.html#sech37), the state has
+evolved its specific characteristics as a result of its role as an instrument
+of class rule. If a social organisation does not have these characteristics
+then it is not a state. Thus, for anarchists, _"the essence of the state"_ is
+_"centralised power **or to put it another way the coercive authority** of
+which the state enjoys the monopoly, in that organisation of violence known as
+'government'; in the hierarchical despotism, juridical, police and military
+despotism that imposes laws on everyone."_ [Luigi Fabbri, _"Anarchy and
+'Scientific' Communism"_, in **The Poverty of Statism**, pp. 13-49, Albert
+Meltzer (ed.), pp. 24-5] This is why Malatesta stressed that the state _"means
+the delegation of power, that is the abdication of initiative and sovereignty
+of all into the hands of a few."_ [**Anarchy**, p. 41] If a social
+organisation is **not** centralised and top-down then it is not a state.
+
+In a system of federated participatory communities there is no ruling elite,
and thus no hierarchy, because power is retained by the lowest-level units of
confederation through their use of direct democracy and mandated, rotating,
-and recallable delegates to confederal bodies. This eliminates the problem in
-"representative" democratic systems of the delegation of power leading to the
-elected officials becoming isolated from and beyond the control of the mass of
-people who elected them. An anarchist society would make decisions by _"means
-of congresses, composed of delegates, who discuss among themselves, and submit
-**proposals**, not **laws**, to their constituents"_ [Kropotkin, **The
-Conquest of Bread**, p. 135] So it is based on **self**-government, **not**
-representative government (and its inevitable bureaucracy). As Proudhon put
-it, _"the federal system is the contrary of hierarchy or administrative and
-governmental centralisation"_ and so _"a confederation is not exactly a state
-. . . What is called federal authority . . . is no longer a government; it is
-an agency created . . . for the joint execution of certain functions"_. [**The
-Principle of Federation**, pp. 40-1]
-
-
-
- Perhaps it will be objected that communal decision making is just a form of
+and recallable delegates to meetings of higher-level confederal bodies. This
+eliminates the problem in "representative" democratic systems of the
+delegation of power leading to the elected officials becoming isolated from
+and beyond the control of the mass of people who elected them. As Kropotkin
+pointed out, an anarchist society would make decisions by _"means of
+congresses, composed of delegates, who discuss among themselves, and submit
+**proposals**, not **laws**, to their constituents"_ [**The Conquest of
+Bread**, p. 135] So it is based on **self**-government, **not** representative
+government (and its inevitable bureaucracy). As Proudhon put it, _"the
+federative system is the opposite of administrative and governmental hierarchy
+or centralisation"_ and so _"a confederation is not precisely a state . . .
+What we call a federative Authority, finally, is not a government; it is an
+agency created . . . for the common running of some services"_. [**Property is
+Theft!**, pp. 697-8]
+
+Perhaps it will be objected that communal decision making is just a form of
"statism" based on direct, as opposed to representative, democracy --
-"statist" because the individual is still be subject to the rules of the
+"statist" because the individual is still being subject to the rules of the
majority and so is not free. This objection, however, confuses statism with
free agreement (i.e. co-operation). Since participatory communities, like
productive syndicates, are voluntary associations, the decisions they make are
based on self-assumed obligations (see [section A.2.11](secA2.html#seca211)),
and dissenters can leave the association if they so desire. Thus communes are
-no more "statist" than the act of promising and keeping your word.
+no more "statist" than the act of promising and keeping ones word.
-
-
- In addition, in a free society, dissent and direct action can be used by
+In addition, in a free society, dissent and direct action can be used by
minorities to press their case (or defend their freedom) as well as debate. As
Carole Pateman argues, _"[p]olitical disobedience is merely one possible
expression of the active citizenship on which a self-managing democracy is
@@ -1219,14 +1210,12 @@ a society based on voluntary agreements and self-management would, out of
interpersonal empathy and self-interest, create a society that encouraged
individuality and respect for minorities.
-
-
- Therefore, a commune's participatory nature is the opposite of statism. April
+Therefore, a commune's participatory nature is the opposite of statism. April
Carter agrees, stating that _"commitment to direct democracy or anarchy in the
socio-political sphere is incompatible with political authority"_ and that the
_"only authority that can exist in a direct democracy is the collective
'authority' vested in the body politic . . . it is doubtful if authority can
-be created by a group of equals who reach decisions be a process of mutual
+be created by a group of equals who reach decisions by a process of mutual
persuasion."_ [**Authority and Democracy**, p. 69 and p. 380] Which echoes, we
must note, Proudhon's comment that _"the true meaning of the word
'democracy'"_ was the _"dismissal of government."_ [**No Gods, No Masters**,
@@ -1241,13 +1230,11 @@ Revolution the masses _"practic[ed] what was to be described later as Direct
Self-Government"_ and expressed _"the principles of anarchism."_ [**The Great
French Revolution**, vol. 1, p. 200 and p. 204]
-
-
- Anarchists argue that individuals and the institutions they create cannot be
+Anarchists argue that individuals and the institutions they create cannot be
considered in isolation. Authoritarian institutions will create individuals
-who have a servile nature, who cannot govern themselves. We, therefore,
-consider it common sense that individuals, in order to be free, **must** have
-take part in determining the general agreements they make with their
+who have a servile nature, who cannot govern themselves. Anarchists,
+therefore, consider it common sense that individuals, in order to be free,
+**must** take part in determining the general agreements they make with their
neighbours which give form to their communities. Otherwise, a free society
could not exist and individuals would be subject to rules others make **for**
them (following orders is hardly libertarian). Somewhat ironically, those who
@@ -1263,9 +1250,7 @@ its social roots is as meaningless as to speak of a society that contains no
people or institutions."_ [**Anarchism, Marxism, and the Future of the Left**,
p. 154]
-
-
- Society cannot be avoided and _"[u]nless everyone is to be psychologically
+Society cannot be avoided and _"[u]nless everyone is to be psychologically
homogeneous and society's interests so uniform in character that dissent is
simply meaningless, there must be room for conflicting proposals, discussion,
rational explication and majority decisions - in short, democracy."_
@@ -1273,32 +1258,28 @@ rational explication and majority decisions - in short, democracy."_
liberty (such as many supporters of capitalism claim to do) usually also see
the need for laws and hierarchical authority (particularly in the workplace).
This is unsurprising, as such authority is the only means left by which
-collective activity can be co-ordinated if self-management is rejected (which
-is ironic as the resulting institutions, such as a capitalist company, are far
-more statist than self-managed ones).
-
-
-
- So, far from being new states by which one section of a community
-(historically, almost always a wealthy elite) imposes its ethical standards on
-another, the anarchist commune is just a public forum. In this forum, issues
-of community interest (for example, management of the commons, control of
-communalised economic activity, and so forth) are discussed and policy agreed
-upon. In addition, interests beyond a local area are also discussed and
-delegates for confederal conferences are mandated with the wishes of the
-community. Hence, administration of things replaces government of people, with
-the community of communities existing to ensure that the interests of all are
-managed by all and that liberty, justice and equality for all are more than
-just ideals. Moreover, a free society would be one without professional bodies
-of armed people (i.e., there would be no armed forces or police). It would not
-have the means of enforcing the decisions of conferences and communes which
-reflected the interests of a few (would-be politicians or bureaucrats) rather
-than popular opinion.
-
-
-
- Of course, it could be argued that popular opinion can be as oppressive as
-any state, a possibility anarchists are aware of and take steps to combat.
+collective activity can be co-ordinated if self-management is rejected
+(usually as "statist", which is ironic as the resulting institutions, such as
+a capitalist company, are far more statist than self-managed ones).
+
+So, far from being new states by which one section of a community
+(historically, almost always a wealthy ruling minority) imposes its ethical
+standards on another, the anarchist commune is just a public forum. In this
+forum, issues of community interest (for example, management of the commons,
+control of communalised economic activity, and so forth) are discussed and
+policy agreed upon. In addition, interests beyond a local area are also
+discussed and delegates for confederal conferences are mandated with the
+wishes of the community. Hence, administration of things replaces government
+of people, with the community of communities existing to ensure that the
+interests of all are managed by all and that liberty, justice and equality for
+all are more than just ideals. Moreover, a free society would be one without
+professional bodies of armed people (i.e., there would be no armed forces or
+police). It would not have the means of enforcing the decisions of conferences
+and communes which reflected the interests of a few (would-be politicians or
+bureaucrats) rather than popular opinion.
+
+Of course, it could be argued that popular opinion can be as oppressive as any
+state, a possibility anarchists are aware of and take steps to combat.
Remember, the communities and confederations of a free society would be made
up of free people. They would **not** be too concerned with the personal
behaviour of others unless it impacted on their own lives. As such, they would
@@ -1306,40 +1287,33 @@ not be seeking to restrict the liberty of those who live with them. A
community, therefore, is unlikely to make decisions like, for example,
outlawing homosexuality or censoring the press. This is not to say that there
is no danger of majorities abusing minorities. As we discuss in the [next
-section](secI5.html#seci56), anarchists suggest means of reducing it, even
-eliminating it. Suffice to say, a free society would seek to encourage
-diversity and so leave minorities free to live their own lives (assuming they
-are not oppressing or exploiting others, of course).
-
-
+section](secI5.html#seci56), anarchists are aware of this possibility and
+suggest means of reducing it, even eliminating it. Suffice to say, a free
+society would seek to encourage diversity and so leave minorities free to live
+their own lives (assuming they are not oppressing or exploiting others, of
+course).
- For these reasons, a libertarian-socialist society would not have a state.
+For these reasons, a libertarian-socialist society would not have a state.
Structurally, it would be based on egalitarian and decentralised institutions,
the direct opposite of the hierarchical and centralised state. Functionally,
it would be based on mass participation of all to ensure they manage their own
-affairs rather than, as in a state, exclusion of the many to ensure the rule
-of an elite. The communes and confederations of a libertarian system are not
-just states with new names but rather the forums by which free people manage
-their own affairs rather than being ruled by a state and its politicians and
-bureaucrats.
-
-
-
- This is why Proudhon argued that _"under the democratic constitution . . .
-the political and the economic are . . . one and the same system . . . based
-upon a single principle, mutuality . . . and form this vast humanitarian
-organism of which nothing previously could give the idea . . . [I]s this not
-the system of the old society turned upside down"_? [**Anarchism**, vol. 1,
-Robert Graham (ed.), pp. 74-5]
-
-
-
- ## I.5.6 Won't there be a danger of a _"tyranny of the majority"_ under
+affairs rather than, in a state, exclusion of the many to ensure the rule by
+an elite (usually the wealthy). The communes and confederations of a
+libertarian system are not just states with new names but rather the forums by
+which free people manage their own affairs rather than being ruled by a state
+and its politicians and bureaucrats.
+
+This is why Proudhon, for example, argued that _"under the democratic
+constitution . . . the political and the economic are . . . one and the same
+system . . . based upon a single principle, mutuality . . . and form this vast
+humanitarian organism of which nothing previously could give the idea."_ And
+so _"is this not the system of the old society turned upside down"_?
+[**Property is Theft!**, p. 760 and p. 761]
+
+## I.5.6 Won't there be a danger of a _"tyranny of the majority"_ under
libertarian socialism?
-
-
- While the _"tyranny of the majority"_ objection does contain an important
+While the _"tyranny of the majority"_ objection does contain an important
point, it is often raised for self-serving reasons. This is because those who
have historically raised the issue (for example, and as discussed in [section
B.2.5](secB2.html#secb25), creators of the 1789 American constitution like
@@ -1352,15 +1326,13 @@ favour of rule by the few -- particularly as its proponents (such as the
propertarian right and other defenders of capitalism) have no problem with the
autocratic rule of property owners over their wage-slaves!
-
-
- However, as noted, the objection to majority rule **does** contain a valid
+However, as noted, the objection to majority rule **does** contain a valid
point and one which anarchists have addressed -- namely, what about minority
freedom within a self-managed society? So this is a danger, one raised by
people who are most definitely **not** seeking minority rule. For example,
-someone who was sympathetic to anarchism, George Orwell, suggested:
+someone who was sympathetic to anarchism, George Orwell, expressed this fear:
-> _"the totalitarian tendency . . . is explicit in the anarchist . . . vision
+> _"the totalitarian tendency which is explicit in the anarchist . . . vision
of Society. In a Society in which there is no law, and in theory no
compulsion, the only arbiter of behaviour is public opinion. But pubic
opinion, because of the tremendous urge to conformity in gregarious animals,
@@ -1370,9 +1342,7 @@ eccentricity: when they are supposedly governed by 'love' or 'reason', he is
under continuous pressure to make him behave and think in exactly the same way
as everyone else."_ [**Inside the Whale and Other Essays**, p. 132]
-
-
- There is, of course, this danger in **any** society, be its decision making
+There is, of course, this danger in **any** society, be its decision making
structure direct (anarchy) or indirect (by some form of government). However,
this does not really address the issue to point out this obvious fact.
Anarchists are at the forefront in expressing concern about it, recognising
@@ -1387,16 +1357,14 @@ special mission of being vigilant custodians of freedom, against all aspirants
to power and against the possible tyranny of the majority."_ [**Errico
Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, p. 161]
-
-
- However, rather than draw elitist conclusions from this fact of life under
+However, rather than draw elitist conclusions from this fact of life under
capitalism and urge forms of government and organisation which restrict
popular participation (and promote rule, and tyranny, by the few) -- as
classical liberals do -- libertarians argue that only a process of self-
liberation through struggle and participation can break up the mass into free,
self-managing individuals (as discussed in [section
H.2.11](secH2.html#sech211) attempts by Leninists to portray anarchists as
-elitists are both hypocritical and false). Moreover, we also argue that
+elitists are both hypocritical and wrong). Moreover, we also argue that
participation and self-management is the only way that majorities can come to
see the point of minority ideas and for seeing the importance of protecting
minority freedoms. This means that any attempt to restrict participation in
@@ -1411,45 +1379,39 @@ that experience of a participatory authority structure might also be effective
in diminishing tendencies towards non-democratic attitudes in the
individual."_ [**Participation and Democratic Theory**, p. 105]
+However, while there is cause for concern (and anarchists are at the forefront
+in expressing it), the _"tyranny of the majority"_ objection fails to take
+note of the vast difference between direct and representative forms of
+democracy.
-
- So while there is cause for concern (and anarchists are at the forefront in
-expressing it), the _"tyranny of the majority"_ objection fails to take note
-of the vast difference between direct and representative forms of democracy.
-
-
-
- In the current system, as we pointed out in [section B.5](secB5.html), voters
+In the current system, as we pointed out in [section B.5](secB5.html), voters
are mere passive spectators of occasional, staged, and highly rehearsed
debates among candidates pre-selected by the corporate elite, who pay for
-campaign expenses. The public is expected to choose simply on the basis of
-political ads and news sound bites. Once the choice is made, cumbersome and
-ineffective recall procedures insure that elected representatives can act more
-or less as they (or rather, their wealthy sponsors) please. The function,
-then, of the electorate in bourgeois "representative government" is
-ratification of "choices" that have been **already made for them**! This is
-also the case in referendum, where the people _"are not to **propose** the
-questions: the government is to do that. Only to questions **proposed** by the
-government, the people may answer **Yes** or **No**, like a child in the
-catechism. The people will not even have a chance to make amendments."_
-[Proudhon, **General Idea of the Revolution**, p. 148]
-
-
-
- By contrast, in a libertarian society decisions are made following public
-discussion in community assemblies open to all. After decisions have been
-reached, outvoted minorities -- even minorities of one -- still have ample
-opportunity to present reasoned and persuasive counter-arguments to try to
-change the decision. This process of debate, disagreement, challenge, and
+campaign expenses. More often the public is expected to choose simply on the
+basis of political ads and news sound bites. Once the choice is made,
+cumbersome and ineffective recall procedures insure that elected
+representatives can act more or less as they (or rather, their wealthy
+sponsors) please. The function, then, of the electorate in bourgeois
+"representative government" is ratification of "choices" that have been
+**already made for them**! This is also the case in referenda, where the
+people _"are not to **propose** the questions: the government is to do that.
+Only to questions **proposed** by the government, the people may answer
+**Yes** or **No**, like a child in the catechism. The people will not even
+have a chance to make amendments."_ [Proudhon, **General Idea of the
+Revolution**, p. 148]
+
+By contrast, in a direct, libertarian democracy, decisions are made following
+public discussion in community assemblies open to all. After decisions have
+been reached, outvoted minorities -- even minorities of one -- still have
+ample opportunity to present reasoned and persuasive counter-arguments to try
+to change the decision. This process of debate, disagreement, challenge, and
counter-challenge, which goes on even after the defeated minority has
temporarily acquiesced in the decision of the majority, is virtually absent in
the representative system, where _"tyranny of the majority"_ is truly a
problem. In addition, minorities can secede from an association if the
decision reached by it are truly offensive to them.
-
-
- And let us not forget that in all likelihood, issues of personal conduct or
+And let us not forget that in all likelihood, issues of personal conduct or
activity will not be discussed in the neighbourhood assemblies. Why? Because
we are talking about a society in which most people consider themselves to be
unique, free individuals, who would thus recognise and act to protect the
@@ -1460,40 +1422,35 @@ existence of authoritarian social relationships -- relationships that will be
dismantled under libertarian socialism -- and the type of person they create
rather than some innate human flaw.
-
-
- Thus there will be vast areas of life in a libertarian socialist community
+Thus there will be vast areas of life in a libertarian socialist community
which are none of other people's business. Anarchists have always stressed the
importance of personal space and "private" areas. Indeed, for Kropotkin, the
-failure of many "utopian" communities directly flowed from a lack of these and
-_"the desire to manage the community after the model of a family, to make it
-'the great family.' They lived all in the same house and were thus forced to
-continuously meet the same 'brethren and sisters.' It is already difficult
-often for two real brothers to live together in the same house, and family
-life is not always harmonious; so it was a fundamental error to impose on all
-the 'great family' instead of trying, on the contrary, to guarantee as much
-freedom and home life to each individual."_ In an anarchist society, continual
-agreement on all issues is not desired. The members of a free society _"need
-only agree as to some advantageous method of common work, and are free
-otherwise to live in their own way."_ [**Small Communal Experiments and Why
-they Fail**, pp. 8-9 and p. 22]
-
-
-
- Which brings us to another key point. When anarchists talk of democratising
-or communalising the household or any other association, we do not mean that
-it should be stripped of its private status and become open to regulation by
-general voting in a single, universal public sphere. Rather, we mean that
-households and other relationships should take in libertarian characteristics
-and be consistent with the liberty of all its members. Thus a society based on
-self-management does not imply the destruction of private spheres of activity
--- it implies the extension of anarchist principles into all spheres of life,
-both private and public. It does not mean the subordination of the private by
-the public, or vice versa.
-
-
-
- As an example, we can point to inter-personal relationships. Anarchists are
+failure of many "utopian" communities directly flowed from a lack personal
+space. One of the mistakes made by such intentional communities within
+capitalism was _"the desire to manage the community after the model of a
+family, to make it 'the great family.' They lived all in the same house and
+were thus forced to continuously meet the same 'brethren and sisters.' It is
+already difficult often for two real brothers to live together in the same
+house, and family life is not always harmonious; so it was a fundamental error
+to impose on all the 'great family' instead of trying, on the contrary, to
+guarantee as much freedom and home life to each individual."_ Thus in an
+anarchist society, continual agreement on all issues is not desired. The
+members of a free society _"need only agree as to some advantageous method of
+common work, and are free otherwise to live in their own way."_ [**Small
+Communal Experiments and Why they Fail**, pp. 8-9 and p. 22]
+
+Which brings us to another key point. When anarchists talk of democratising or
+communalising the household or any other association, we do not mean that it
+should be stripped of its private status and become open to the "tyranny of
+the majority" or regulation by general voting in a single, universal public
+sphere. Rather, we mean that households and other relationships should take in
+libertarian characteristics and be consistent with the liberty of all its
+members. Thus a society based on self-management does not imply the
+destruction of private spheres of activity -- it implies the extension of
+anarchist principles into all spheres of life, both private and public. It
+does not mean the subordination of the private by the public, or vice versa.
+
+As an example, we can point to inter-personal relationships. Anarchists are
opposed to the patriarchy implicit (and, in the past, explicit) in marriage
and suggest free love as an alternative. As discussed in [section H.4.2
](secH4.html#sech42), free love means that both people in a relationship have
@@ -1501,25 +1458,21 @@ equal decision making power rather than, as in marriage, the woman becoming
the property of the husband. Thus, self-management in this context does not
mean the end of interpersonal relationships by the imposition of the commune
onto all spheres of life but, obviously, the creation of interpersonal
-relationships based on equality and liberty.
-
-
+relationships based on equality and liberty within them.
- So it is highly unlikely that the _"tyranny of the majority"_ will exert
-itself where most rightly fear it -- in their homes, how they act with
-friends, their personal space, how they act, and so on. As long as individual
-freedom and rights are protected, it is of little concern what people get up
-to (included the rights of children, who are also individuals and **not** the
+So, in other words, it is highly unlikely that the "tyranny of the majority"
+will exert itself where most rightly fear it -- in their homes, how they act
+with friends, their personal space, and so on. As long as individual freedom
+and rights are protected, it is of little concern what people get up to
+(including the rights of children, who are also individuals and **not** the
property of their parents). Direct democracy in anarchist theory is purely
-concerned with common resources, their use and management. It is highly
+concerned with common resources and their use and management. It is highly
unlikely that a free society would debate issues of personal behaviour or
morality and instead would leave them to those directly affected by them -- as
it should be, as we all need personal space and experimentation to find the
way of life that best suits us.
-
-
- Today an authoritarian worldview, characterised by an inability to think
+Today an authoritarian worldview, characterised by an inability to think
beyond the categories of domination and submission, is imparted by
conditioning in the family, schools, religious institutions, clubs,
fraternities, the army, etc., and produces a type of personality that is
@@ -1541,35 +1494,31 @@ to dissolve the institutional and traditional sources of the
authoritarian/submissive type of personality, and thus to free "public
opinion" of its current potential for intolerance.
-
-
- This is not to suggest that such a society of free individuals will not
-become stuck in routine and, over time, become oppressive to minorities who
-question certain aspects of public opinion or how it works. Public opinion and
-social organisations can evolve over generations in ways which no one expects.
-The best know, albeit fictional, example is in Ursula Le Guin's classic
-science-fiction book **The Dispossessed** where the anarchist society of
-Anarres has developed something of a weak informal bureaucracy due to the
-routine of everyday life and the unconscious pressures of public opinion. When
-the protagonist, Shevek, and his friends try to point this out and do
-something about (including Shevek leaving Anarres for the capitalist world of
-Urras), most on the planet are extremely hostile to this activity (precisely
-because it is going against the normal routine). Significantly, though, a
-large minority end up supporting their activities, activities which can occur
+This is not to suggest that such a society of free individuals will not become
+stuck in routine and, over time, become oppressive to minorities who question
+certain aspects of public opinion or how it works. Public opinion and social
+organisations can evolve over generations in ways which no one expects. The
+best known, albeit fictional, example is in Ursula Le Guin's classic science-
+fiction book **The Dispossessed** where the anarchist society of Anarres has
+developed something of a weak informal bureaucracy due to the routine of
+everyday life and the unconscious pressures of public opinion. When the
+protagonist, Shevek, and his friends try to point this out and do something
+about (including Shevek leaving Anarres for the capitalist world of Urras),
+most on the planet are extremely hostile to this activity (precisely because
+it is going against the normal routine). Significantly, though, a large
+minority end up supporting their activities, activities which can occur
precisely **because** the society is still fundamentally communist-anarchist
and so the dissenters have a rich libertarian tradition and sensibility to
base their direct action on as well having use-rights over the resources they
need to propagate their ideas and practice their protest.
-
-
- In the real world, the best example would be the **Mujeres Libres** in the
-Spanish anarchist movement during the 1930s (see Martha A. Ackelsberg's
-classic **Free Women Of Spain: Anarchism And The Struggle For The Emancipation
-Of Women** for more on this important movement). This organisation arose in
-response to the fact that many male anarchists, while expressing a theoretical
-commitment to sexual equality, were as sexist as the system they were fighting
-against and so they subconsciously reflected the oppressive public opinion of
+In the real world, the best example would be the **Mujeres Libres** in Spanish
+anarchist movement in the 1930s (see Martha A. Ackelsberg's classic **Free
+Women Of Spain: Anarchism And The Struggle For The Emancipation Of Women** for
+more on this important movement). This organisation arose in response to the
+fact that many male anarchists, while expressing a theoretical commitment to
+sexual equality, were as sexist as the system they were fighting against. In
+other words, they subconsciously reflected the oppressive public opinion of
what a woman's position should be. Unsurprisingly, many anarchist women were
(rightly) angry at this and their marginalised status within a libertarian
movement that ostensibly sought to abolish all forms of domination and
@@ -1579,9 +1528,7 @@ combat and transform public opinion both within and outwith the anarchist
movement. Their activities meet with some success before, like the rest of the
libertarian revolution, it was crushed by Franco's victory in the civil war.
-
-
- We can, therefore, suggest that a free society is unlikely to see public
+We can, therefore, suggest that a free society is unlikely to see public
opinion becoming authoritarian. This is because, as the example of the
**Mujeres Libres** shows, members of that society would organise to combat
such developments and use various means to raise the problem to public
@@ -1591,24 +1538,19 @@ constant watch on possible sources of authority, including those associated
with organisations developing informal bureaucracies and public opinion. While
a free society would place numerous safeguards against such developments, no
system would be perfect and so the actions of dissident minorities would be
-essential to point out and protest as if such dangers appeared to be
-developing.
-
+essential to point out and protest if such dangers appeared to be developing.
-
- As such, it should be noted that anarchists recognise that the practice of
+As such, it should be noted that anarchists recognise that the practice of
self-assumed political obligation implied in free association also implies the
right to practice dissent and disobedience as well. As Carole Pateman notes:
> _"Even if it is impossible to be unjust to myself, I do not vote for myself
-alone, but along with everyone else. Questions about injustice are always
+alone, but alone with everyone else. Questions about injustice are always
appropriate in political life, for there is no guarantee that participatory
voting will actually result in decisions in accord with the principles of
political morality."_ [**The Problem of Political Obligation**, p. 160]
-
-
- If an individual or group of individuals feel that a specific decision
+If an individual or group of individuals feel that a specific decision
threatens their freedom (which is the basic principle of political morality in
an anarchist society) they can (and must) act to defend that freedom:
@@ -1623,96 +1565,84 @@ based . . . A refusal to vote [or the use of direct action] could be seen as
an appeal to the 'sense of justice' of their fellow citizens."_ [Pateman,
**Op. Cit.**, p. 161]
-
-
- As they no longer consent to the decisions made by their community they can
+As they no longer consent to the decisions made by their community they can
appeal to the "sense of justice" of their fellow citizens by direct action and
indicate that a given decision may have impacts which the majority were not
aware. Hence direct action and dissent is a key aspect of an anarchist society
and help ensure against the tyranny of the majority. Anarchism rejects the
-_"love it or leave it"_ attitude that marks an authoritarian organisation.
-
+"love it or leave it" attitude that marks classical liberalism as well as
+Rousseau (this aspect of his work being inconsistent with its foundations in
+participation).
-
- This vision of self-assumed obligation, with its basis in individual liberty,
+This vision of self-assumed obligation, with its basis in individual liberty,
indicates the basic flaw of Joseph Schumpeter's argument against democracy as
-anything bar a political method of arriving at decisions (in his case who will
-be the leaders of a society). Schumpeter proposed _"A Mental Experiment"_ of
-imagining a country which, using a democratic process, _"reached the decision
-to persecute religious dissent"_ (such as Jews and witches). He argued that we
-should not approve of these practices just because they have been decided upon
-by a majority or using a democratic method and, therefore, democracy cannot be
-an end in itself. [**Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy**, pp. 240-3]
-
-
-
- However, such systematic persecution would conflict with the rules of
+anything bar a political **method** of arriving at decisions (in his case who
+will be the leaders of a society). Schumpeter proposed _"A Mental Experiment"_
+of imagining a country which, using a democratic process, _"reached the
+decision to persecute religious dissent"_ (such as Jews and witches). He
+argued that we should not approve of these practices just because they have
+been decided upon by a majority or using a democratic method and, therefore,
+democracy cannot be an end in itself. [**Capitalism, Socialism and
+Democracy**, pp. 240-3]
+
+However, such systematic persecution would conflict with the rules of
procedure required if a country's or community's political method is to be
called "democratic." This is because, in order to be democratic, the minority
must be in a position for its ideas to become the majority's via argument and
-that requires freedom of speech, discussion and association. A country or
-community in which the majority persecutes or represses a minority
-automatically ensures that the minority can never be in a position to become
-the majority (as the minority is barred by force from becoming so) or convince
-the majority of the errors of its way (even if it cannot become the majority
-physically, it can become so morally by convincing the majority to change its
-position). Schumpeter's example utterly violates democratic principles and so
-cannot be squared with the it (Rousseau's somewhat opaque distinction between
-_"the General Will"_ and majority rule sought to express this). Thus majority
-tyranny is an outrage against both democratic theory **and** individual
-liberty (unsurprisingly, as the former has its roots in the latter).
-
-
-
- This argument applies with even more force to a self-managed community too
-and so any system in which the majority tyrannises over a minority is, by
+convincing the majority (and that requires freedom of discussion and
+association). A country or community in which the majority persecutes or
+represses a minority automatically ensures that the minority can never be in a
+position to become the majority (as the minority is barred by force from
+becoming so) or convince the majority of the errors of its way (even if it
+cannot become the majority physically, it can become so morally by convincing
+the majority to change its position). Schumpeter's example utterly violates
+democratic principles and so cannot be squared with the rules of democratic
+procedure. Thus majority tyranny is an outrage against both democratic theory
+**and** individual liberty (unsurprisingly, as the former has its roots in the
+latter). Unsurprisingly, then, the _"freedom of the collectivity to crush the
+individual is not, however, true Liberty in the eyes of Anarchists. It is one
+of those shams, which the Revolution is to destroy."_ [Charlotte M. Wilson,
+**Anarchist Essays**, p. 25]
+
+This argument applies with even more force to a self-managed community too and
+so any system in which the majority tyrannises over a minority is, by
definition, **not** self-managed as one part of the community is excluded from
-convincing the other (_"the enslavement of part of a nation denies the federal
-principal itself."_ [Proudhon, **The Principle of Federation**, p. 42f]). Thus
-individual freedom and minority rights are essential to self-management. As
-Proudhon argued, _"a new spirit has dawned on the world. Freedom has opposed
-itself to the State, and since the idea of freedom has become universal people
-have realised that it is not a concern of the individual merely, but rather
-that it must exist in the group also."_ [quoted by Martin Buber, **Paths in
-Utopia**, p. 28] Unsurprisingly, then, the _"freedom of the collectivity to
-crush the individual is not, however, true Liberty in the eyes of Anarchists.
-It is one of those shams, which the Revolution is to destroy."_ [Charlotte M.
-Wilson, **Anarchist Essays**, p. 25]
-
-
-
- It should be stressed, however, that most anarchists do not think that the
-way to guard against possible tyranny by the majority is to resort to
-decision-making by consensus (where no action can be taken until every person
-in the group agrees) or a property system (based in contracts). Both consensus
-(see [section A.2.12](secA2.html#seca212)) and contracts (see [section
+convincing the other (_"the enslaving of part of the nation is the very
+negation of the federative principal."_ [Proudhon, **Property is Theft!**, p.
+698f]). Thus individual freedom and minority rights are essential to direct
+democracy and self-management. As Proudhon argued, _"a new spirit has dawned
+on the world. Freedom has opposed itself to the State, and since the idea of
+freedom has become universal people have realised that it is not a concern of
+the individual merely, but rather that it must exist in the group also."_
+[quoted by Martin Buber, **Paths in Utopia**, p. 28]
+
+It should be stressed, however, that most anarchists do not think that the way
+to guard against possible tyranny by the majority is to resort to decision-
+making by consensus (where no action can be taken until every person in the
+group agrees) or a property system (based in contracts). Both consensus (see
+[section A.2.12](secA2.html#seca212)) and contracts (see [section
A.2.14](secA2.html#seca214)) soon result in authoritarian social relationships
developing in the name of "liberty." Rather, we seek new forms of free
agreement to replace contract and new forms of decision making which do not
replace the possible tyranny of the majority with the real tyranny of a
minority.
-
-
- Then there is freedom of association. As Malatesta argued, _"for if it is
-unjust that the majority should oppress the minority, the contrary would be
-quite as unjust; and if the minority has a right to rebel, the majority has a
-right to defend itself . . . it is true that this solution is not completely
-satisfactory. The individuals put out of the association would be deprived of
-many social advantages, which an isolated person or group must do without,
-because they can only be procured by the co-operation of a great number of
-human beings. But what would you have? These malcontents cannot fairly demand
-that the wishes of many others should be sacrificed for their sakes."_ [**A
-Talk about Anarchist-Communism**, p. 29] In other words, freedom of
-association means the freedom **not** to associate and so communities can
-expel individuals or groups of individuals who constantly hinder community
-decisions -- assuming they do not leave voluntarily and seek a community more
-in tune with their needs. This a very important freedom for both the majority
-and the minority, and must be defended.
-
-
-
- So while minorities have significant rights in a free society, so does the
+As Malatesta argued, _"for if it is unjust that the majority should oppress
+the minority, the contrary would be quite as unjust; and if the minority has a
+right to rebel, the majority has a right to defend itself . . . it is true
+that this solution is not completely satisfactory. The individuals put out of
+the association would be deprived of many social advantages, which an isolated
+person or group must do without, because they can only be procured by the co-
+operation of a great number of human beings. But what would you have? These
+malcontents cannot fairly demand that the wishes of many others should be
+sacrificed for their sakes."_ [**A Talk about Anarchist-Communism**, p. 29] In
+other words, freedom of association means the freedom **not** to associate and
+so communities can expel individuals or groups of individuals who constantly
+hinder community decisions -- assuming they do not leave voluntarily and seek
+a community more in tune with their needs. This is a very important freedom
+for both the majority and the minority, and must be defended.
+
+So while minorities have significant rights in a free society, so does the
majority. We can imagine that there will be ethical reasons why participants
will not act in ways to oppose joint activity -- as they took part in the
decision making process they would be considered childish if they reject the
@@ -1723,90 +1653,74 @@ actively hindered them) would soon face non-violent direct action in the form
of non-co-operation, shunning, boycotting and so on. Anarchists think that
such occurrences would be rare.
-
-
- As an isolated life is impossible, the need for communal associations is
-essential. It is only by living together in a supportive community can
-individuality be encouraged and developed along with individual freedom.
+However, as an isolated life is impossible, the need for communal associations
+is essential. It is only by living together in a supportive community that
+individuality can be encouraged and developed along with individual freedom.
However, anarchists are aware that not everyone is a social animal and that
there are times that people like to withdraw into their own personal space.
Thus our support for free association and federalism along with solidarity,
-community and self-management. Most anarchists have recognised that majority
-decision making, though not perfect, is the best way to reach decisions in a
-political system based on maximising individual and so social freedom. Self-
-management in grassroots confederal assemblies and workers' councils ensures
-that decision making is "horizontal" in nature (i.e. between **equals**) and
-not hierarchical (i.e. governmental, between order giver and order taker). In
-other words, anarchists support self-management because it ensures liberty --
-**not** because we subscribe to the flawed assumption that the majority is
-always right.
-
-
-
- ## I.5.7 What if I don't want to join a commune?
-
-
-
- As would be expected, no one would be **forced** to join a commune nor take
+community and self-management. Hence most anarchists have recognised that
+majority decision making, though not perfect, is the best way to reach
+decisions in a political system based on maximising individual (and so social)
+freedom. Direct democracy in grassroots confederal assemblies and workers'
+councils ensures that decision making is "horizontal" in nature (i.e. between
+**equals**) and not hierarchical (i.e. governmental, between order giver and
+order taker). In other words, anarchists support self-management because it
+ensures liberty -- **not** because we subscribe to the flawed assumption that
+the majority is always right.
+
+## I.5.7 What if I don't want to join a commune?
+
+As would be expected, no one would be **forced** to join a commune nor take
part in its assemblies. To suggest otherwise would be contrary to anarchist
principles. Thus a commune would be a free society, in which individual
liberty would be respected and encouraged.
-
-
- However, what about individuals who live within the boundaries of a commune
+However, what about individuals who live within the boundaries of a commune
but decide not to join? For example, a local neighbourhood may include
households that desire to associate and a few that do not (this is actually
happened during the Spanish Revolution). What happens to the minority of
dissenters?
-
-
- Obviously individuals can leave to find communities more in line with their
+Obviously individuals can leave to find communities more in line with their
own concepts of right and wrong if they cannot convince their neighbours of
the validity of their ideas. And, equally obviously, not everyone will want to
-leave an area they like. So we must discuss what happens to those who decide
-to not to find a more suitable neighbourhood. Are the communal decisions
-binding on non-members? Obviously not. If an individual or family desire
-**not** to join a commune (for whatever reason), their freedoms must be
-respected. However, this also means that they cannot benefit from communal
-activity and resources (such a free parks, hospitals, and so forth) and have
-to pay for their use. As long as they do not exploit or oppress others, an
-anarchist community would respect their decision (as discussed in [section
+leave an area they like. So we must discuss those who decide not to find a
+more suitable community. Are the communal decisions binding on non-members?
+Obviously not. If an individual or family desire **not** to join a commune
+(for whatever reason), their freedoms must be respected. However, this also
+means that they cannot benefit from communal activity and resources (such a
+free housing, hospitals, and so forth) and, possibly, have to pay for their
+use. As long as they do not exploit or oppress others, an anarchist community
+would respect their decision (as discussed in [section
G.2.1](secG2.html#secg21), for example).
-
-
- Many who oppose anarchist self-management in the name of freedom often do so
+Many who oppose anarchist self-management in the name of freedom often do so
because they desire to oppress and exploit others. In other words, they oppose
participatory communities because they (rightly) fear that this would restrict
-their ability to grow rich off the labour of others (this type of opposition
-can be seen from history, when rich elites, in the name of liberty, have
-replaced democratic forms of social decision making with representative or
-authoritarian ones -- see [section B.2.5](secB2.html#secb25)).
-
-
-
- It goes without saying that the minority, as in any society, will exist
-within the ethical norms of the surrounding society and they will be have to
-adhere to them in the same sense that they have to adhere to not murdering
-people (few sane people would say that forcing people not to commit murder is
-a restriction of their liberty). Therefore, while allowing the maximum of
-individual freedom of dissent, an anarchist community would still have to
-apply its ethical standards to those beyond that community. Individuals would
-not be allowed to murder, harm or enslave others and claim that they are
-allowed to do so because they are not part of the local community (see
-[section I.5.8](secI5.html#seci58) on crime in an anarchist society).
-
-
-
- Similarly, individuals would not be allowed to develop private property (as
+their ability to oppress, exploit and grow rich off the labour of others (this
+type of opposition can be seen from history, when rich elites, in the name of
+liberty, have replaced democratic forms of social decision making with
+representative or authoritarian ones -- see [section
+B.2.6](secB2.html#secb26)). So it goes without saying that the minority, as in
+any society, will exist within the ethical norms of the surrounding society
+and they will be have to adhere to them in the same sense that they have to
+adhere to not murdering people (few sane people would say that forcing people
+not to commit murder is a restriction of their liberty). Therefore, while
+allowing the maximum of individual freedom of dissent, an anarchist community
+would still have to apply its ethical standards to those beyond that
+community. Individuals would not be allowed to murder, harm or enslave others
+and claim that they are allowed to do so because they are not part of the
+local community (see [section I.5.8](secI5.html#seci58) on crime in an
+anarchist society).
+
+Similarly, individuals would not be allowed to develop private property (as
opposed to possession) simply because they wanted to. This rejection of
private property would not be a restriction on liberty simply because stopping
the development of authority hardly counts as an authoritarian act (for an
analogy, supporters of capitalism do not think that banning theft is a
restriction of liberty and because this view is -- currently -- accepted by
-the majority it is enforced on the minority). Regardless of what defenders of
+the majority, it is enforced on the minority). Regardless of what defenders of
capitalism claim, "voluntary bilateral exchanges" affect third parties and can
harm others indirectly. This can easily be seen from examples like
concentrations of wealth which have effects across society or the ecological
@@ -1818,35 +1732,29 @@ 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. 43]
-
-
- The suggestion that denying property ownership is a restriction in freedom is
+The suggestion that denying property ownership is a restriction in freedom is
wrong, as it is the would-be capitalist who is trying to ban freedom for
others on their property. Members of a free society would simply refuse to
recognise the claims of private property -- they would simply ignore the
-would-be capitalist's pretensions and "keep out" signs. Without a state, or
+would-be capitalist's pretensions and _"keep out"_ signs. Without a state, or
hired thugs, to back up their claims, they would just end up looking silly.
-
-
- This means that Anarchists do not support the liberty of being a boss
+This means that Anarchists do not support the liberty of being a boss
(anarchists will happily work **with** someone but not **for** someone). Of
course, those who desire to create private property against the wishes of
-others expect those others to respect **their** wishes. So, when would-be
+others expect those others to respect their wishes. So, when would-be
propertarians happily fence off their "property" and exclude others from it,
could not these others remember these words from Woody Guthrie's **This Land
is Your Land**, and act accordingly?
-
-
- _**"As I went rumbling that dusty highway
+class=HTMLMarkup> lang=EN-US style='color:red'><div
+align="center">**_"As I went rumbling that dusty highway
I saw a sign that said private property
But on the other side it didn't say nothing
-This land was made for you and me"**_
-
-
+This land was made for you and me"_** class=HTMLMarkup>
+style='color:red'></div>
- While happy to exclude people from "their" property, such owners seem more
+While happy to exclude others from "their" property, such owners seem more
than happy to use the resources held in common by others. They are the
ultimate "free riders," desiring the benefits of society but rejecting the
responsibilities that go with it. In the end, such "individualists" usually
@@ -1854,12 +1762,10 @@ end up supporting the state (an institution they claim to hate) precisely
because it is the only means by which private property and their "freedom" to
exercise authority can be defended.
-
-
- This does not mean denying the freedom to live your life as you see fit,
-using the resources you need to do so. It simply means not being able to
+This means, it should be stressed, the freedom to live your life as you see
+fit, using the resources you need to do so. It simply means not being able to
proclaim ownership over more than you could reasonably use. In other words,
-_"occupancy and use"_ would be the limits of possession -- and so property
+_"Occupancy and use"_ would be the limits of possession -- and so property
would become _"that control of a thing by a person which will receive either
social sanction, or else unanimous individual sanction, when the laws of
social expediency shall have been fully discovered."_ [Benjamin Tucker,
@@ -1867,39 +1773,37 @@ social expediency shall have been fully discovered."_ [Benjamin Tucker,
I.6.2](secI6.html#seci62), this perspective on use rights is shared by both
individualist and social anarchists.
-
-
- Therefore anarchists support the maximum of experiments while ensuring that
+Therefore anarchists support the maximum of experiments while ensuring that
the social conditions that allow this experimentation are protected against
concentrations of wealth and power. As Malatesta put it: _"Anarchism involves
all and only those forms of life that respect liberty and recognise that every
person has an equal right to enjoy the good things of nature and the products
of their own activity."_ [**The Anarchist Revolution**, p. 14]
-
-
- So, as a way to eliminate the problem of minorities seeking power and
-property for themselves, an anarchist revolution places social wealth
-(starting with the land) in the hands of all and promises to protect only
-those uses of it which are considered just by society as a whole. In other
-words, by recognising that "property" is a product of society, an anarchist
-society will ensure than an individual's "property" is protected by his or her
-fellows when it is based purely upon actual occupancy and use. Thus attempts
-to transform minority dissent into, say, property rights would be fought by
-simply ignoring the "keep out" signs of property owned, but not used, by an
-individual or group. Therefore, individuals are free not to associate, but
-their claims of "ownership" will be based around **use** rights, not property
-rights. Without a state to back up and protect property "rights," we see that
-all rights are, in the end, what society considers to be fair (the difference
+So, as a way to eliminate the problem of minorities seeking power and property
+for themselves, an anarchist revolution places social wealth (starting with
+the land) in the hands of all and promises to protect only those uses of it
+which are considered just by society as a whole. In other words, by
+recognising that "property" is a product of society, an anarchist society will
+ensure than an individual's "property" is protected by his or her fellows when
+it is based purely upon actual occupancy and use. Thus attempts to transform
+minority dissent into, say, property rights would be fought by simply ignoring
+the "keep out" signs of property owned, but not used, by an individual or
+group.
+
+Therefore, individuals are free not to associate, but their claims of
+"ownership" will be based around **use** rights, not property rights.
+Individuals will be protected by their fellows only in so far as what they
+claim to "own" is related to their ability to personally use said "property."
+Without a state to back up and protect property "rights," we see that all
+rights are, in the end, what society considers to be fair (the difference
between law and social custom is discussed in [section
I.7.3](secI7.html#seci73)). What the state does is to impose "rights" which do
not have such a basis (i.e. those that protect the property of the elite) or
"rights" which have been corrupted by wealth and would have been changed
because of this corruption had society been free to manage its own affairs.
-
-
- In summary, individuals will be free not to join a participatory community,
+In summary, individuals will be free not to join a participatory community,
and hence free to place themselves outside its decisions and activities on
most issues that do not apply to the fundamental ethical standards of a
society. Hence individuals who desire to live outside of anarchist communities
@@ -1909,7 +1813,7 @@ should be noted, moreover, that this does not mean that their possessions will
be taken from them by "society" or that "society" will tell them what to do
with them. Freedom, in a complex world, means that such individuals will not
be in a position to turn their possessions into **property** and thus recreate
-capitalism (for the distinction between _"property"_ and _"possessions,"_ see
+capitalism (for the distinction between "property" and "possessions," see
[section B.3.1](secB3.html#secb31)). This will not be done by "anarchist
police" or by "banning" voluntary agreements, but purely by recognising that
"property" is a social creation and by creating a social system that will
@@ -1917,26 +1821,20 @@ encourage individuals to stand up for their rights and co-operate with each
other to protect their freedom against those seeking to reduce others to the
conditions of servants working their property for them.
+## I.5.8 What about crime?
-
- ## I.5.8 What about crime?
-
-
-
- For anarchists, "crime" can best be described as anti-social acts, or
+For anarchists, "crime" can best be described as anti-social acts, or
behaviour which harms someone else or which invades their personal space.
Anarchists, in other words, _"believe that to act criminally means to violate
the liberty of others"_ and so criminals in a free society would be _"those
who would encroach on personal integrity, liberty and the well being of
-others."_ [Malatesta, **At the Caf**, p. 100 and p. 132]
+others."_ [Malatesta, **At the Café**, p. 100 and p. 132]
-
-
- This definition of crime is similar, of course, to that used in capitalist
+This definition of crime is similar, of course, to that used in capitalist
society but libertarians note that the state defines as "crime" many things
which a sane society would not (such as, say, consensual acts of adults in
private or expropriation of private property). Similarly, a free society would
-consider as anti-social many acts which the state defends under capitalism
+consider as anti-social many acts which the state allows under capitalism
(such as the appropriation of resources or exploitation of others labour).
This is to be expected, as social customs evolve and reflect the socio-
economic basis of a given society. Hence Malatesta:
@@ -1947,45 +1845,39 @@ equality in freedom, and not the many actions which the penal code punishes
simply because they offend against the privileges of the dominant classes."_
[**Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, pp. 105-6]
-
-
- Anarchists argue that the root cause for crime is not some perversity of
-human nature or "original sin" but is due to the type of society by which
-people are moulded. For example, anarchists point out that by eliminating
-private property, crime could be reduced significantly, since most crime today
-is currently motivated by evils stemming from private property such as
-poverty, homelessness, unemployment, and alienation. Moreover, by adopting
-anarchist methods of non-authoritarian child rearing and education, most of
-the remaining crimes could also be eliminated, because they are largely due to
-the anti-social, perverse, and cruel "secondary drives" that develop because
-of authoritarian child-rearing practices (see [section J.6](secJ6.html)).
+Anarchists argue that the root cause for crime is not some perversity of human
+nature or "original sin" but is due to the type of society by which people are
+moulded. For example, anarchists point out that by eliminating private
+property, crime could be reduced significantly, since most crime today is
+currently motivated by evils stemming from private property such as poverty,
+homelessness, unemployment, and alienation. Moreover, by adopting anarchist
+methods of non-authoritarian child rearing and education, most of the
+remaining crimes could also be eliminated, because they are largely due to the
+anti-social, perverse, and cruel "secondary drives" that develop because of
+authoritarian child-rearing practices (see [section J.6](secJ6.html)).
However, as long as the few _"violates the equal freedom of others . . . we
must defend ourselves."_ [Malatesta, **Op. Cit.**, p. 106]
-
-
- First, it cannot be said that governments are required to protect people from
-crime and criminals. Rather, as Alexander Berkman argued, _"[d]oes not
-government itself create and uphold conditions which make for crime? Does not
-the invasion and violence upon which all governments rest cultivate the spirit
-of intolerance and persecution, of hatred and more violence?"_ Crime, then,
-_"is the result of economic conditions, of social inequality, of wrongs and
-evils of which government and monopoly are parents. Government and law can
-only punish the criminal. They neither cure nor prevent crime. The only real
-cure for crime is to abolish its causes, and the government can never do
+Nor can it be said that governments are required to protect people from crime
+and criminals. Rather, as Alexander Berkman argued, _"[d]oes not government
+itself create and uphold conditions which make for crime? Does not the
+invasion and violence upon which all governments rest cultivate the spirit of
+intolerance and persecution, of hatred and more violence?"_ Crime, then, _"is
+the result of economic conditions, of social inequality, of wrongs and evils
+of which government and monopoly are parents. Government and law can only
+punish the criminal. They neither cure nor prevent crime. The only real cure
+for crime is to abolish its causes, and this the government can never do
because it is there to preserve those very causes."_ This suggests that crimes
-_"resulting form government, from its oppression and injustice, from
+_"resulting from government, from its oppression and injustice, from
inequality and poverty, will disappear under Anarchy. These constitute by far
the greatest percentage of crime."_ [**What is Anarchism?**, p. 151] Nor
should we forget that today we are subject to rule by the anti-social, for the
_"owners and rulers"_ are _"criminals"_ who are _"powerful and have organised
their dominance on a stable basis"_ (_"Who is more of a thief than the owners
who get wealthy stealing the produce of the workers' labour?"_). [Malatesta,
-**At the Caf**, p. 100 and p. 130]
-
+**At the Café**, p. 100 and p. 130]
-
- "Crime", therefore, cannot be divorced from the society within which it
+"Crime", therefore, cannot be divorced from the society within which it
occurs. Society, in Emma Goldman's words, gets the criminals it deserves. For
example, anarchists do not think it unusual nor unexpected that crime exploded
under the pro-free market capitalist regimes of Thatcher and Reagan. Crime,
@@ -2004,9 +1896,7 @@ could have had no other effect, for _"the government's powers of repression
must perforce increase as free competition results in more discord and
inequality."_ [**Anarchy**, p. 47]
-
-
- Hence the apparent paradox of governments with flowing rhetoric about
+Hence the apparent paradox of governments with flowing rhetoric about
"individual rights," the "free market" and "getting the state off our backs"
increasing state power and reducing rights while holding office during a crime
explosion is no paradox at all. _"The conjuncture of the rhetoric of
@@ -2018,131 +1908,123 @@ existence. Hobbes showed long ago that contract -- all the way down --
requires absolutism and the sword to keep war at bay."_ [**The Sexual
Contract**, p. 232]
-
-
- Capitalism, and the contract theory on which it is built, will inevitably rip
-apart society. It is based upon a vision of humanity as isolated individuals
-with no connection other than that of money. Such a vision cannot help but
-institutionalise anti-social acts. As Kropotkin argued _"it is not love and
-not even sympathy upon which Society is based in mankind. It is the conscience
--- be it only at the stage of an instinct \-- of human solidarity. It is the
-unconscious recognition of the force that is borrowed by each man [and woman]
-from the practice of mutual aid; of the close dependency of every one's
-happiness upon the happiness of all; and of the sense of justice, or equity,
-which brings the individual to consider the rights of every other individual
-as equal to his [or her] own."_ [**Mutual Aid**, p. 16] The social atomisation
-required and created by capitalism destroys the basic bonds of society --
-namely human solidarity -- and hierarchy crushes the individuality required to
-understand that we share a common humanity with others and so understand
-**why** we must be ethical and respect others rights. Significantly, as
-Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett note in **The Spirit Level: Why More Equal
-Societies Almost Always Do Better**, more unequal societies have more crime
-and bigger prison populations (equality, as well as reducing crime,
-consistently deliver other advantages for people).
-
-
-
- We are not saying, however, that anarchists reject the concept of individual
+Capitalism, and the contract theory on which it is built, will inevitably rip
+apart society. Capitalism is based upon a vision of humanity as isolated
+individuals with no connection other than that of money and contract. Such a
+vision cannot help but institutionalise anti-social acts. As Kropotkin argued
+_"it is not love and not even sympathy upon which Society is based in mankind.
+It is the conscience -- be it only at the stage of an instinct -- of human
+solidarity. It is the unconscious recognition of the force that is borrowed by
+each man [and woman] from the practice of mutual aid; of the close dependency
+of every one's happiness upon the happiness of all; and of the sense of
+justice, or equity, which brings the individual to consider the rights of
+every other individual as equal to his [or her] own."_ [**Mutual Aid**, p. 16]
+The social atomisation required and created by capitalism destroys the basic
+bonds of society - namely human solidarity - and hierarchy crushes the
+individuality required to understand that we share a common humanity with
+others and so understand **why** we must be ethical and respect others rights.
+Significantly, as Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett note in **The Spirit
+Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better**, more unequal
+societies have more crime and bigger prison populations (equality, as well as
+reducing crime, consistently delivers other advantages for people).
+
+We should also point out that prisons have numerous negative affects on
+society as well as often re-enforcing criminal (i.e. anti-social) behaviour.
+Anarchists use the all-to-accurate description of prisons as _"Universities of
+Crime"_ wherein the first-time criminal learns new techniques and has to adapt
+to the prevailing ethical standards within them. Hence, prisons would have the
+effect of increasing the criminal tendencies of those sent there and so prove
+to be counter-productive. In addition, prisons do not affect the social
+conditions which promote many forms of crime.
+
+We are not saying, however, that anarchists reject the concept of individual
responsibility. While recognising that rape, for example, is the result of a
social system which represses sexuality and is based on patriarchy (i.e. rape
has more to do with power than sex), anarchists do not "sit back" and say
"it's society's fault." Individuals have to take responsibility for their own
-actions and recognise that consequences of those actions. Part of the current
+actions and recognise the consequences of those actions. Part of the current
problem with "law codes" is that individuals have been deprived of the
responsibility for developing their own ethical code, and so are less likely
to develop "civilised" social standards (see [section
I.7.3](secI7.html#seci73)).
-
-
- Therefore, while anarchists reject the ideas of law and a specialised justice
+Therefore, while anarchists reject the ideas of law and a specialised justice
system, they are not blind to the fact that anti-social action may not totally
disappear in a free society. Nor are they blind to the fact that, regardless
of our hopes about a free society reducing crime, we will not create it over-
night (_"all the bad passions . . . will not disappear at a stroke. There will
still be for a long time those who will feel tempted to impose their will on
others with violence, who will wish to exploit favourable circumstances to
-create privileges for themselves"_ [Malatesta, **At the Caf**, p. 131]).
+create privileges for themselves"_ [Malatesta, **At the Café**, p. 131]).
Therefore, some sort of justice system would still be necessary to deal with
-the remaining crimes and to adjudicate disputes between people.
-
-
+the remaining crimes and to adjudicate disputes between citizens.
- This does not, it must be stressed, signify some sort of contradiction within
+This does not, it must be stressed, signify some sort of contradiction within
anarchism. Anarchists have never advocated the kind of "freedom" which assumes
that people can do what they want. When people object to anarchy, they often
-ask about those who would steal, murder, rape and so forth and seem to assume
-that such people would be free to act as they like. This is, needless to say,
-an utter misunderstanding of both our ideas and freedom in general. Simply
-put, if people impose themselves by force on others then _"they will be the
-government"_ and _"we will oppose them with force"_ for _"if today we want to
-make a revolution against the government, it is not in order to submit
-ourselves supinely to new oppressors."_ [Malatesta, **Op. Cit.**, p. 99] This
-applies to defending a free society against organised counter-revolution and
-against those within it conducting anti-social ("criminal") activities. The
-principle is the same, it is just the scale which is different.
-
-
-
- It should be remembered that just because the state monopolises or organises
-a (public) service, it does not mean that the abolition of the state means the
+raise the question as to those who would steal, murder, rape and so forth and
+seem to assume that such people would be free to act as they like. This is,
+needless to say, an utter misunderstanding of both our ideas and freedom in
+general. Simply put, if people impose themselves by force on others then
+_"they will be the government"_ and _"we will oppose them with force"_ for
+_"if today we want to make a revolution against the government, it is not in
+order to submit ourselves supinely to new oppressors."_ [Malatesta, **Op.
+Cit**, p. 99] This applies equally to the need to defend a free society
+against organised counter-revolution and against those within it conducting
+anti-social ("criminal") activities. The principle is the same, it is just the
+scale which is different.
+
+It should be remembered that just because the state monopolises or organises a
+(public) service, it does not mean that the abolition of the state means the
abolition of what useful things it provided. For example, many states own and
run the train network but the abolition of the state does not mean that there
will no longer be any trains! In a free society management of the railways
would be done by the rail workers themselves, in association with the
community. The same applies to anti-social behaviour and so we find Kropotkin,
for example, pointing to how _"voluntary associations"_ would _"substitute
-themselves for the State in all its functions,"_ including _"mutual
+themselves for the State in all its functions,"_ including for _"mutual
protection"_ and _"defence of the territory."_ [**Anarchism**, p. 284]
-
-
- This applies to what is termed justice, namely the resolution of disputes and
-anti-social acts ("crime"). Anarchists argue that _"people would not allow
-their wellbeing and their freedom to be attacked with impunity, and if the
-necessity arose, they would take measures to defend themselves against the
-anti-social activities of a few. But to do so, what purpose is served by
-people whose profession is the making of laws; while other people spend their
-lives seeking out and inventing law-breakers?"_ [Malatesta, **Anarchy**, pp.
-43-4] This means that in a free society the resolution of anti-social
-behaviour would rest in the hands of all, **not** in a specialised body
-separate from and above the masses. As Proudhon put it, an anarchy would see
-the _"police, judiciary, administration, everywhere committed to the hands of
-the workers"_ [**General Idea of the Revolution**, p. 281] And so:
+This applies to what is termed justice, namely the resolution of disputes and
+anti-social acts ("crime"). This means that anarchists argue that _"people
+would not allow their wellbeing and their freedom to be attacked with
+impunity, and if the necessity arose, they would take measures to defend
+themselves against the anti-social activities of a few. But to do so, what
+purpose is served by people whose profession is the making of laws; while
+other people spend their lives seeking out and inventing law-breakers?"_
+[**Anarchy**, pp. 43-4] This means that in a free society the resolution of
+anti-social behaviour would rest in the hands of all, **not** in a specialised
+body separate from and above the masses. As Proudhon put it, an anarchy would
+see the _"police, judiciary, administration, everywhere committed to the hands
+of the workers"_ [**Property is Theft!**, p. 596] And so:
> _"Let each household, each factory, each association, each municipality,
each district, attend to its own police, and administer carefully its own
affairs, and the nation will be policed and administered. What need have we to
be watched and ruled, and to pay, year in and year out, . . . millions? Let us
-abolish prefects, commissioners, and policemen too."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 273]
-
+abolish prefects, commissioners, and policemen too."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 593]
-
- Precisely how this will work will be determined by free people based on the
+Precisely how this will work will be determined by free people based on the
circumstances they face. All we can do is sketch out likely possibilities and
make suggestions.
-
-
- In terms of resolving disputes between people, it is likely that some form of
+In terms of resolving disputes between people, it is likely that some form of
arbitration system would develop. The parties involved could agree to hand
-their case to a third party (for example, a communal jury or mutually agreed
-individual or individuals). There is the possibility that the parties cannot
-agree (or if the victim were dead), then the issue could be raised at a
+their case to a third party (for example, a communal jury or a mutually agreed
+individual or set of individuals). There is the possibility that the parties
+cannot agree (or if the victim were dead). Then the issue could be raised at a
communal assembly and a "court" appointed to look into the issue. These
"courts" would be independent from the commune, their independence
strengthened by popular election instead of executive appointment of judges,
-by protecting the jury system by random selection of citizens, and so _"all
-disputes . . . will be submitted to juries which will judge not only the facts
-but the law, the justice of the law [or social custom], its applicability to
-the given circumstances, and the penalty or damage to be inflicted because of
-its infraction"_. [Benjamin Tucker, **The Individualist Anarchists**, p. 160]
-For Tucker, the jury was a _"splendid institution, the principal safeguard
-against oppression."_ [**Liberty**, vol. 1, no. 16, p. 1]
-
-
-
- As Malatesta suggested, _"when differences were to arise between men [sic!],
+by protecting the jury system of selection of random citizens by lot, and so
+_"all disputes . . . will be submitted to juries which will judge not only the
+facts but the law, the justice of the law [or social custom], its
+applicability to the given circumstances, and the penalty or damage to be
+inflicted because of its infraction"_. [Benjamin Tucker, **The Individualist
+Anarchists**, p. 160] For Tucker, the jury was a _"splendid institution, the
+principal safeguard against oppression."_ [**Liberty**, vol. 1, no. 16, p. 1]
+
+As Malatesta suggested, _"when differences were to arise between men [sic!],
would not arbitration voluntarily accepted, or pressure of public opinion, be
perhaps more likely to establish where the right lies than through an
irresponsible magistrate which has the right to adjudicate on everything and
@@ -2150,14 +2032,12 @@ everybody and is inevitably incompetent and therefore unjust?"_ [**Anarchy**,
p. 45] It is in the arbitration system and communal assemblies that what
constitutes anti-social behaviour will be discussed and agreed.
-
-
- In terms of anti-social events when they happen, _"when there remains a
+In terms of anti-social events when they happen, _"when there remains a
residue of criminals, the collective directly concerned should think of
placing them in a position where they can do no harm, without delegating to
anyone the specific function of persecuting criminals"_ [Malatesta, **At the
-Caf**, p. 101] In the case of a "police force", this would not exist either as
-a public or private specialised body or company. If a local community did
+Café**, p. 101] In the case of a "police force", this would not exist either
+as a public or private specialised body or company. If a local community did
consider that public safety required a body of people who could be called upon
for help, we imagine that a new system would be created. Such a system would
_"not be entrusted to, as it is today, to a special, official body: all able-
@@ -2165,57 +2045,61 @@ bodied inhabitants will be called upon to take turns in the security measures
instituted by the commune."_ [James Guillaume, _"On Building the New Social
Order"_, pp. 356-79, **Bakunin on Anarchism**, p. 371]
-
-
- This system could be based around a voluntary militia, in which all members
-of the community could serve if they so desired. Those who served would not
+This system could be based around a voluntary militia, in which all members of
+the community could serve if they so desired. Those who served would not
constitute a professional body; instead the service would be made up of local
people who would join for short periods of time and be replaced if they abused
their position. Hence the likelihood that a communal militia would become
corrupted by power, like the current police force or a private security firm
exercising a policing function, would be vastly reduced. Moreover, by
-accustoming a population to intervene in anti-social as part of the militia,
-they would be empowered to do so when not an active part of it, so reducing
-the need for its services even more. In this way _"we will defend ourselves .
-. . without delegating to anyone the special function of the defence of
-society"_ and this is _"the only effective method"_ of stopping and reducing
-anti-social activity. [Malatesta, **Op. Cit.**, p. 132]
-
-
-
- Such a body would not have a monopoly on protecting others, but would simply
-be on call if required. It would no more be a monopoly of defence (i.e. a
-"police force") than the current fire service is a monopoly. Individuals are
-not banned from putting out fires today because the fire service exists,
-similarly individuals will be free to help stop anti-social crime by
-themselves, or in association with others, in an anarchist society.
-
-
-
- Of course there are anti-social acts which occur without witnesses and so the
+accustoming a population to intervene in anti-social acts as part of the
+militia, they would be empowered to do so when not an active part of it, so
+reducing the need for its services even more. In this way _"we will defend
+ourselves . . . without delegating to anyone the special function of the
+defence of society"_ and this is _"the only effective method"_ of stopping and
+reducing anti-social activity. [Malatesta, **Op. Cit.**, p. 132]
+
+Such a body would not have a monopoly on protecting others, but would simply
+be on call if others required it. It would no more be a monopoly of defence
+(i.e. a "police force") than the current fire service is a monopoly.
+Individuals are not banned from putting out fires today because the fire
+service exists, similarly individuals will be free to help stop anti-social
+crime by themselves, or in association with others, in an anarchist society.
+
+Of course there are anti-social acts which occur without witnesses and so the
"guilty" party cannot be readily identified. If such acts did occur we can
imagine an anarchist community taking two courses of action. The injured party
may look into the facts themselves or appoint an agent to do so or, more
likely, an ad hoc group would be elected at a community assembly to
-investigate specific crimes of this sort (subject to control and recall by the
-community). Once the investigating body thought it had enough evidence it
-would inform the community as well as the affected parties and then organise a
-court. Of course, a free society will produce different solutions to such
-problems, solutions no-one has considered yet and so these suggestions are
-just that, suggestions.
-
-
-
- As is often stated, prevention is better than cure. This is as true of crime
-as of disease and so crime is best fought by rooting out its **causes** as
-opposed to punishing those who act in response to these causes. As Emma
-Goldman argued, crime _"is naught but misdirected energy. So long as every
-institution of today, economic, political, social, moral conspires to
-misdirect human energy into wrong channels; so long as most people are out of
-place doing things they hate to do, living a life they loathe to live, crime
-will be inevitable, and all the laws on the statues can only increase, but
-never do away with, crime"_ [**Red Emma Speaks**, p. 71] Erich Fromm, decades
-later, made the same point:
+investigate specific crimes of this sort. Such a group would be given the
+necessary "authority" to investigate the crime and be subject to recall by the
+community if they start trying to abuse whatever authority they had. Once the
+investigating body thought it had enough evidence it would inform the
+community as well as the affected parties and then organise a court. Of
+course, a free society will produce different solutions to such problems,
+solutions no-one has considered yet and so these suggestions are just that,
+suggestions.
+
+As is often stated, prevention is better than cure. This is as true of crime
+as of disease. In other words, crime is best fought by rooting out its
+**causes** as opposed to punishing those who act in response to these causes.
+For example, it is hardly surprising that a culture that promotes individual
+profit and consumerism would produce individuals who do not respect other
+people (or themselves) and see them as purely means to an end (usually
+increased consumption). And, like everything else in a capitalist system, such
+as honour and pride, conscience is also available at the right price -- hardly
+an environment which encourages consideration for others, or even for oneself.
+
+In addition, a society based on hierarchical authority will also tend to
+produce anti-social activity because the free development and expression it
+suppresses. Thus, authority (which is often claimed to be the only cure for
+crime) actually helps produce it. As Emma Goldman argued, crime _"is naught
+but misdirected energy. So long as every institution of today, economic,
+political, social, moral conspires to misdirect human energy into wrong
+channels; so long as most people are out of place doing things they hate to
+do, living a life they loathe to live, crime will be inevitable, and all the
+laws on the statues can only increase, but never do away with, crime"_ [**Red
+Emma Speaks**, p. 71] Erich Fromm, decades later, made the same point:
> _"It would seem that the amount of destructiveness to be found in
individuals is proportionate to the amount to which expansiveness of life is
@@ -2233,9 +2117,7 @@ life produce the passion for destruction that forms, so to speak, the
reservoir from which particular hostile tendencies -- either against others or
against oneself -- are nourished."_ [**The Fear of Freedom**, p. 158]
-
-
- Therefore, by reorganising society so that it empowers everyone and actively
+Therefore, by reorganising society so that it empowers everyone and actively
encourages the use of all our intellectual, emotional and sensuous abilities,
crime would soon cease to be the huge problem that it is now. As for the anti-
social behaviour or clashes between individuals that might still exist in such
@@ -2252,76 +2134,60 @@ the best means of stopping acts which harmed others. Thus Malatesta:
causes and really do everything possible to eliminate it, it is necessary for
this task to be entrusted to those who are exposed to and suffer the
consequences of crime, in other words the whole public, and not those to whom
-the existence of crime is a source of power and earnings."_ [**At the Caf**,
+the existence of crime is a source of power and earnings."_ [**At the Café**,
p. 135]
-
-
- An anarchist system of justice, we should note, would have a lot to learn
-from aboriginal societies simply because they are examples of social order
-without the state. Indeed many of the ideas we consider as essential to
-justice today can be found in such societies. As Kropotkin argued, _"when we
-imagine that we have made great advances in introducing, for instance, the
-jury, all we have done is to return to the institutions of the so-called
-'barbarians' after having changed it to the advantage of the ruling classes."_
-[**The State: Its Historic Role**, p. 18] Like aboriginal justice (as
-documented by Rupert Ross in **Returning to the Teachings: Exploring
-Aboriginal Justice**) anarchists contend that justice be achieved by the
-teaching and healing of all involved. Public condemnation of the wrongdoing
-would be a key aspect of this process, but the wrong doer would remain part of
-the community and so see the effects of their actions on others in terms of
-grief and pain caused. It would be likely that wrong doers would be expected
-to try to make amends for their act by community service or helping victims
-and their families.
-
-
-
- So, from a practical viewpoint, almost all anarchists oppose prisons on both
-practical grounds and ethical grounds. Prisons have numerous negative affects
-on society as well as often re-enforcing criminal (i.e. anti-social)
-behaviour. Anarchists use the all-to-accurate description of prisons as
-_"Universities of Crime"_ wherein the first-time criminal learns new
-techniques and have adapt to the prevailing ethical standards within them.
-Hence, prisons would have the effect of increasing the criminal tendencies of
-those sent there and so prove to be counter-productive. In addition, prisons
-do not affect the social conditions which promote many forms of crime. Simply
-put, prison _"does not improve the prisoner . . . it does not prevent him from
-committing more crimes. It does not then achieve any of the ends it has set
-itself"_ [Kropotkin, **Anarchism**, p. 228] Moreover, they are a failure in
-terms of their impact on those subject to them: _"We know what prisons mean --
-they mean broken down body and spirit, degradation, consumption, insanity"_.
-[Voltairine de Cleyre, quoted by Paul Avrich, **An American Anarchist**, p.
-146] The Makhnovists took the usual anarchist position on prisons:
+An anarchist system of justice, we should note, would have a lot to learn from
+aboriginal societies simply because they are examples of social order without
+the state. Indeed many of the ideas we consider as essential to justice today
+can be found in such societies. As Kropotkin argued, _"when we imagine that we
+have made great advances in introducing, for instance, the jury, all we have
+done is to return to the institutions of the so-called 'barbarians' after
+having changed it to the advantage of the ruling classes."_ [**The State: Its
+Historic Role**, p. 18]
+
+Like aboriginal justice (as documented by Rupert Ross in **Returning to the
+Teachings: Exploring Aboriginal Justice**) anarchists contend that offenders
+should not be punished but justice achieved by the teaching and healing of all
+involved. Public condemnation of the wrongdoing would be a key aspect of this
+process, but the wrong doer would remain part of the community and so see the
+effects of their actions on others in terms of grief and pain caused. It would
+be likely that wrong doers would be expected to try to make amends for their
+act by community service or helping victims and their families.
+
+So, from a practical viewpoint, almost all anarchists oppose prisons on both
+practical grounds and ethical grounds. Simply put, prison _"does not improve
+the prisoner . . . it does not prevent him from committing more crimes. It
+does not then achieve any of the ends it has set itself"_ [Kropotkin,
+**Anarchism**, p. 228] Moreover, they are a failure in terms of their impact
+on those subject to them: _"We know what prisons mean -- they mean broken down
+body and spirit, degradation, consumption, insanity"_. [Voltairine de Cleyre,
+quoted by Paul Avrich, **An American Anarchist**, p. 146] The Makhnovists took
+the usual anarchist position on prisons:
> _"Prisons are the symbol of the servitude of the people, they are always
built only to subjugate the people, the workers and peasants . . . Free people
-have no use for prisons. Wherever prisons exist, the people are not free . . .
+have no use for prisons. Wherever prisons exist, the people are not free. . .
In keeping with this attitude, [the Makhnovists] demolished prisons wherever
they went."_ [Peter Arshinov, **The History of the Makhnovist Movement**, p.
153]
-
-
- With the exception of Benjamin Tucker, no major anarchist writer supported
+With the exception of Benjamin Tucker, no major anarchist writer has supported
the institution. Few anarchists think that private prisons (like private
policemen) are compatible with their notions of freedom. However, all
anarchists are against the current "justice" system which seems to them to be
organised around **revenge** and punishing effects and not fixing causes.
-
-
- However, there are psychopaths and other people in any society who are too
+However, there are psychopaths and other people in any society who are too
dangerous to be allowed to walk freely. Restraint in this case would be the
only option and such people may have to be isolated from others for their own,
and others, safety. Perhaps mental hospitals would be used, or an area
-quarantined for their use created (perhaps an island, for example). However,
-such cases (we hope) would be rare and _"should be cared for according to the
-most humane methods of treating the mentally afflicted."_ [Voltairine de
-Cleyre, **The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader**, p. 160]
+quarantined for their use. However, such cases (we hope) would be rare and
+_"should be cared for according to the most humane methods of treating the
+mentally afflicted."_ [Voltairine de Cleyre, **The Voltairine de Cleyre
+Reader**, p. 160]
-
-
- The one thing that needs to be avoided is the creation of a professional and
+The one thing that needs to be avoided is the creation of a professional and
specialised "justice" system as this would be a key means by which the state
could reconstitute itself. As Malatesta explained, _"the major damage caused
by crime is not so much the single and transitory instance of the violation of
@@ -2332,12 +2198,12 @@ words, it _"would truly be a great piece of foolishness to protect oneself
from a few violent people, a few idlers and some degenerates, by opening a
school for idleness and violence"_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 101 and p. 132] The
libertarian perspective on crime does not rest on an idealised vision of
-people. _"We do not believe"_, as Malatesta suggested, _"in the infallibility,
+people. _"We do not believe"_, as Malatesta suggested, _in the infallibility,
nor even the general goodness of the masses"_, rather _"we believe even less
in the infallibility and goodness of those who seize power and legislate"_ and
so we must _"avoid the creation of bodies specialising in police work"_.
-[**Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, p. 109 and p. 108] As George
-Barrett argued:
+[**Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, p. 109 and p. 108] After all, as
+George Barrett argued:
> _"All that we can say is that . . . disputes are very much better settled
without the interference of authority. If the two [parties] were reasonable,
@@ -2353,21 +2219,19 @@ the rest to its friends._
> _"What a strange question is this. It supposes that two people who meet on
terms of equality and disagree could not be reasonable or just. But, on the
other hand, it supposes that a third party, starting with an unfair advantage,
-and backed up by violence, will be the incarnation of justice itself. Common-
-sense should certainly warn us against such a supposition, and if we are
+and backed up by violence, will be the incarnation of justice itself.
+Commonsense should certainly warn us against such a supposition, and if we are
lacking in this commodity, then we may learn the lesson by turning to the
facts of life. There we see everywhere Authority standing by, and in the name
of justice and fair play using its organised violence in order to take the
lion's share of the world's wealth for the governmental class."_ [**Objections
to Anarchism**, pp. 349-50]
-
-
- So instead of prisons and a legal code based on the concept of punishment and
+So instead of prisons and a legal code based on the concept of punishment and
revenge, anarchists support the use of pubic opinion and pressure to stop
anti-social acts and the need to therapeutically rehabilitate those who commit
-them. Rather than a parasitic legal system which creates and defends
-inequality and privilege, anarchists agree with Kropotkin: _"Liberty,
+anti-social acts. Rather than a parasitic legal system which creates and
+defends inequality and privilege, anarchists agree with Kropotkin: _"Liberty,
equality, and practical human sympathy are the most effective barriers we can
oppose to the anti-social instinct of certain among us"_. [**Op. Cit.**, p.
218] _"We want justice, not rigid, but elastic"_, argued Tucker, _"we want
@@ -2377,36 +2241,31 @@ profound."_ The current system of rigid law imposed by the state and
implemented by a judge was false and _"no such justice is wanted in any
civilised community."_ [**Op. Cit.**, Vol. 13, No. 5, p. 4]
-
-
- In summary, then, anarchists have spent considerable time discussing the
-issue. Somewhat ironically, given that many think the issue of crime is the
-weakest point of the anarchist case, the outlines of a solution to this
-problem are well established in anarchist theory, both in terms of what
-**not** to do and in terms of combating both crime and its causes. Anarchy is
-based on people being free but freedom does **not** mean the "freedom" to
-violate the equal freedom of others. That is oppression, that is exploitation,
-that is the embryo of the state and capitalism.
-
-
-
- We can recommend the section _"Crime and Punishment"_ by Malatesta (**Errico
-Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**) as well as Kropotkin's essays _"Law and
-Authority"_ and _"Prisons and their moral influence on prisoners"_ (both
-within the **Anarchism** collection). Emma Goldman's _"Prisons: A social crime
-and Failure"_ (**Red Emma Speaks**), de Cleyre's _"Crime and Punishment"_
-(**The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader**) and Colin Ward's _"How Deviant Dare you
-get?"_ (**Anarchy in Action**) are also worth reading. A useful collection of
-writings on this issue are found in **Under the Yoke of the State: Selected
-Anarchist Responses to Prisons and Crime** (edited by the Dawn Collective).
-
-
-
- ## I.5.9 What about Freedom of Speech under Anarchism?
-
-
-
- Free speech in an anarchist society would be far greater than under
+In summary, then, anarchists have spent considerable time discussing the issue
+and how it could (and should not) be dealt with in a free society. Somewhat
+ironically, given that many think the issue of crime is the weakest point of
+the anarchist case, the outlines of a solution to this problem are well
+established in anarchist theory, both in terms of what **not** to do and in
+terms of combating both crime and its causes. Anarchy is based on people being
+free but freedom does **not** mean the "freedom" to violate the equal freedom
+of others. That is oppression, that is exploitation, that is the embryo of the
+state and capitalism.
+
+Unsurprisingly, most anarchist thinkers have discussed the issue of anti-
+social activity. We can recommend the section _"Crime and Punishment"_ by
+Malatesta (**Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**) as well as Kropotkin's
+essays _"Law and Authority"_ and _"Prisons and their moral influence on
+prisoners"_ (both within the **Anarchism** collection). Emma Goldman's
+_"Prisons: A social crime and Failure"_ (**Red Emma Speaks**), de Cleyre's
+_"Crime and Punishment"_ (**The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader**) and Colin
+Ward's _"How Deviant Dare you get?"_ (**Anarchy in Action**) are also worth
+reading. A useful collection of writings on this issue are found in **Under
+the Yoke of the State: Selected Anarchist Responses to Prisons and Crime**
+(edited by the Dawn Collective).
+
+## I.5.9 What about Freedom of Speech under Anarchism?
+
+Free speech in an anarchist society would be far greater than under
capitalism. This is obvious, anarchists argue, because we _"fight against
oppression and tyranny for a future in which they will be neither masters nor
slaves, neither rich nor poor, neither oppressors nor oppressed . . . the
@@ -2417,30 +2276,23 @@ American Years**, p. 104] As such, libertarian socialism would be marked by
extensive freedom of speech but also freedom of the press, of the media and so
forth.
-
-
- Some, however, express the idea that **all** forms of socialism would
-endanger freedom of speech, press, and so forth. The usual formulation of this
-argument is in relation to state socialism and goes as follows: if the state
-(or "society") owned all the means of communication, then only the views which
-the government supported would get access to the media.
-
-
-
- This is an important point and it needs to be addressed. However, before
-doing so, we should point out that under capitalism the major media are
-effectively controlled by the wealthy. As we argued in [section
-D.3](secD3.html), the media are **not** the independent defenders of freedom
-that they like to portray themselves as. This is hardly surprising, since
-newspapers, television companies, and so forth are capitalist enterprises
-owned by the wealthy and with managing directors and editors who are also
-wealthy individuals with a vested interest in the status quo. Hence there are
-institutional factors which ensure that the "free press" reflects the
-interests of capitalist elites.
-
-
-
- However, in democratic capitalist states there is little overt censorship.
+Some, however, express the idea that **all** forms of socialism would endanger
+freedom of speech, press, and so forth. The usual formulation of this argument
+is in relation to state socialism and goes as follows: if the state (or
+"society") owned all the means of communication, then only the views which the
+government supported would get access to the media.
+
+This is an important point and it needs to be addressed. However, before doing
+so, we should point out that under capitalism the major media are effectively
+controlled by the wealthy. As we argued in [section D.3](secD3.html), the
+media are **not** the independent defenders of freedom that they like to
+portray themselves as. This is hardly surprising, since newspapers, television
+companies, and so forth are capitalist enterprises owned by the wealthy and
+with managing directors and editors who are also wealthy individuals with a
+vested interest in the status quo. Hence there are institutional factors which
+ensure that the "free press" reflects the interests of capitalist elites.
+
+However, in democratic capitalist states there is little overt censorship.
Radical and independent publishers can still print their papers and books
without state intervention (although market forces ensure that this activity
can be difficult and financially unrewarding). Under socialism, it is argued,
@@ -2449,39 +2301,32 @@ will not exist. Instead, as can be seen from all examples of "actually
existing socialism," such liberty is crushed in favour of the ruling elites'
point of view.
-
-
- As anarchism rejects the state, we can say that this danger does not exist
+As anarchism rejects the state, we can say that this danger does not exist
under libertarian socialism. However, since social anarchists argue for the
communalisation of production, could not restrictions on free speech still
exist? We argue no, for three reasons.
-
-
- Firstly, publishing houses, radio stations, and so on will be run by their
-workers directly. They will be supplied by other syndicates, with whom they
-will make agreements, and **not** by "central planning" officials (who would
-not exist). In other words, there is no bureaucracy of officials allocating
-(and so controlling) resources and so the means of communication. Hence,
-anarchist self-management will ensure that there is a wide range of opinions
-in different magazines and papers. There would be community papers, radio
-stations, etc., and obviously they would play an increased role in a free
-society. But they would not be the only media. Associations, political
-parties, industrial syndicates, and so on would have their own media and/or
-would have access to the resources run by communication workers syndicates, so
-ensuring that a wide range of opinions can be expressed.
-
-
-
- Secondly, the "ultimate" power in a free society will be the individuals of
+Firstly, publishing houses, radio and TV stations, newspapers, internet sites
+and so on will be run by their workers directly. They will be supplied by
+other syndicates, with whom they will make agreements, and **not** by "central
+planning" officials, who would not exist. In other words, there is no
+bureaucracy of officials allocating (and so controlling) resources (and so the
+means of communication). Hence, anarchist self-management will ensure that
+there is a wide range of opinions in different magazines and papers. There
+would be community papers, radio and TV stations, internet sites, etc., and
+obviously they would play an increased role in a free society. But they would
+not be the only media. Associations, political parties, industrial syndicates,
+and so on would have their own media and/or would have access to the resources
+of communication workers' syndicates, so ensuring that a wide range of
+opinions can be expressed.
+
+Secondly, the "ultimate" power in a free society will be the individuals of
which it is composed. This power will be expressed in communal and workplace
assemblies that can recall delegates and revoke their decisions. It is
doubtful that these assemblies would tolerate a set of would-be bureaucrats
determining what they can or cannot read, see, or hear.
-
-
- Thirdly, individuals in a free society would be interested in hearing
+Thirdly, individuals in a free society would be interested in hearing
different viewpoints and discussing them. This is the natural side-effect of
critical thought (which self-management would encourage), and so they would
have a vested interest in defending the widest possible access to different
@@ -2491,68 +2336,59 @@ the capitalist media (_"I listen to criticism because I am **greedy.** I
listen to criticism because I am **selfish.** I would not deny myself
another's insights"_ [For Ourselves, **The Right to be Greedy**, Thesis 113]).
-
-
- Therefore, anarchism will **increase** freedom of speech in many important
+Therefore, anarchism will **increase** freedom of speech in many important
ways, particularly in the workplace (where it is currently denied under
capitalism). This will be a natural result of a society based on maximising
freedom and the desire to enjoy life: _"We claim the right of discussing . . .
whatever subject interests us. If free speech and free press mean anything,
they mean freedom of discussion."_ [Goldman, **Op. Cit.**, p. 203]
-
-
- We would also like to point out that during both the Spanish and Russian
+We would also like to point out that during both the Spanish and Russian
revolutions, freedom of speech was protected within anarchist areas. For
example, the Makhnovists in the Ukraine _"fully applied the revolutionary
principles of freedom of speech, of thought, of the Press, and of political
association. In all the cities and towns occupied . . . Complete freedom of
speech, Press, assembly, and association of any kind and for everyone was
immediately proclaimed."_ [Peter Arshinov, **The History of the Makhnovist
-Movement**, p. 153] This is confirmed by Michael Malet: _"One of the most
-remarkable achievements of the Makhnovists was to preserve a freedom of speech
-more extensive than any of their opponents."_ [**Nestor Makhno in the Russian
-Civil War**, p. 175] In revolutionary Spain republicans, liberals, communists,
-Trotskyites and many different anarchist groups all had freedom to express
-their views. _"On my first visit to Spain in September 1936,"_ Emma Goldman
-reported _"nothing surprised me so much as the amount of political freedom I
-found everywhere. True, it did not extend to Fascists"_ but _"everyone of the
-anti-Fascist front enjoyed political freedom which hardly existed in any of
-the so-called European democracies."_ As for the few restrictions that were in
-place, remember that there was a war on so it was _"childish to expect the
-CNT-FAI to include Fascists and other forces engaged in their destruction in
-the extension of complete political freedom."_ [**Vision on Fire**, p.147 and
-p. 228] The freedom of speech in anarchist areas is confirmed in a host of
-other eye-witnesses, including George Orwell in **Homage to Catalonia** (in
-fact, it was the rise of the pro-capitalist republicans and communists that
-introduced censorship). Both movements were fighting a life-and-death struggle
-against communist, fascist and pro-capitalist armies and so this defence of
-freedom of expression, given the circumstances, is particularly noteworthy.
-
-
-
- Freedom of speech, like freedom of association, applies to all groups
-(including, of course, religious ones). The only exception would be, as
-Goldman noted, for organisations which are actively fighting to enslave a free
-society. In other words, during a social revolution it is unlikely that
-freedom of speech and organisation would apply to those supporting the
-counter-revolutionary forces. As the threat of violence by these forces
-decreases, so the freedom of their supporters would increase.
-
-
-
- It is in this context we must discuss what some could point to as an example
-of anarchists denying freedom of speech and association, namely the burning of
-churches during the Spanish Revolution. In fact, some would use this as
-evidence of anarchist intolerance of religion and to those who disagree with
-them. Anarchists reject such charges.
-
-
-
- As is well known, after the successful defeat of the fascist-military coup in
-mid-July 1936, Catholic Churches were burned and members of the Catholic
+Movement**, p. 153] This is confirmed by Michael Malet who notes that _"[o]ne
+of the most remarkable achievements of the Makhnovists was to preserve a
+freedom of speech more extensive than any of their opponents."_ [**Nestor
+Makhno in the Russian Civil War**, p. 175] In revolutionary Spain republicans,
+liberals, communists, Trotskyites and many different anarchist groups all had
+freedom to express their views. Emma Goldman wrote that _"[o]n my first visit
+to Spain in September 1936, nothing surprised me so much as the amount of
+political freedom I found everywhere. True, it did not extend to Fascists"_
+but _"everyone of the anti-Fascist front enjoyed political freedom which
+hardly existed in any of the so-called European democracies."_ As for the few
+restrictions that were in place, remember that there was a war on so it was
+_"childish to expect the CNT-FAI to include Fascists and other forces engaged
+in their destruction in the extension of complete political freedom."_
+[**Vision on Fire**, p.147 and p. 228] The freedom of speech in anarchist
+areas is confirmed in a host of other eye-witnesses, including George Orwell
+in **Homage to Catalonia** (in fact, it was the rise of the pro-capitalist
+republicans and communists that introduced censorship).
+
+Both movements were fighting a life-and-death struggle against communist,
+fascist and pro-capitalist armies and so this defence of freedom of
+expression, given the circumstances, is particularly noteworthy. Freedom of
+speech, like freedom of association, applies to all groups (including, of
+course, religious ones). The only exception would be, as Goldman noted, for
+organisations which are actively fighting to enslave a free society. In other
+words, during a social revolution it is unlikely that freedom of speech and
+organisation would apply to those supporting the counter-revolutionary forces.
+As the threat of violence by these forces decreases, so the freedom of their
+supporters would increase.
+
+It is in this context we must discuss what some could point to as an example
+of anarchists denying freedom of speech, association and worship, namely the
+burning of churches during the Spanish Revolution. In fact, some would use
+this as evidence of anarchist intolerance of religion and to those who
+disagree with them. Anarchists reject such charges.
+
+As is well known, after the successful defeat of the fascist-military coup in
+late-July 1936, Catholic Churches were burned and members of the Catholic
Church were killed. However, these acts were **not** acts against freedom of
-religion or speech. Rather they are popular acts against both the oppressive
+religion or speech. Rather they were popular acts against both the oppressive
and reactionary role of the Catholic Church in Spanish society as well as its
active support for fascism throughout the 1920s and 1930s, including Franco's
coup. As historian Paul Preston summarises:
@@ -2569,21 +2405,17 @@ economic order and to make electoral propaganda for the successive political
organisations of the Right."_ [**The Coming of the Spanish Civil War**, pp.
42-3]
-
-
- The Catholic Church _"was the bulwark of the country's conservative forces"_
+The Catholic Church _"was the bulwark of the country's conservative forces"_
and no more than 15 days after the announcement of the Republic in 1931, the
Primate of Spain _"issued a pastoral denouncing the new government's intention
to establish freedom of worship and to separate Church and state. The cardinal
urged Catholics to vote in future elections against an administration which in
his view wanted to destroy religion."_ [Antony Beevor, **The Battle for
Spain**, p. 91 and p. 25] This opposition to the Republic and support for
-right-wing, near-fascist parties such as the CEDA, continued throughout the
-1930s and climaxed with the Church's backing of Franco's coup.
-
-
+right-wing, near-fascist parties, continued throughout the 1930s and climaxed
+with the Church's backing of Franco's coup.
- Nor should it be forgotten that the _"Catholic press applauded the Nazi
+Nor should it be forgotten that the _"Catholic press applauded the Nazi
destruction of the German Socialist and Communist movements. Nazism was much
admired on the Spanish Right because of its emphasis on authority, the
fatherland and hierarchy -- all three of which were central preoccupations of
@@ -2598,37 +2430,29 @@ Mussolini. The CEDA had many of the trappings of a fascist organisation"_ and
its leader _"had declared his determination to establish a corporative state
in Spain."_ [**Op. Cit.** p. 69, p. 72, p. 120 and p. 121] As one Catholic
writer, Francois Mauriac, put it _"Christianity and fascism have become
-intermingled, and [many] cannot hate one without hating the other."_ [quoted
-Antony Beevor, **Op. Cit.**, p. 270]
-
-
-
- Given all this, the attacks on the Catholic Church really comes as no
-surprise. If, after an attempted fascist coup, people burned down the offices
-of the fascist and pro-fascist parties few people would be surprised. Why
-should a pro-fascist church be considered immune to such popular anger? As
-George Orwell pointed out:
+intermingled, and they cannot hate one without hating the other."_ [quoted by
+Beevor, **Op. Cit.**, p. 270]
+Given all this, the attacks on the Catholic Church really come as no surprise.
+If after an attempted fascist coup people burned down the offices of the
+fascist and pro-fascist parties few people would be surprised. Why should a
+pro-fascist church be considered immune to such popular anger? As George
+Orwell pointed out:
-
- _"No one can blame [someone] for being angry when churches are burned and
+_"No one can blame [someone] for being angry when churches are burned and
priests murdered or driven into exile. But I think it is a pity that he has
not looked more deeply into the reasons why these things happen."_ [**Orwell
in Spain**, p. 314]
+Unsurprisingly, then, those priests who had not supported the right, those who
+had treated the working class the same as the rich, were usually spared. In
+the Basque Country, where the church supported the Republic, not a single
+church was burnt. Nor were synagogues or Protestant churches targeted. In
+Barcelona _"the Quakers established canteens which were staffed by refugee
+women."_ [Gabriel Jackson, **The Spanish Republic and the Civil War,
+1931-1939**, p. 446]
-
- Unsurprisingly, then, those priests who had not supported the right, those
-who had treated the working class the same as the rich, were spared. In the
-Basque Country, where the church supported the Republic, not a single church
-was burnt. Nor were synagogues or Protestant church targeted. In Barcelona
-_"the Quakers established canteens which were staffed by refugee women."_
-[Gabriel Jackson, **The Spanish Republic and the Civil War, 1931-1939**, p.
-446]
-
-
-
- It should also be stressed that the repression in the fascist zone was much
+It should also be stressed that the repression in the fascist zone was much
worse than that in the Republican one. Of a ecclesiastical community of
115,000, 6,845 were killed (_"the vast majority during the summer of 1936"_).
This is in stark contrast to right-wing claims at the time. It should be
@@ -2650,9 +2474,7 @@ hierarchy nor did it stop _"the Church's official support for Franco"_.
[Beevor, **Op. Cit.**, p. 92, p. 101, p. 99, p. 104, p. 250, p. 269 and p.
270]
-
-
- Under Franco, everyone had to _"submit themselves to the authority of the
+Under Franco, everyone had to _"submit themselves to the authority of the
Church as well as to their temporal masters. Franco had been extremely
generous in restoring all the Church's privileges and wealth, as well as its
power in education, but in return he expected the priesthood to act virtually
@@ -2663,38 +2485,32 @@ patriotic duty. Concierges and caretakers became police spies . . . and
priests noted those who did not turn up to mass."_ [Beevor, **Op. Cit.**, p.
452, p. 453 and p. 454] All with the firm support of the Catholic Church.
-
-
- Rather than an attempt to repress religion as such, the attacks on the
-Catholic Church in republican areas it was a product of popular hostility to a
-corrupt institution, one which was deeply reactionary, pro-fascist and a major
-landowner in its own right. This means that an awareness of the nature and
-role of the Church _"does not leave much doubt as to why practically all the
-churches in Catalonia and eastern Aragon were burnt at the outbreak of war."_
-The anti-clerical movement was a _"popular movement and a native Spanish
-movement. It has its roots not in Marx or Bakunin, but in the condition of the
-Spanish people themselves."_ [Orwell, **Op. Cit.**, p. 300 and p. 315] While
-under Franco _"the relentless purging of 'reds and atheists' was to continue
-for years"_ in the Republican areas _"the worse of the violence was mainly a
-sudden and quickly spent reaction of suppressed fear, exacerbated by desires
-of revenge for the past."_ [Beevor, **Op. Cit.**, p. 91]
-
-
-
- So the burning of churches in Spain had very little to do with anarchist
+Rather than an attempt to repress religion as such, it was a product of
+popular hostility to a corrupt church, one which was deeply reactionary, pro-
+fascist and a major landowner in its own right. This means that an awareness
+of the nature and role of the Church _"does not leave much doubt as to why
+practically all the churches in Catalonia and eastern Aragon were burnt at the
+outbreak of war."_ The anti-clerical movement was a _"popular movement and a
+native Spanish movement. It has its roots not in Marx or Bakunin, but in the
+condition of the Spanish people themselves."_ [Orwell, **Op. Cit.**, p. 300
+and p. 315] While under Franco _"the relentless purging of 'reds and atheists'
+was to continue for years"_ in the Republican areas _"the worst of the
+violence was mainly a sudden and quickly spent reaction of suppressed fear,
+exacerbated by desires of revenge for the past."_ [Beevor, **Op. Cit.**, p.
+91]
+
+So the burning of churches in Spain had very little to do with anarchist
atheism and much, much more to do with the Catholic Church's social role in
Spain, its reactionary position, its hatred of the unions and social protest
and the fact it supported the fascist coup. It does not imply an opposition to
freedom of speech by libertarian socialists but was rather an expression of
popular opposition to a ruling class and pro-fascist organisation.
-
-
- One last point to make on this issue. Given the actual role of the Church
-during this period and its wholehearted support for fascism in the 1920s
-onwards, it seems strange that the Catholic church has declared the murdered
-priests in Spain to be martyrs, part of a planned religious persecution. This
-is not true, if they were martyrs then they were martyrs to their pro-fascist
+One last point to make on this issue. Given the actual role of the Church
+during this period and its wholehearted support for fascism in Spain, Italy
+and elsewhere, it seems strange that the Catholic church has declared the
+murdered priests as martyrs, part of a planned religious persecution. This is
+not true, if they were martyrs then they were martyrs to their pro-fascist
politics and not their faith (_"The political role of the Church was ignored
when the religious victims were made into martyrs"_). Significantly, the
Catholic Church _"said nothing when the nationalists shot sixteen of the
@@ -2703,14 +2519,15 @@ killed some twenty Protestant ministers). In 2003 when John Paul II beatified
a teacher killed in July 1936 he _"still made no mention of the Basque priests
killed by the nationalists."_ [Beevor, **Op. Cit.**, p. 270, p. 92 and p. 527]
Clearly a priest being murdered by fascists backed by the Vatican is
-ineligible for sainthood.
-
-
-
- Given the actual role of the Catholic Church during this period it is
-surprising the Catholic hierarchy would seek to bring attention to it. Perhaps
-it is confidant that the media will not mention these awkward facts, although
-this context explains the deaths and church-burning in 1936. As we noted in
+ineligible for sainthood and so the Catholic Church makes little mention, nor
+is seeking to make saints, of those Basque priests murdered by Franco once
+fascist troops conquered Euskal Herria.
+
+Ultimately, given the actual role of the Catholic Church during this period it
+is surprising the Catholic hierarchy would seek to bring attention to it.
+Perhaps it is confidant that the media will not mention these awkward facts,
+although this context makes the deaths and church-burning in 1936
+understandable. Perhaps we should not be too surprised, for as we noted in
[section A.2.18](secA2.html#seca218), it appears that killing working class
people is not worthy of comment but assassinating members of the ruling elite
(and its servants) is. So the fact that the burning of churches and killing of
@@ -2718,21 +2535,17 @@ clergy is well known but the pro-fascist activities of the church (a product
of both its reactionary politics and position in the ruling elite) which
provoked it is not should come as no surprise.
-
-
- In summary, then, a free society would have substantial freedom of speech
+In summary, then, a free society would have substantial freedom of speech
along with other fundamental freedoms (including freedom of worship and of
-association). Such freedoms would be respected, supported and encouraged for
-all shades of political opinion, from the left through to the right. The only
-exception would be if an organisation were **actively** supporting those
-seeking to impose their rule on a free people and in such cases some
-restrictions may be decided upon (their nature would depend on the state of
-the struggle, with them decreasing as the danger decreased).
-
-
-
- To those who claim that refusing freedom of speech to counter-revolutionaries
-equates to statism or implies a contradiction in libertarian ideas, anarchists
+religious association). Such freedoms would be respected, supported and
+encouraged for all shades of political opinion, from the left through to the
+right. The only exception would be if an organisation were **actively**
+supporting those seeking to impose their rule on a free people and in such
+cases some restrictions may be decided upon (their nature would depend on the
+state of the struggle, with them decreasing as the danger decreased).
+
+To those who claim that refusing freedom of speech to counter-revolutionaries
+equates to statism or implies a contradiction in libertarian ideas anarchists
would reply that such arguments are flawed. In terms of the former, it is
equating state imposed censorship with the active disobedience of a free
people. Rather than the government imposing a ban, members of a free society
@@ -2742,17 +2555,15 @@ Without electricity, paper, distribution networks and so on, reactionaries
would find it hard to publish or broadcast. As for the latter, there is no
contradiction as it is hardly contradictory to support and encourage freedom
while, at the same time, resisting attempts to enslave you! As such, this
-suggestion makes the same logical error Engels made in his diatribe against
+argument makes the same logical error Engels did in his diatribe against
anarchism, namely considering it "authoritarian" to destroy authority (see
[section H.4.7](secH4.html#sech47)). Similarly, it is hardly authoritarian to
resist those seeking to impose their authority on you or their supporters!
-This perspective seems to assume that the true "libertarian" approach is to
-let others impose their rule on you as stopping them is "authoritarian"! A
+This perspective seems to assume that the true 'libertarian' approach is to
+let others impose their rule on you as stopping them is 'authoritarian'! A
truly strange way of understanding our ideas....
-
-
- To conclude, based upon both theory and practice, we can say that anarchism
+To conclude, based upon both theory and practice, we can say that anarchism
will not endanger freedom of expression. Indeed, by breaking up the capitalist
oligopoly which currently exists and introducing workers' self-management of
the media, a far wider range of opinions will become available in a free
@@ -2760,27 +2571,21 @@ society. Rather than reflect the interests of a wealthy elite, the media would
reflect the interests of society as a whole and the individuals and groups
within it.
-
-
- ## I.5.10 What about political parties, interest groups and professional
+## I.5.10 What about political parties, interest groups and professional
bodies?
+Political parties and other interest groups will exist in an anarchist society
+as long as people feel the need to join them. They will not be banned in any
+way, and their members will have the same rights as everyone else. Individuals
+who are members of political parties or associations can take part in communal
+and other assemblies and try to convince others of the soundness of their
+ideas.
-
- Political parties and other interest groups will exist in an anarchist
-society as long as people feel the need to join them. They will not be banned
-in any way, and their members will have the same rights as everyone else.
-Individuals who are members of political parties or associations can take part
-in communal and other assemblies and try to convince others of the soundness
-of their ideas.
-
-
-
- However, there is a key difference between such activity and politics under a
+However, there is a key difference between such activity and politics under a
capitalist democracy. This is because the elections to positions of
responsibility in an anarchist society will not be based on party tickets nor
-will it involve the delegation of power. Emile Pouget's description of the
-difference between the syndicalist union and political elections drives this
+will they involve the delegation of power. Emile Pouget's description of the
+difference between the syndicalist trade union and elections drives this
difference home:
> _"The constituent part of the trade union is the individual. Except that the
@@ -2816,9 +2621,7 @@ elected candidate's mandate has run its course._
trade union activity and participation in the disappointing chores of
politics."_ [**No Gods, No Masters**, vol. 2, pp. 67-68]
-
-
- In other words, when individuals are elected to administrative posts they are
+In other words, when individuals are elected to administrative posts they are
elected to carry out their mandate, **not** to carry out their party's
programme. Of course, if the individuals in question had convinced their
fellow workers and citizens that their programme was correct, then this
@@ -2827,37 +2630,23 @@ practice. We would imagine that the decisions of collectives and communes
would reflect the complex social interactions and diverse political opinions
their members and of the various groupings within the association.
-
-
- Anarchism will likely contain many different political groupings and ideas.
-The relative influence of these within collectives and communes would reflect
-the strength of their arguments and the relevance of their ideas, as would be
-expected in a free society. As Bakunin argued: _"The abolition of this mutual
-influence would be death. And when we vindicate the freedom of the masses, we
-are by no means suggesting the abolition of any of the natural influences that
-individuals or groups of individuals exert on them. What we want is the
-abolition of influences which are artificial, privileged, legal, official."_
-[quoted by Malatesta, **Anarchy**, p. 51] It is only when representative
-government replaces self-management that political debate results in "elected
-dictatorship" and centralisation of power into the hands of one party which
-claims to speak for the whole of society, as if the latter had one mind.
-
-
-
- This freedom of political association has existed in every anarchist
+This freedom of political association has existed in every anarchist
revolution. During the Russian Revolution, the Makhnovists organised soviets
and regional congresses at every opportunity and these saw delegates elected
who were members of different political parties. For example, members of the
-socialist Left-SR party were active in the Makhnovist movement and attended
-soviet congresses (for example, the resolution of the February 1919 congress
-_"was written by the anarchists, left Socialist Revolutionaries, and the
-chairman."_ [Michael Palij, **The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno, 1918-1921**, p.
-155]). The Makhnovist Revolutionary Military Soviet created at the
+peasant-socialist Left-SR party were active in the Makhnovist movement and
+attended soviet congresses (for example, the resolution of the February 1919
+congress _"was written by the anarchists, left Socialist Revolutionaries, and
+the chairman."_ [Michael Palij, **The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno, 1918-1921**,
+p. 155]). The Makhnovist Revolutionary Military Soviet created at the
Aleksandrovsk congress in late 1919 had three Communists elected to it while
there were 18 delegates from workers at that congress, six being Mensheviks
-and the remaining 12 included Communists [Micheal Malet, **Nestor Makhno in
-the Russian Civil War**, p. 111 and p. 124] In the words of the Makhnovist
-reply to Bolshevik attempt to ban one of their congresses:
+and the remaining 12 included Communists [Malet, **Op. Cit.**, p. 111, p. 124]
+Clearly, members of political parties were elected to both the congresses and
+the Revolutionary Military Soviet. As such, the idea that libertarian
+socialism excludes members of political parties standing for election is
+false. In the words of the Makhnovist reply to a Bolshevik attempt to ban one
+of their congresses:
> _"The Revolutionary Military Council . . . holds itself above the pressure
and influence of all parties and only recognises the people who elected it.
@@ -2868,24 +2657,20 @@ Revolutionary Military Council . . . will necessarily be replaced by another
organisation, 'more revolutionary' and more Bolshevik."_ [quoted by Peter
Arshinov, **The History of the Makhnovist Movement**, pp. 103-4]
-
-
- As such, the Makhnovists supported the right of working-class self-
+As such, the Makhnovists supported the right of working-class self-
determination, as expressed by one delegate to a conference in February 1919:
-> _ "No party has a right to usurp governmental power into its hands . . . We
+> _"No party has a right to usurp governmental power into its hands . . . We
want life, all problems, to be decided locally, not by order from any
authority above; and all peasants and workers should decide their own fate,
while those elected should only carry out the toilers' wish."_ [quoted by
Palij, **Op. Cit.**, p. 154]
-
-
- It should be mentioned that a myth has sprung up fostered by some Leninists
-that parties were banned from election to these bodies (for example, see Jason
-Yanowitzs terrible _"On the Makhno Myth"_ [**International Socialist Review**,
-no. 53]). These claims flow from basic ignorance of how the soviets were
-organised during the revolution combined with a misunderstanding of this
+It should be mentioned that a myth has sprung up fostered by some Leninists
+that parties were banned from election to these bodies (for example, Jason
+Yanowitz’s terrible _"On the Makhno Myth"_ [**International Socialist
+Review**, no. 53]). These claims flow from basic ignorance of how the soviets
+were organised during the revolution combined with a misunderstanding of this
Makhnovist proclamation from January 1920:
> _"Only workers participating in work vital to the people's economy should be
@@ -2895,28 +2680,24 @@ in a soviet could turn it into a soviet of party political deputies, thereby
leading the soviet order to perdition."_ [quoted by Alexandre Skirda, **Nestor
Makhno: Anarchy's Cossack**, p. 164]
-
-
- When the soviets were formed in Petrograd and other Russian cities in 1917
-the initiative had come (unlike in 1905) from political parties and these
-ensured that they had representatives from political parties within their
-executive committees (as distinct from elected delegates who happened to be
-members of a political party). This was how, for example, _"high party leaders
-became voting delegates"_ in the soviets, by being _"selected by the
+When the soviets were formed in Petrograd and other Russian cities in 1917 the
+initiative had come (unlike in 1905) from political parties and these ensured
+that they had members who were representatives from political parties within
+their executive committees (as distinct from elected delegates who happened to
+be members of a political party). This was how, for example, _"high party
+leaders became voting delegates"_ in the soviets, by being _"selected by the
leadership of each political organisation, and not by the soviet assembly
itself."_ [Samuel Farber, **Before Stalinism**, p. 31] Thus the Makhnovists
were rejecting the means by which many soviet members were not directly
elected by actual workers.
-
-
- In addition, the Makhnovists were following the Russian Anarcho-Syndicalists
+In addition, the Makhnovists were following the Russian Anarcho-Syndicalists
who argued for _"effective soviets organised on collective lines with the
direct delegation of workers and peasants . . . and not political chatterboxes
gaining entry through party lists and turning the soviets into talking-
shops"_. [**The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution**, Paul Avrich (ed.), p.
118] This use of party lists meant that soviet delegates could be anyone. For
-example, the leading left-wing Menshevik Martov recounted that in early 1920 a
+example, the leading left-wing Menshevik Martov recounts that in early 1920 a
chemical factory _"put up Lenin against me as a candidate [to the Moscow
soviet]. I received seventy-six votes he - eight (in an open vote)."_ [quoted
by Israel Getzler, **Martov**, p. 202] How would either of these two
@@ -2926,19 +2707,32 @@ delegates of working people, then why should non-working class members of
political parties be elected as mandated and recallable delegates to a soviet
from a workplace they have never visited except, perhaps, to gather votes?
-
-
- This applies, needless to say, to other areas of life. Anarchists do not
-think that social life can be reduced to political and economic associations
-alone. Individuals have many different interests and desires which they must
-express in order to have a truly free and fulfilling life. Therefore an
-anarchist society will see the development of numerous voluntary associations
-and groups to express these interests. For example, there would be consumer
-groups, musical groups, scientific associations, art associations, clubs,
-housing co-operatives and associations, craft and hobby guilds, fan clubs,
-animal rights associations, groups based around gender, sexuality, creed and
-colour and so forth. Associations will be created for all human interests and
-activities. As Kropotkin argued:
+Hence anarchism will likely contain many different political groupings and
+ideas. The relative influence of these within collectives and communes would
+reflect the strength of their arguments and the relevance of their ideas, as
+would be expected in a free society. As Bakunin argued: _"The abolition of
+this mutual influence would be death. And when we vindicate the freedom of the
+masses, we are by no means suggesting the abolition of any of the natural
+influences that individuals or groups of individuals exert on them. What we
+want is the abolition of influences which are artificial, privileged, legal,
+official."_ [quoted by Malatesta, **Anarchy**, p. 51]
+
+It is only when representative government replaces self-management that
+political debate results in "elected dictatorship" and centralisation of power
+into the hands of one party which claims to speak for the whole of society, as
+if the latter had one mind.
+
+This applies, needless to say, to other areas of life. Anarchists do not think
+that social life can be reduced to political and economic associations alone.
+Individuals have many different interests and desires which they must express
+in order to have a truly free and interesting life. Therefore an anarchist
+society will see the development of numerous voluntary associations and groups
+to express these interests. For example, there would be consumer groups,
+musical groups, scientific associations, art associations, clubs, housing co-
+operatives and associations, craft and hobby guilds, fan clubs, animal rights
+associations, groups based around gender, sexuality, creed and colour and so
+forth. Associations will be created for all human interests and activities. As
+Kropotkin argued:
> _"He who wishes for a grand piano will enter the association of musical
instrument makers. And by giving the association part of his half-days'
@@ -2951,78 +2745,67 @@ necessities, would amply suffice to satisfy all longings for luxury, however
varied. Thousands of associations would undertake to supply them."_ [**The
Conquest of Bread**, p. 120]
-
-
- We can imagine, therefore, an anarchist society being based around
+We can imagine, therefore, an anarchist society being based around
associations and interest groups on every subject which fires the imagination
of individuals and for which individuals want to meet in order to express and
further their interests. Housing associations, for example, would exist to
allow inhabitants to manage their local areas, design and maintain their homes
-and local parks and gardens. Vegetarian groups would produce information on
-issues they consider important, trying to convince others of the errors of
-eating meat. Consumer groups would be in dialogue with syndicates about
-improving products and services, ensuring that syndicates produce what is
-required by consumers. Environment groups would exist to watch production and
-make sure that it is not creating damaging side effects and informing both
-syndicates and communes of their findings. Feminist, homosexual, bisexual and
-anti-racist groups would exist to put their ideas across, highlighting areas
-in which social hierarchies and prejudice still existed. All across society,
-people would be associating together to express themselves and convince others
-of their ideas on all kinds of issues.
-
-
-
- This applies to professional groupings who would seek to ensure that those
-work tasks that require qualifications to do (medicine and such like) have
-recognised standards and certificates. In this way, others in society would
-know whether a fellow worker is a recognised expert in their field and has the
-appropriate qualifications to do the work required or give advice. While a
-free society would break down the line between intellectual and manual work,
-ensure the end of the division of labour, the fact remains that people will
-wish to be happy that the doctor or nurse they are visiting knows what they
-are doing. This is where professional groupings would come into play,
-organising training and certification based on mutually agreed standards and
-qualifications. This would not stop others seeking to practice such tasks, of
-course, but it will mean that few, if any, would frequent someone without the
-recognised professional standards.
-
-
-
- Hence in a anarchist society, free association would take on a stronger and
+and local parks and gardens. Animal rights and other interest groups would
+produce information on issues they consider important, trying to convince
+others of the errors of eating meat or whatever. Consumer groups would be in
+dialogue with syndicates about improving products and services, ensuring that
+syndicates produce what is required by consumers. Environment groups would
+exist to watch production and make sure that it is not creating damaging side
+effects and informing both syndicates and communes of their findings.
+Feminist, homosexual, bisexual and anti-racist groups would exist to put their
+ideas across, highlighting areas in which social hierarchies and prejudice
+still existed. All across society, people would be associating together to
+express themselves and convince others of their ideas on many different
+issues.
+
+This applies to professional groupings who would seek to ensure that those
+work tasks that require qualifications to do (for example, medicine and such
+like) have recognised standards and certifications. In this way, others in
+society would know whether a fellow worker is a recognised expert in their
+field and has the appropriate qualifications to do the work required or give
+advice. While a free society would break down the line between intellectual
+and manual work, the fact remains that people will wish to be happy that the
+doctor or nurse they are visiting knows what they are doing. This is where
+professional groupings would come into play, organising training and
+certification based on mutually agreed standards and qualifications. This
+would not stop others seeking to practice such tasks, of course, but it will
+mean that few, if any, would frequent someone without the basic professional
+standards.
+
+Hence in a anarchist society, free association would take on a stronger and
more positive role than under capitalism. In this way, social life would take
on many dimensions, and the individual would have the choice of thousands of
societies to join to meet his or her interests or create new ones with other
like-minded people. Anarchists would be the last to deny that there is more to
life than work!
-
-
- ## I.5.11 How will an anarchist society defend itself against the power
+## I.5.11 How will an anarchist society defend itself against the power
hungry?
-
-
- A common objection to anarchism is that a libertarian society will be
+A common objection to anarchism is that an anarchist society will be
vulnerable to be taken over by thugs or those who seek power. A similar
argument is that a group without a leadership structure becomes open to
charismatic leaders so anarchy would just lead to tyranny.
-
-
- For anarchists, such arguments are strange. Society already **is** run by
+For anarchists, such arguments are strange. Society already **is** run by
thugs and/or the off-spring of thugs. Kings were originally just successful
-thugs who imposed their domination over a specific territorial area. The
-modern state has evolved from the structure created to impose this domination.
-Similarly with property, with most legal titles to land being traced back to
-its violent seizure by thugs who then passed it on to their children who then
-sold it or gave it to their offspring. The origins of the current system in
-violence can be seen by the continued use of violence by the state and
-capitalists to enforce and protect their domination over society. When push
-comes to shove, the dominant class will happily re-discover their thug past
-and employ extreme violence to maintain their privileges. The descent of large
-parts of Europe into Fascism in the 1920s and 1930s, or Pinochet's coup in
-Chile in 1973 indicates how far they will go. As Peter Arshinov argued (in a
-slightly different context):
+thugs who succeeded in imposing their domination over a given territorial
+area. The modern state has evolved from the structure created to impose this
+domination. Similarly with property, with most legal titles to land being
+traced back to its violent seizure by thugs who then passed it on to their
+children who then sold it or gave it to their offspring. The origins of the
+current system in violence can be seen by the continued use of violence by the
+state and capitalists to enforce and protect their domination over society.
+When push comes to shove, the dominant class will happily re-discover their
+thug past and employ extreme violence to maintain their privileges. The
+descent of large parts of Europe into Fascism in the 1920s and 1930s, or
+Pinochet's coup in Chile in 1973 indicates how far they will go. As Peter
+Arshinov argued (in a slightly different context):
> _"Statists fear free people. They claim that without authority people will
lose the anchor of sociability, will dissipate themselves, and will return to
@@ -3035,18 +2818,14 @@ people's veins . . . The liberation of the people leads to the savagery of
those who live from its enslavement."_ [**The History of the Makhnovist
Movement**, p. 85]
+Anarchists are not impressed with the argument that anarchy would be unable to
+stop thugs seizing power. It ignores the fact that we live in a society where
+the power-hungry already hold power. As an argument against anarchism it fails
+and is, in fact, an argument against hierarchical societies.
-
- So anarchists are not impressed with the argument that anarchy would be
-unable to stop thugs seizing power. It ignores the fact that we live in a
-society where the power-hungry already rule. As an argument against anarchism
-it fails and is, in fact, an argument against hierarchical societies.
-
-
-
- Moreover, it also ignores fact that people in an anarchist society would have
-gained their freedom by overthrowing every existing and would-be thug who had,
-or desired, power over others. They would have defended that freedom against
+Moreover, it also ignores fact that people in an anarchist society would have
+gained their freedom by overthrowing every existing and would-be thug who had
+or desired power over others. They would have defended that freedom against
those who desired to re-impose it. They would have organised themselves to
manage their own affairs and, therefore, to abolish all hierarchical power.
And we are to believe that these people, after struggling to become free,
@@ -3072,154 +2851,131 @@ They have it in their power to use force against him. They have these powers
individually as well as collectively. Being either past rebels who have been
inspired with the spirit of liberty, or else habituated to enjoy freedom from
their infancy, they are hardly to rest passive in view of what they feel to be
-wrong."_ [Kropotkin, **Act for Yourselves**, pp. 87-8]
-
-
-
- Thus a free society would use direct action to resist the would-be ruler just
-as it had used direct action to free itself from existing rulers. It would be
-organised in a way which would facilitate this direct action as it would be
-based on networks of solidarity and mutual aid. An injury to one is an injury
-to all and a would-be ruler would face a whole liberated society acting
-against him or her. Faced with the direct action of the population (which
-would express itself in non-co-operation, strikes, demonstrations,
-occupations, insurrections and so on) a would-be power seeker would find it
-difficult to impose themselves. Unlike those accustomed to rulership in
-existing society, an anarchist people would be a society of rebels and so
-difficult to dominate and conquer: _"In the future society, Anarchy will be
-defence, the prevention of the re-establishment of any authority, any power,
-any State."_ [Carlo Cafiero, _"Anarchy and Communism"_, pp. 179-86, **The
-Raven**, No. 6, p. 180]
-
-
-
- Anarchists point to the example of the rise of Fascism in Italy, Spain and
-Germany. In areas with strong anarchist movements the fascists were resisted
-most strongly. While in Germany Hitler was met with little or no opposition,
-in Italy and Spain the fascists had to fight long and hard to gain power. The
-anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist organisations fought the fascists tooth and
-nail, with some success before betrayal by the Republicans and Marxists. From
-this historical experience anarchists argue that an anarchist society would
-quickly and easily defeat would-be thugs as people would be used to practising
-direct action and self-management and would have no desire to stop. A free
-people would quickly organise itself in self-managed militias for self-defence
-(just as they would during a social revolution to defend it -- [section
-J.7.6](secJ7.html#secj76)).
-
-
-
- As for self-management resulting in "charismatic" leaders, well the logic is
+wrong."_ [**Act for Yourselves**, pp. 87-8]
+
+Thus a free society would use direct action to resist the would-be ruler just
+as it had used direct action to free itself from existing rulers. An anarchist
+society would be organised in a way which would facilitate this direct action
+as it would be based on networks of solidarity and mutual aid. An injury to
+one is an injury to all and a would-be ruler would face a whole liberated
+society acting against him or her. Faced with the direct action of the
+population (which would express itself in non-co-operation, strikes,
+demonstrations, occupations, insurrections and so on) a would be power seeker
+would find it difficult to impose themselves. Unlike those accustomed to
+rulership in existing society, an anarchist people would be a society of
+rebels and so difficult to dominate and conquer: _"In the future society,
+Anarchy will be defence, the prevention of the re-establishment of any
+authority, any power, any State."_ [Carlo Cafiero, _"Anarchy and Communism"_,
+pp. 179-86, **The Raven**, No. 6, p. 180]
+
+Anarchists point to the example of the rise of Fascism in Italy, Spain and
+Germany to prove their point. In areas with strong anarchist movements the
+fascists were resisted most strongly. While in Germany Hitler took power with
+little or no opposition, in Italy and Spain the fascists had to fight long and
+hard to gain power. The anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist organisations fought
+the fascists tooth and nail, with some success before betrayal by the
+Republicans and Marxists. From this historical experience anarchists argue
+that an anarchist society would quickly and easily defeat would-be thugs as
+people would be used to practising direct action and self-management and would
+have no desire to stop practising them. A free people would quickly organise
+itself in self-managed militias for self-defence (just as they would during a
+social revolution to defend it -- [section J.7.6](secJ7.html#secj76)).
+
+As for self-management resulting in "charismatic" leaders, well the logic is
astounding. As if hierarchical structures are **not** based on leadership
structures and do not require a charismatic leader! Such an argument is
inherently self-contradictory -- as well as ignoring the nature of modern
society and its leadership structures. Rather than mass assemblies being
dominated by leaders, it is the case that hierarchical structures are the
-natural breeding ground for dictators. All the great dictators the world have
+natural breeding ground for dictators. All the great dictators the world has
seen have come to the forefront in **hierarchical** organisations, **not**
-libertarian structured ones. Hitler, for example, did not come to power via
-self-management. Rather he used a highly centralised and hierarchically
-organised party to take control of a centralised, hierarchical state. The very
-disempowerment of the population in capitalist society results in them looking
-to leaders to act for them and so _"charismatic"_ leaders are a natural
-result. An anarchist society, by empowering all, would make it more difficult,
-not less, for a would-be leader to gain power -- few people, if any, would be
-willing to sacrifice and negate themselves for the benefit of another.
-
-
-
- Our discussion on the power hungry obviously relates to the more general the
-question of whether ethical behaviour be rewarded in an anarchist society. In
-other words, could an anarchist society be stable or would the unethical take
-over?
-
-
-
- It is one of the most disturbing aspects of living in a world where the rush
-to acquire wealth is the single most important aspect of living is what
-happens to people who follow an ethical path in life. Under capitalism, the
-ethical generally do not succeed as well as those who stab their fellows in
-the back, those who cut corners, indulge in sharp business practises, drive
-competitors into the ground and live their lives with an eye on the bottom
-line but they do survive. Loyalty to a firm or a group, bending over backwards
-to provide a service, giving a helping hand to somebody in need, placing
-friendship above money, count for nothing when the bills come in. People who
-act ethically in a capitalist society are usually punished and penalised for
-their ethical and principled behaviour. Indeed, the capitalist market rewards
-unethical behaviour as it generally reduces costs and so gives those who do it
-a competitive edge.
-
-
-
- It is different in a free society. Anarchism is based on equal access to
-power and wealth. Everybody in an anarchist society irrespective of what they
-do, or who they are or what type of work they perform is entitled to share in
-society's wealth. Whether a community survives or prospers depends on the
-combined efforts of the people in that community. Ethical behaviour would
-become the norm in an anarchist community; those people who act ethically
-would be rewarded by the standing they achieve in the community and by others
-being more than happy to work with and aid them. People who cut corners, try
-to exercise power over others, refuse to co-operate as equals or otherwise act
-in an unethical manner would lose their standing. Their neighbours and work
-mates would refuse to co-operate with them (or reduce co-operation to a
-minimum) and take other forms of non-violent direct action to point out that
-certain forms of activity was inappropriate. They would discuss the issue with
-the unethical person and try to convince them of the errors of their way. In a
-society where the necessities are guaranteed, people would tend to act
-ethically because ethical behaviour raises an individuals profile and standing
-within such a community. Capitalism and ethical behaviour are mutually
-exclusive concepts; anarchism encourages and rewards ethical behaviour.
-Needless to say, as we discussed in [section I.5.8](secI5.html#seci58),
-anarchists are aware that a free society would need to defend itself against
-whatever anti-social behaviour remains in a free and equal society and seeking
-to impose your will on others defines unethical and anti-social!
-
-
-
- Therefore, as can be seen, anarchists argue that a free society would not
-have to fear would-be thugs, "charismatic" leaders or the unethical. An
-anarchist society would be based on the co-operation of free individuals. It
-is unlikely that they would tolerate bad behaviour and would use their own
-direct action as well as social and economic organisations to combat it.
-Moreover, the nature of free co-operation would reward ethical behaviour as
-those who practice it would have it reciprocated by their fellows. and, if
-worse came to worse, they would defend their liberty!
-
-
-
- One last point. Some people seem to think that anarchism is about the
-powerful being appealed to **not** to oppress and dominate others. Far from
-it. Anarchism is about the oppressed and exploited refusing to let others
-dominate them. It is **not** an appeal to the "better side" of the boss or
-would-be boss; it is about the solidarity and direct action of those subject
-to a boss **getting rid of the boss** \-- whether the boss agrees to it or
-not! Once this is clearly understood the idea that an anarchist society is
-vulnerable to the power-hungry is clearly nonsense -- anarchy is based on
-resisting power and so is, by its very nature, more resistant to would-be
-rulers than a hierarchical one.
-
-
-
- So, to summarise, anarchists are well aware that an anarchist society will
+libertarian structured ones. Hitler, for example, did not come to power via a
+libertarian organisation. Rather he used a highly centralised and
+hierarchically organised party to take control of a centralised, hierarchical
+state. The very disempowerment of the population in capitalist society results
+in them looking to leaders to act for them and so "charismatic" leaders are a
+natural result. An anarchist society, by empowering all, would make it more
+difficult, not less, for a would-be leader to gain power -- few people, if
+any, would be willing to sacrifice and negate themselves for the benefit of
+another.
+
+Our discussion on the power hungry obviously relates to the more general
+question of whether ethical behaviour will be rewarded in an anarchist
+society. In other words, could an anarchist society be stable or would the
+unethical take over?
+
+One of the most disturbing aspects of living in a world where the rush to
+acquire wealth is the single most important aspect of living is what happens
+to people who follow an ethical path in life. Under capitalism, the ethical
+generally do not succeed as well as those who stab their fellows in the back,
+those who cut corners, indulge in sharp business practises, drive competitors
+into the ground and live their lives with an eye on the bottom line but they
+do survive. Loyalty to a firm or a group, bending over backwards to provide a
+service, giving a helping hand to somebody in need, placing friendship above
+money, count for nothing when the bills come in. People who act ethically in a
+capitalist society are usually punished and penalised for their ethical, moral
+and principled behaviour. Indeed, the capitalist market rewards unethical
+behaviour as it generally reduces costs and so gives those who do it a
+competitive edge.
+
+It is different in a free society. Anarchism is based on two principles of
+association, equal access to power and wealth. Everybody in an anarchist
+society irrespective of what they do, or who they are or what type of work
+they perform is entitled to share in society's wealth. Whether a community
+survives or prospers depends on the combined efforts of the people in that
+community. Ethical behaviour would become the norm in an anarchist community;
+those people who act ethically would be rewarded by the standing they achieve
+in the community and by others being more than happy to work with and aid
+them. People who cut corners, try to exercise power over others, refuse to co-
+operate as equals or otherwise act in an unethical manner would lose their
+standing in an anarchist society. Their neighbours and work mates would refuse
+to co-operate with them (or reduce co-operation to a minimum) and take other
+forms of non-violent direct action to point out that certain forms of activity
+were inappropriate. They would discuss the issue with the unethical person and
+try to convince them of the errors of their way. In a society where the
+necessities are guaranteed, people would tend to act ethically because ethical
+behaviour raises an individuals profile and standing within such a community.
+Capitalism and ethical behaviour are mutually exclusive concepts; anarchism
+encourages and rewards ethical behaviour. Needless to say, as we discussed in
+[section I.5.8](secI5.html#seci58), anarchists are aware that a free society
+would need to defend itself against whatever anti-social behaviour remains in
+a free and equal society and seeking to impose your will on others defines
+unethical and anti-social!
+
+Therefore, as can be seen, anarchists argue that a free society would not have
+to fear would-be thugs, "charismatic" leaders or the unethical. An anarchist
+society would be based on the co-operation of free individuals. It is unlikely
+that they would tolerate such behaviour and would use their own direct action
+as well as social and economic organisations to combat it. Moreover, the
+nature of free co-operation would reward ethical behaviour as those who
+practice it would have it reciprocated by their fellows, and, if worse came to
+worse, they would defend their liberty!
+
+One last point. Some people seem to think that anarchism is about the powerful
+being appealed to **not** to oppress and dominate others. Far from it.
+Anarchism is about the oppressed and exploited refusing to let others dominate
+them. It is **not** an appeal to the "better side" of the boss or would-be
+boss; it is about the solidarity and direct action of those subject to a boss
+**getting rid of the boss** \-- whether the boss agrees to it or not! Once
+this is clearly understood the idea that an anarchist society is vulnerable to
+the power-hungry is clearly nonsense -- anarchy is based on resisting power
+and so is, by its very nature, more resistant to would-be rulers than a
+hierarchical one.
+
+So, to summarise, anarchists are well aware that an anarchist society will
have to defend itself from both inside and outside attempts to re-impose
capitalism and the state. Indeed, every revolutionary anarchist has argued
that a revolution will have to defend itself (as proven in [section
H.2.1](secH2.html#sech21), Marxist assertions otherwise have always been
-myths). This applies to both internal and external attempts to re-introduce
-authority.
+myths).
-
-
- ## I.5.12 Would an anarchist society provide health care and other public
+## I.5.12 Would an anarchist society provide health care and other public
services?
-
-
- It depends on the type of anarchist society you are talking about. Different
+It depends on the type of anarchist society you are talking about. Different
anarchists propose different solutions.
-
-
- In an individualist-mutualist society, for example, health care and other
+In an individualist-mutualist society, for example, health care and other
public services would be provided by individuals or co-operatives on a pay-
for-use basis. It would be likely that individuals or co-
operatives/associations would subscribe to various insurance providers or
@@ -3227,85 +2983,75 @@ enter into direct contracts with health care providers. Thus the system would
be similar to privatised health care but without the profit margins as
competition, it is hoped, would drive prices down to cost.
+Other anarchists reject such a system. They are in favour of socialising
+health care and other public services. They argue that a privatised system
+would only be able to meet the requirements of those who can afford to pay for
+it and so would be unjust and unfair. In addition, such systems would have
+higher overheads (the need to pay share-holders and the wages of management,
+most obviously) as well as charge more (privatised public utilities under
+capitalism have tended to charge consumers more, unsurprisingly as by their
+very nature they are natural monopolies).
-
- Other anarchists reject such a system. They are favour of socialising health
-care and other public services. They argue that a privatised system would only
-be able to meet the requirements of those who can afford to pay for it and so
-would be unjust and unfair. In addition, such systems would have higher
-overheads (the need to pay share-holders and the high wages of upper
-management, most obviously, and not to mention paying for propaganda against
-"socialised" medicine) as well as charge more (privatised public utilities
-under capitalism have tended to charge consumers more, unsurprisingly as by
-their very nature they are natural monopolies).
-
-
-
- Looking at health care, for example, the need for medical attention is not
+Looking at health care, for example, the need for medical attention is not
dependent on income and so a civilised society would recognise this fact.
Under capitalism, profit-maximising medical insurance sets premiums according
-to the risks of the insured getting ill or injured, with the riskiest and most
-ill not being able to find insurance at any price. Private insurers shun
-entire industries as too dangerous for their profits due to the likelihood of
-accidents or illness. They review contracts regularly and drop sick people for
-the slightest reason (understandably, given that they make profits by
-minimising pay-outs for treatment). Hardly a vision to inspire a free society
+to the risks of the insured getting ill or injured, with the riskiest not
+being able to find insurance at any price. Private insurers shun entire
+industries as too dangerous for their profits due to the likelihood of
+accidents or illness. They review contracts regularly and drop people who get
+sick for the slightest reason (understandably, given that they make profits by
+minimising payouts for treatment). Hardly a vision to inspire a free society
or one compatible with equality and mutual respect.
-
-
- Therefore, most anarchists are in favour of a socialised and universal
-health-care system for both ethical and efficiency reasons (see [section
-I.4.10](secI4.html#seci410)). Needless to say, an anarchist system of
-socialised health care would differ in many ways to the current systems of
-universal health-care provided by the state (which, while called socialised
-medicine by its enemies is better described as nationalised medicine --
-although it should be stressed that this is better than the privatised
-system). Such a system of socialised health-care will be built from the
-bottom-up and based around the local commune. In a social anarchist society,
-_"medical services . . . will be free of charge to all inhabitants of the
-commune. The doctors will not be like capitalists, trying to extract the
+Therefore, most anarchists are in favour of a socialised and universal health-
+care system for both ethical and efficiency reasons (see [section
+I.4.10](secI4.html#seci410) for more details). Needless to say, an anarchist
+system of socialised health care would differ in many ways to the current
+systems of universal health-care provided by the state (which, while called
+socialised medicine by its enemies is better described as nationalised
+medicine -- although it should be stressed that this is better than the
+privatised system). Such a system of socialised health-care will be built from
+the bottom-up and based around the local commune. In a social anarchist
+society, _"medical services . . . will be free of charge to all inhabitants of
+the commune. The doctors will not be like capitalists, trying to extract the
greatest profit from their unfortunate patients. They will be employed by the
commune and expected to treat all who need their services."_ Moreover,
prevention will play an important part, as _"medical treatment is only the
**curative** side of the science of health care; it is not enough to treat the
sick, it is also necessary to prevent disease. That is the true function of
-hygiene."_ [James Guillaume, _"On Building the New Social Order"_, pp. 356-79,
-**Bakunin on Anarchism**, p. 371] The same would go for other public services
-and works.
+hygiene."_ [James Guillaume, _"On Building the New Social Order"_, pp.
+356-79,**Bakunin on Anarchism**, p. 371] The same would go for other public
+services and works.
-
-
- While rejecting privatisation, anarchists also reject nationalisation in
+While rejecting privatisation, anarchists also reject nationalisation in
favour of socialisation and worker's self-management. In this we follow
Proudhon, who argued that there was a series of industries and services which
were _"public works"_ which he thought best handled by communes and their
federations. Thus _"the control undertaking such works will belong to the
municipalities, and to districts within their jurisdiction"_ while _"the
control of carrying them out will rest with the workmen's associations."_ This
-was due to both their nature and libertarian values as the _"direct, sovereign
-initiative of localities, in arranging for public works that belong to them,
-is a consequence of the democratic principle and the free contract: their
-subordination to the State is . . . a return to feudalism."_ Workers' self-
-management of such public workers is, again, a matter of libertarian
+was due to both their nature and libertarian values and so the _"direct,
+sovereign initiative of localities, in arranging for public works that belong
+to them, is a consequence of the democratic principle and the free contract:
+their subordination to the State is . . . a return to feudalism."_ Workers'
+self-management of such public workers is, again, a matter of libertarian
principles for _"it becomes necessary for the workers to form themselves into
democratic societies, with equal conditions for all members, on pain of a
relapse into feudalism."_ Railways should be given _"to responsible companies,
not of capitalists, but of WORKMEN."_ [**General Idea of the Revolution**, p.
276, p. 277 and p. 151]
-
-
- This was applied during the Spanish Revolution. Gaston Leval discussed
-_"Achievements in the Public Sector"_ in his classic account of the
-collectives. Syndicates organised water, gas and electricity utilities in
-Catalonia, while the trams and railways were run more efficiently and cheaper
-than under capitalist management. All across Spain, the workers in the health
-service re-organised their industry on libertarian lines and in association
-with the collectives, communes and the unions of the CNT. As Leval summarised:
+This was applied during the Spanish Revolution. Gaston Leval discussed
+_"Achievements in the Public Sector"_ and a whole chapter of his account of
+the collectives is concerned with this. Syndicates organised water, gas and
+electricity utilities in Catalonia, while the Trams and railways were run more
+efficiently and cheaper than under capitalist management. All across Spain,
+the workers in the health service re-organised their industry in libertarian
+lines and in association with the local collective or commune and the unions
+of the CNT. As Leval summarised:
> _"For the socialisation of medicine was not just an initiative of militant
-libertarian doctors. Wherever we were able to make s study of villages and
+libertarian doctors. Wherever we were able to make a study of villages and
small towns transformed by the Revolution, medicine and existing hospitals had
been municipalised, expanded, placed under the aegis of the Collective. When
there were none, they were improvised. The socialisation of medicine was
@@ -3313,25 +3059,21 @@ becoming everyone's concern, for the benefit of all. It constituted one of the
most remarkable achievements of the Spanish Revolution."_ [**Collectives in
the Spanish Revolution**, p. 278]
-
-
- So the Spanish Revolution indicates how an anarchist health service would
+So the Spanish Revolution indicates how an anarchist health service would
operate. In rural areas local doctors would usually join the village
-collective and provided their services like any other worker. Where local
+collective and provide their services like any other worker. Where local
doctors were not available, _"arrangements were made by the collectives for
treatment of their members by hospitals in nearby localities. In a few cases,
collectives themselves build hospitals; in many they acquired equipment and
other things needed by their local physicians."_ For example, the Monzon
comercal (district) federation of collectives in Aragon established maintained
-a hospital in Binefar, the **Casa de Salud Durruti**. By April 1937 it had 40
+a hospital in Binefar, the Casa de Salud Durruti. By April 1937 it had 40
beds, in sections which included general medicine, prophylaxis and
gynaecology. It saw about 25 outpatients a day and was open to anyone in the
32 villages of the comarca. [Robert Alexander, **The Anarchists in the Spanish
Civil War**, vol. 1, p. 331 and pp. 366-7]
-
-
- In the Levante, the CNT built upon its existing **Sociedad de Socorros Mutuos
+In the Levante, the CNT built upon its existing **Sociedad de Socorros Mutuos
de Levante** (a health service institution founded by the union as a kind of
mutual benefit society which had numerous doctors and specialists). During the
revolution, the Mutua had 50 doctors and was available to all affiliated
@@ -3341,23 +3083,23 @@ Gaston Leval provided us with an excellent summary:
> _"The socialisation of health services was one of the greatest achievements
of the revolution. To appreciate the efforts of our comrades it must be borne
-in mind that they rehabilitated the health service in all of Catalonia in so
+in mind that the rehabilitated the health service in all of Catalonia in so
short a time after July 19th. The revolution could count on the co-operation
of a number of dedicated doctors whose ambition was not to accumulate wealth
but to serve the afflicted and the underprivileged._
-> _ "The Health Workers' Union was founded in September, 1936. In line with
-the tendency to unite all the different classifications, trades, and services
+> _"The Health Workers' Union was founded in September, 1936. In line with the
+tendency to unite all the different classifications, trades, and services
serving a given industry, **all** health workers, from porters to doctors and
administrators, were organised into one big union of health workers . . . _
-> _ "Our comrades laid the foundations of a new health service . . . The new
+> _"Our comrades laid the foundations of a new health service . . . The new
medical service embraced all of Catalonia. It constituted a great apparatus
whose parts were distributed according to different needs, all in accord with
an overall plan. Catalonia was divided into nine zones . . . In turn, all the
surrounding villages and towns were served from these centres._
-> _ "Distributed throughout Catalonia were twenty-seven towns with a total of
+> _"Distributed throughout Catalonia were twenty-seven towns with a total of
thirty-six health centres conducting services so thoroughly that every
village, every hamlet, every isolated peasant in the mountains, every woman,
every child, anywhere, received adequate, up-to-date medical care. In each of
@@ -3368,24 +3110,20 @@ Barcelona, chosen by all the sections, met once a week with one delegate from
each section to deal with common problems and to implement the general plan .
. ._
-> _ "The people immediately benefited from the projects of the health
+> _"The people immediately benefited from the projects of the health
syndicate. The syndicate managed all hospitals and clinics. Six hospitals were
-opened in Barcelona . . . Eight new sanatoriums were installed in converted
+opened in Barcelona. . . Eight new sanatoriums were installed in converted
luxurious homes ideally situated amidst mountains and pine forests. It was no
easy task to convert these homes into efficient hospitals with all new
facilities."_ [**The Anarchist Collectives**, Sam Dolgoff (ed.), pp. 99-100]
-
-
- People were no longer required to pay for medical services. Each collective,
+People were no longer required to pay for medical services. Each collective,
if it could afford it, would pay a contribution to its health centre. Building
and facilities were improved and modern equipment introduced. Like other self-
managed industries, the health service was run at all levels by general
assemblies of workers who elected delegates and hospital administration.
-
-
- We can expect a similar process to occur in the future anarchist society. It
+We can expect a similar process to occur in the future anarchist society. It
would be based on self-management, of course, with close links to the local
commune and federations of communes. Each hospital or health centre would be
autonomous but linked in a federation with the others, allowing resources to
@@ -3398,9 +3136,7 @@ communes and their federations, the syndicates and federations of syndicates
will provide resources and effectively own the health system, ensuring access
for all.
-
-
- Similar systems would operate in other public services. For example, in
+Similar systems would operate in other public services. For example, in
education we expect the members of communes to organise a system of free
schools. This can be seen from the Spanish revolution. Indeed, the Spanish
anarchists organised Modern Schools before the outbreak of the revolution,
@@ -3416,30 +3152,26 @@ men with minds of their own -- and let it be clear that when we use the word
'men' we use it in the generic sense -- to which end it will be necessary for
the teacher to cultivate every one of the child's faculties so that the child
may develop every one of its capacities to the full."_ [quoted by Jose
-Periats, **The CNT in the Spanish Revolution**, p. 70] The principles of
-libertarian education, of encouraging freedom instead of authority in the
-school, was applied on vast scale (see [section J.5.13](secJ5.html#secj513)
-for more details on Modern Schools and libertarian education).
-
+Periats, **The CNT in the Spanish Revolution**, p. 70] Libertarian education,
+of encouraging freedom instead of authority in the school, was applied on vast
+scale (see [section J.5.13](secJ5.html#secj513) for more details on Modern
+Schools and libertarian education).
-
- This educational revolution was not confined to collectives or children. For
+This educational revolution was not confined to collectives or children. For
example, the **Federacion Regional de Campesinos de Levante** formed
institutes in each of its five provinces. The first was set up in October 1937
in an old convent with 100 students. The Federation also set up two
-universities in Valencia and Madrid which taught a wide variety of
+_"universities"_ in Valencia and Madrid which taught a wide variety of
agricultural subjects and combined learning with practical experience in an
experimental form attached to each university. The Aragon collectives formed a
similar specialised school in Binefar. The CNT was heavily involved in
transforming education in Catalonia. In addition, the local federation of the
CNT in Barcelona established a school to train women workers to replace male
-ones being taken into the army. The school was run by the anarcha-feminist
+ones being taken into the army. The school was run by the anarchist-feminist
group the **Mujeres Libres**. [Robert Alexander, **Op. Cit.**, p. 406, p. 670
and pp. 665-8 and p. 670]
-
-
- Ultimately, the public services that exist in a social anarchist society will
+Ultimately, the public services that exist in a social anarchist society will
be dependent on what members of that society desire. If, for example, a
commune or federation of communes desires a system of communal health-care or
schools then they will allocate resources to implement it. They will allocate
@@ -3448,57 +3180,61 @@ volunteers from the interested parties such as the relevant syndicates,
professional associations, consumer groups and so on. For example, for
communal education a commission or working group would include delegates from
the teachers union, from parent associations, from student unions and so on.
-The running of such a system would be, like any other industry, by those who
-work in it. Functional self-management would be the rule, with doctors
+The running of such a system would be based, like any other industry, on those
+who work in it. Functional self-management would be the rule, with doctors
managing their work, nurses theirs and so on, while the general running of,
say, a hospital would be based on a general assembly of all workers there who
-would elect and mandate the administration staff and decide the policy the
-hospital would follow. Other interested parties would have a say, including
-patients in the health system and students in the education system. As
-Malatesta argued _"the carrying out and the normal functioning of public
-services vital to our daily lives would be more reliable if carried out . . .
-by the workers themselves who, by direct election or through agreements made
-with others, have chosen to do that kind of work and carry it out under the
-direct control of all the interested parties."_ [**Anarchy**, p. 41]
-
-
-
- Needless to say, any system of public services would not be imposed on those
+would elect and mandate delegates, the administration staff and decide the
+policy the hospital would follow. Needless to say, other interested parties
+would have a say, including patients in the health system and students in the
+education system. As Malatesta argued:
+
+> _"And is it difficult to understand why there should be people who believe
+that the carrying out and the normal functioning of public services vital to
+our daily lives would be more reliable if carried out under the instructions
+of a government rather by the workers themselves who, by direct election or
+through agreements made with others, have chosen to do that kind of work and
+carry it out under the direct control of all the interested parties."_
+[**Anarchy**, p. 41]
+
+Needless to say, any system of public services would not be imposed on those
who did not desire it. They would be organised for and by members of the
-communes and so individuals who were not part of one would have to pay to gain
-access to communal resources. However, it is unlikely that an anarchist
-society would be as barbaric as a capitalist one and refuse entry to people
-who were ill and could not pay, nor turn away emergencies because they did not
-have enough money. And just as other workers need not join a syndicate or
-commune, so doctors, teachers and so on could practice their trade outside the
-communal system as either individual artisans or as part of a co-operative.
-However, given the availability of free medical services it is doubtful they
-would grow rich doing so. Medicine, teaching and so on would revert back to
-what usually motivates people to initially take these up professions -- the
-desire to help others and make a positive impact in society.
-
-
-
- Thus, as would be expected, public services would be organised by the public,
+communes. Therefore, individuals who were not part of a local commune or
+syndicate would have to pay to gain access to the communal resources. However,
+it is unlikely that an anarchist society would be as barbaric as a capitalist
+one and refuse entry to cases who were ill and could not pay, nor turn away
+emergencies because they did not have enough money to pay. And just as other
+workers need not join a syndicate or commune, so doctors, teachers and so on
+could practice their trade outside the communal system as either individual
+artisans or as part of a co-operative. However, given the availability of free
+medical services it is doubtful they would grow rich doing so. Medicine,
+teaching and so on would revert back to what usually initially motivates
+people to take these up professions -- the desire to help others and make a
+positive impact in peoples lives.
+
+Thus, as would be expected, public services would be organised by the public,
organised in their syndicates and communes. They would be based on workers'
self-management of their daily work and of the system as a whole. Non-workers
-who took part in the system (patients, students, etc.) would not be ignored
-and would also play a role in providing essential feedback to assure quality
-control of services and to ensure that it is responsive to users needs. The
-resources required to maintain and expand the system would be provided by the
-communes, syndicates and their federations. For the first time, public
-services would truly be public and not a statist system imposed upon the
-public from above nor a system by which the few fleece the many by exploiting
-natural monopolies for their own interests.
-
-
-
- So Public Services in a free society will be organised by those who do the
-work and under the effective control of those who use them. This vision of
-public services being run by workers' associations would be raised as a valid
-libertarian reform under capitalism (not to mention raising the demand to turn
-firms into co-operatives when they are bailed out during an economic crisis).
-Equally, rather than nationalisation or privatisation, public utilities could
-be organised as a consumer co-operative (i.e., owned by those who use it)
-while the day-to-day running could be in the hands of a producer co-operative.
+who took part in the system (patients, students) would not be ignored and
+would also play a role in providing essential feedback to assure quality
+control of services and to ensure that the service is responsive to users
+needs. The resources required to maintain and expand the system would be
+provided by the communes, syndicates and their federations. For the first
+time, public services would truly be public and not a statist system imposed
+upon the public from above nor a system by which the few fleece the many by
+exploiting natural monopolies for their own interests. Public Services in a
+free society will be organised by those who do the work and under the
+effective control of those who use them.
+
+Finally, this vision of public services being run by workers' associations
+could be raised as a valid libertarian reform under capitalism (not to mention
+raising the demand to turn firms into co-operatives when they are bailed out
+during economic crisis). Equally, rather than nationalisation or
+privatisation, public utilities could be organised as a consumer co-operative
+(i.e., owned by those who use it) while the day-to-day running could be in the
+hands of a producer co-operative.
+
+[‹ I.4 How could an anarchist economy function?](/afaq/secI4.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secIcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [I.6 What about
+the "Tragedy of the Commons"? ›](/afaq/secI6.html "Go to next page" )
diff --git a/markdown/secI6.md b/markdown/secI6.md
index 1b75eded36156b0b83aa07dbc88acb7b734a126d..b5dc02a2aa13b7143853535f429fc24d714be706 100644
--- a/markdown/secI6.md
+++ b/markdown/secI6.md
@@ -11,11 +11,11 @@ Unsurprisingly, given its popularity with defenders of capitalism and neo-
classical economists, Hardin's argument was a pure thought experiment with
absolutely no empirical evidence to support it. He suggested a scenario in
which commonly owned pasture was open to all local herdsmen to feed their
-cattle on. Completing this assumption with the standard ones of neo-classical
-economics, with Hardin arguing that each herdsman would try to keep as many
+cattle on. Hardin complemented this assumption with the standard ones of neo-
+classical economics, arguing that each herdsman would try to keep as many
cattle as possible on the commons to maximise their income. This would result
in overgrazing and environmental destruction as the cost of each feeding
-addition animals is shouldered by all who use the commons while the benefits
+additional animals is shouldered by all who use the commons while the benefits
accrue to the individual herdsman. However, what is individually rational
becomes collectively irrational when each herdsman, acting in isolation, does
the same thing. The net result of the individual's actions is the ending of
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ communal resources (the former often a precursor for the latter). As state
ownership fell out of favour, the lesson of this experiment in logic was as
uniform as it was simple: only privatisation of common resources could ensure
their efficient use and stop them being overused and destroyed. Coming as it
-before the rise of neo-liberalism in the 1970s, Hardin's essay was much
+did before the rise of neo-liberalism in the 1970s, Hardin's essay was much
referenced by those seeking to privatise nationalised industries and eliminate
communal institutions in tribal societies in the Third World. That these
resulted in wealth being concentrated in a few hands should come as no
@@ -39,9 +39,9 @@ reality of the commons as a social institution. The so-called _"Tragedy of the
Commons"_ was no such thing. It is actually an imposition of the _"tragedy of
the free-for-all"_ to communally owned resources (in this case, land). In
reality, commons were **never** _"free for all"_ resources and while the
-latter may be see overuse and destruction the former managed to survive
-thousands of years. So, unfortunately for the supporters of private property
-who so regularly invoke the _"Tragedy of the Commons"_, they simply show their
+latter may see overuse and destruction the former managed to survive thousands
+of years. So, unfortunately for the supporters of private property who so
+regularly invoke the _"Tragedy of the Commons"_, they simply show their
ignorance of what true commons are. As socialist Allan Engler points out:
> _"Supporters of capitalism cite what they call the tragedy of the commons to
@@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ on the Misuse of Classic Writings in Economics on the Subject of Common
Property"_, pp. 221-8, **Ecological Economics**, No. 9, p. 223, p. 221, p. 224
and p. 226]
-Much the same can be said against those who argue that the experience of the
+Much the same can be said against those who argue that the experience of
Stalinism in the Eastern Block and elsewhere shows that public property leads
to pollution and destruction of natural resources. Such arguments also show a
lack of awareness of what common property actually is (it is no co-incidence
@@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ In reality, the _"tragedy of the commons"_ comes about only after wealth and
private property, backed by the state, starts to eat into and destroy communal
life. This is well indicated by the fact that commons existed for thousands of
years and only disappeared after the rise of capitalism -- and the powerful
-central state it requires \-- had eroded communal values and traditions.
+central state it requires -- had eroded communal values and traditions.
Without the influence of wealth concentrations and the state, people get
together and come to agreements over how to use communal resources and have
been doing so for millennia. That was how the commons were successfully
@@ -348,9 +348,9 @@ Other communities would be confederated with this one, and joint activity
would also be discussed by debate, with a community (like an individual) being
free **not** to associate if they so desire. Other communities could and would
object to ecologically and individually destructive practices. The
-interrelationships of both ecosystems and freedom is well known, and its
-doubtful that free individuals would sit back and let some amongst them
-destroy **their** planet.
+interrelationship of ecosystems and freedom is well known, and it is doubtful
+that free individuals would sit back and let some amongst them destroy
+**their** planet.
Therefore, those who use something control it. This means that "users groups"
would be created to manage resources used by more than one person. For
@@ -455,7 +455,7 @@ left to his [or her] own conscience, and the pressure exercised upon him [or
her] by the moral sense and distinct interests of his [or her] neighbours."_
This system of _"usufruct"_ would also apply to the _"instruments of
production -- land included"_, being _"free to all workers, or groups of
-workers"_ for _"as long as long and capital are unappropriated, the workers
+workers"_ for _"as long as land and capital are unappropriated, the workers
are free, and that, when these have a master, the workers also are slaves."_
[**Anarchist Essays**, p. 24 and p. 21] This is because, as with all forms of
anarchism, communist-anarchism bases itself on the distinction between
@@ -474,11 +474,11 @@ flagrant injustice?"_ [**Conquest of Bread**, p. 90] For the latter: _"The
land cannot be appropriated"_. Neither denied that individuals could **use**
the land or other resources, simply that it could not be turned into private
property. Thus Proudhon: _"Every occupant is, then, necessarily a possessor or
-usufructuary, -- a function that excludes proprietorship."_ [**What is
-Property?**, p. 103 and p. 98] Obviously John Henry MacKay, unlike Kropotkin,
+usufructuary, -- a function that excludes proprietorship."_ [**Property is
+Theft!**, p. 103 and p. 100] Obviously John Henry MacKay, unlike Kropotkin,
had not read his Proudhon! As Wilson argued:
-> _ "Proudhon's famous dictum, 'Property is theft', is the key to the equally
+> _"Proudhon's famous dictum, 'Property is theft', is the key to the equally
famous enigma . . . 'From each according to his capacities, to each according
to his needs'. When the workers clearly understand that in taking possession
of railways and ships, mines and fields, farm buildings and factories, raw
@@ -604,7 +604,7 @@ Let these multiply, and soon the people . . . will have nowhere to rest, no
place of shelter, no ground to till. They will die of hunger at the
proprietor's door, on the edge of that property which was their birth-right;
and the proprietor, watching them die, will exclaim, 'So perish idlers and
-vagrants.'"_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 118]
+vagrants.'"_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 111]
Of course, as Proudhon suggested, the non-owner can gain access to the
property by becoming a servant, by selling their liberty to the owner and
@@ -671,3 +671,8 @@ Goldman that _"it is our endeavour to abolish private property, State . . . we
aim to free men from tyrants and government."_ [**A Documentary History of the
American Years**, vol. 1, p. 181]
+[‹ I.5 What could the social structure of anarchy look like?](/afaq/secI5.html
+"Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secIcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [I.7
+Won't Libertarian Socialism destroy individuality? ›](/afaq/secI7.html "Go to
+next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secI7.md b/markdown/secI7.md
index cb7c8dbceff0c4f6cca80cce96f5f88182a88d02..6a74ae4d596044910bab72fcbc39b49ec2fe309e 100644
--- a/markdown/secI7.md
+++ b/markdown/secI7.md
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ itself in a normal, healthy manner."_ [**Anarchism and Other Essays**, pp.
70-1]
So we see a system which is apparently based on "egotism" and "individualism"
-but whose members are free be standardised individuals, who hardly express
+but whose members are free to be standardised individuals, who hardly express
their individuality at all. Far from increasing individuality, capitalism
standardises it and so restricts it -- that it survives at all is more an
expression of the strength of humanity than any benefits of the capitalist
@@ -40,10 +40,9 @@ communists like Kropotkin suggesting that _"as for knowing what will be the
essence of **individual** development, I do not think it **could** be along
individualist lines. Individual -- yes, without doubt, but individ**ualist**
\-- I have my doubts. That would mean: **narrow egoism** \-- regressive
-evolution and even that would be limited to a certain number."_ [Kropotkin,
-quoted by Ruth Kinna, _"Kropotkin's theory of Mutual Aid in Historical
-Context"_, pp. 259-283, **International Review of Social History**, No. 40, p.
-268]
+evolution and even that would be limited to a certain number."_ [quoted by
+Ruth Kinna, _"Kropotkin's theory of Mutual Aid in Historical Context"_, pp.
+259-283, **International Review of Social History**, No. 40, p. 268]
So, can we say that libertarian socialism will **increase** individuality or
is this conformity and lack of "individualism" a constant feature of the human
@@ -84,7 +83,7 @@ developed individual is the consummation of a fully developed society."_
[**The Eclipse of Reason**, p. 135]
The sovereign, self-sufficient individual is as much a product of a healthy
-community as it is from individual self-realisation and the fulfilment of
+community as it is of individual self-realisation and the fulfilment of
desire. There is a tendency for **community** to enrich and develop
**individuality**, with this tendency being seen throughout human history.
This suggests that the abstract individualism of capitalism is more the
@@ -98,7 +97,7 @@ of humanity's idea of the good."_ [**The Ecology of Freedom**, p. 409]
Communal support for individuality is hardly surprising as individuality is a
product of the interaction between **social** forces and individual
attributes. The more an individual cuts themselves off from social life, the
-more likely their individuality will suffer. This can be seen from the 1980's
+more likely their individuality will suffer. This can be seen from the 1980s
when neo-liberal governments supporting the individualism associated with free
market capitalism were elected in both Britain and the USA. The promotion of
market forces lead to social atomisation, social disruption and a more
@@ -186,16 +185,16 @@ Cleyre put it:
and asserted it, himself, or jointly with others that shared his convictions,
was a direct actionist . . . _
-> _ "Every person who ever had a plan to do anything, and went and did it, or
+> _"Every person who ever had a plan to do anything, and went and did it, or
who laid his plan before others, and won their co-operation to do it with him,
without going to external authorities to please do the thing for them, was a
direct actionist. All co-operative experiments are essentially direct action._
-> _ "Every person who ever in his life had a difference with anyone to settle,
+> _"Every person who ever in his life had a difference with anyone to settle,
and want straight to the other persons involved to settle it . . . was a
direct actionist. Examples of such action are strikes and boycotts . . . _
-> _ "These actions . . . are the spontaneous retorts of those who feel
+> _"These actions . . . are the spontaneous retorts of those who feel
oppressed by a situation."_ [**The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader**, pp. 47-8]
Therefore, anarchist tactics base themselves upon self-assertion and this can
@@ -207,7 +206,7 @@ from an anarchist society. Indeed, anarchists strongly stress the importance
of individuality within a society. To quote communist-anarchist J. Burns-
Gibson:
-> _"[T]o destroy individuality is to destroy society. For society is only
+> _"to destroy individuality is to destroy society. For society is only
realised and alive in the individual members. Society has no motive that does
not issue from its individual members, no end that does not centre in them, no
mind that is not theirs. 'Spirit of the age,' 'public opinion,' 'commonweal or
@@ -225,13 +224,13 @@ development of individuality combined with the highest development of
voluntary association in all its aspects . . . ever changing, ever modified"_.
[**Anarchism**, p. 123]
-For anarchists real liberty requires social equality. For _"[i]f individuals
-are to exercise the maximum amount of control over their own lives and
-environment then authority structures in these areas most be so organised that
-they can participate in decision making."_ [Pateman, **Op. Cit.**, p. 43]
-Hence individuality will be protected, encouraged and developed in an
-anarchist society far more than in a class ridden, hierarchical society like
-capitalism. As Kropotkin argued:
+For anarchists real liberty requires social equality: _"If individuals are to
+exercise the maximum amount of control over their own lives and environment
+then authority structures in these areas most be so organised that they can
+participate in decision making."_ [Pateman, **Op. Cit.**, p. 43] Hence
+individuality will be protected, encouraged and developed in an anarchist
+society far more than in a class ridden, hierarchical society like capitalism.
+As Kropotkin argued:
> _"[Libertarian] Communism is the best basis for individual development and
freedom; not that individualism which drives men to the war of each against
@@ -265,15 +264,14 @@ emphasis on an egoistic, but impoverished, self."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 48]
This individualisation associated with tribal cultures was also noted by
historian Howard Zinn. He quotes fellow historian Gary Nash describing
-Iroquois culture (which appears typical of most Native American tribes):
+Iroquois culture:
> _"No laws and ordinances, sheriffs and constables, judges and juries, or
-courts or jails -- the apparatus of authority in European societies \-- were
-to be found in the north-east woodlands prior to European arrival. Yet
-boundaries of acceptable behaviour were firmly set. Though priding themselves
-on the autonomous individual, the Iroquois maintained a strict sense of right
-and wrong."_ [quoted by Zinn, **A People's History of the United States**, p.
-21]
+courts or jails -- the apparatus of authority in European societies -- were to
+be found in the north-east woodlands prior to European arrival. Yet boundaries
+of acceptable behaviour were firmly set. Though priding themselves on the
+autonomous individual, the Iroquois maintained a strict sense of right and
+wrong."_ [quoted by Zinn, **A People's History of the United States**, p. 21]
This respect for individuality existed in a society based on communistic
principles. As Zinn notes, in the Iroquois _"land was owned in common and
@@ -304,8 +302,8 @@ than the individual's duty to his [or her] community or nation. This
anarchistic attitude ruled all behaviour, beginning with the smallest social
unity, the family. The Indian parent was constitutionally reluctant to
discipline his [or her] children. Their every exhibition of self-will was
-accepted as a favourable indication of the development of maturing character.
-. ."_ [Van Every, quoted by Zinn, **Op. Cit.**, p. 136]
+accepted as a favourable indication of the development of maturing
+character."_ [Van Every, quoted by Zinn, **Op. Cit.**, p. 136]
In addition, Native American tribes also indicate that communal living and
high standards of living can and do go together. For example, during the 1870s
@@ -342,8 +340,8 @@ boss they did not have to learn to obey others and so could develop their own
abilities to govern themselves. This self-government allowed the development
of a custom in such tribes called _"the principle of non-interference"_ in
anthropology. This is the principle of defending someone's right to express
-the opposing view and it is a pervasive principle in the tribal world, and it
-is so much so as to be safely called a universal.
+the opposing view and it is a pervasive principle in the tribal world, so much
+so as to be safely called a universal.
The principle of non-interference is a powerful principle that extends from
the personal to the political, and into every facet of daily life
@@ -375,7 +373,7 @@ Therefore, given the strength of individuality documented in tribes with no
private property, no state and little or no other hierarchical structures
within them, can we not conclude that anarchism will defend individuality and
even develop it in ways blocked by capitalism? At the very least we can say
-"possibly", and that is enough to allow us to question that dogma that
+"possibly", and that is enough to allow us to question the dogma that
capitalism is the only system based on respect for the individual.
## I.7.2 Do anarchists worship the past or the "noble savage"?
@@ -394,7 +392,7 @@ or society. They are also aware of the problems associated with using **any**
historical period as an example of "anarchism in action." Take for example the
"free cities" of Medieval Europe, which was used by Kropotkin as an example of
the potential of decentralised, confederated communes. He was sometimes
-accused of being a _"Medievalist"_ (as was William Morris) while all he was
+accused of being a "Medievalist" (as was William Morris) while all he was
doing was indicating that capitalism need not equal progress and that
alternative social systems have existed which have encouraged freedom in ways
capitalism restricts.
@@ -416,7 +414,7 @@ management in production). Rather than being backward looking and worshipping
a past which was disappearing, Proudhon analysed the present **and** past,
drew any positive features he could from both and applied them to the present
and the future (see also [section I.3.8](secI3.html#seci38)). Unlike Marx, who
-argued that industrialisation (i.e. proletarianisation) was the pre-conditions
+argued that industrialisation (i.e. proletarianisation) was the pre-condition
of socialism, Proudhon wanted justice and freedom for working class people
during his lifetime, not some (unspecified) time in the future after
capitalism had fully developed.
@@ -532,7 +530,7 @@ What anarchists propose instead of the current legal system (or an alternative
law system based on religious or "natural" laws) is **custom** \-- namely the
development of living "rules of thumb" which express what a society considers
as right at any given moment. However, the question arises, if an agreed set
-of principles are used to determine the just outcome, in what way would this
+of principles is used to determine the just outcome, in what way would this
differ from laws?
The difference is that the "order of custom" would prevail rather than the
@@ -552,7 +550,7 @@ being infantilised by the state through a constant bombardment of fixed social
structures removing all possibility of people developing their own unique
solutions.
-Therefore, anarchist recognise that social custom changes with society. What
+Therefore, anarchists recognise that social custom changes with society. What
was once considered "normal" or "natural" may become to be seen as oppressive
and hateful. This is because the _"conception of good or evil varies according
to the degree of intelligence or of knowledge acquired. There is nothing
@@ -581,7 +579,7 @@ the environment where these ethics can be bought. To quote Shakespeare's
> _Second Murderer: O, in the Duke of Gloucester's purse."_
-Therefore, as far as _"The Law"_ defending individual rights, it creates the
+Therefore, as for_"The Law"_ defending individual rights, it creates the
necessary conditions (such as the de-personalisation of ethics, the existence
of concentrations wealth, and so on) for undermining individual ethical
behaviour, and so respect for other individual's rights. As English
@@ -666,7 +664,7 @@ crystallise in a permanent form, such customs as already were in existence"_
and adding to them _"some new rules -- rules of inequality and servile
submission of the masses in the interest of the armed rich and the warlike
minorities."_ [**Evolution and Environment**, pp. 48-9] Unsurprisingly, then,
-the state perverts social customs for its own, and the interests of the
+the state perverts social customs for its own interests and those of the
economically and socially powerful:
> _"as society became more and more divided into two hostile classes, one
@@ -712,7 +710,7 @@ p. 200 and p. 210]
Therefore, its important to remember why the state exists and so whatever
actions and rights it promotes for the individual it exists to protect the
powerful against the powerless. Any human rights recognised by the state are a
-product of social struggle and exist because of pass victories in the class
+product of social struggle and exist because of past victories in the class
war and not due to the kindness of ruling elites. In addition, capitalism
itself undermines the ethical foundations of any society by encouraging people
to grow accustomed to deceiving their fellows and treating them as a
@@ -789,7 +787,7 @@ up sacrificing their own ego to it. Instead of the individual dominating their
aspect of themselves. This "selfishness" hides the poverty of the ego who
practices it. As libertarian Marxist psychiatrist Erich Fromm argued:
-> _"Selfishness if not identical with self-love but with its very opposite.
+> _"Selfishness is not identical with self-love but with its very opposite.
Selfishness is one kind of greediness. Like all greediness, it contains an
insatiability, as a consequence of which there is never any real satisfaction.
Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to
@@ -856,3 +854,8 @@ So, far from defending individuality, capitalism places a lot of barriers
express their freedom. Anarchism exists precisely because capitalism has not
created the free society it supporters claimed it would.
+[‹ I.6 What about the "Tragedy of the Commons"?](/afaq/secI6.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secIcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [I.8 Does
+revolutionary Spain show that libertarian socialism can work in practice?
+›](/afaq/secI8.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secI8.md b/markdown/secI8.md
index 50342e911ad45d466cafa1dd5028f5510316973b..a71d1f8ef2d3cae2c137638ad06bca969312e58a 100644
--- a/markdown/secI8.md
+++ b/markdown/secI8.md
@@ -92,9 +92,7 @@ Casa Viejas** and J. Romero Maura's article _"The Spanish case"_ [**Anarchism
Today**, J. Joll and D. Apter (eds.)] for a refutation of many of the standard
assertions and distortions about the Spanish anarchist movement by
historians). The myths generated by Marxists of various shades are, perhaps
-needless to say, the most extensive (see the appendix on [_"Marxists and
-Spanish Anarchism"_](append32.html) for a reply to some of the more common
-ones).
+needless to say, the most extensive.
All we can do here is present a summary of the social revolution that took
place and attempt to explode a few of the myths that have been created around
@@ -126,7 +124,7 @@ picture of the self-liberation the revolution generated:
feeling of -- how shall I say it -- of power, not in the sense of domination,
but in the sense of things being under **our** control, of under anyone's. Of
**possibility**. We **had** everything. We had Barcelona: It was ours. You'd
-walk out in the streets, and they were ours \-- here, CNT; there, **comite**
+walk out in the streets, and they were ours -- here, CNT; there, **comite**
this or that. It was totally different. Full of possibility. A feeling that we
could, together, really **do** something. That we could make things
different."_ [quoted by Martha A. Ackelsberg and Myrna Margulies Breithart,
@@ -184,21 +182,21 @@ Revolution are collected in **Vision on Fire**.
Robert Alexander's **The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War** is a good
general overview of the anarchist's role in the revolution and civil war, as
-is Burnett Bolloten's **The Spanish Civil War**. Daniel Gurin's anthology **No
-Gods, No Masters** as two sections on the Spanish Revolution, one specifically
-on the collectives. Noam Chomsky's excellent essay _"Objectivity and Liberal
-Scholarship"_ indicates how liberal books on the Spanish Civil War can be
-misleading, unfair and essentially ideological in nature (this classic essay
-can be found in **Chomsky on Anarchism**, **The Chomsky Reader**, and
+is Burnett Bolloten's **The Spanish Civil War**. Daniel Guérin's anthology
+**No Gods, No Masters** has two sections on the Spanish Revolution, one
+specifically on the collectives. Noam Chomsky's excellent essay _"Objectivity
+and Liberal Scholarship"_ indicates how liberal books on the Spanish Civil War
+can be misleading, unfair and essentially ideological in nature (this classic
+essay can be found in **Chomsky on Anarchism**, **The Chomsky Reader**, and
**American Power and the New Mandarins**). George Orwell's **Homage to
Catalonia** cannot be bettered as an introduction to the subject (Orwell was
-in the POUM militia at the Aragn Front and was in Barcelona during the May
+in the POUM militia at the Aragón Front and was in Barcelona during the May
Days of 1937). This classic account is contained along with other works by
Orwell about the conflict in the anthology **Orwell in Spain**. Murray
Bookchin's **The Spanish Anarchists** is a useful history, but ends just as
the revolution breaks out and so needs to be completed by his **To Remember
Spain** and the essay _"Looking Back at Spain"_. Stuart Christie's **We, The
-Anarchists!** is an important history on the Iberian Anarchist Federation.
+Anarchists!** is an important history of the Iberian Anarchist Federation.
## I.8.1 Is the Spanish Revolution inapplicable as a model for modern
societies?
@@ -208,7 +206,7 @@ countryside. So while it is true that collectivisation was extensive in rural
areas, the revolution also made its mark in urban areas and in industry.
In total, the _"regions most affected"_ by collectivisation _"were Catalonia
-and Aragn, where about 70 per cent of the workforce was involved. The total
+and Aragón, where about 70 per cent of the workforce was involved. The total
for the whole of Republican territory was nearly 800,000 on the land and a
little more than a million in industry. In Barcelona workers' committees took
over all the services, the oil monopoly, the shipping companies, heavy
@@ -256,33 +254,34 @@ was very different than the situation in Russia at the end of World War I,
where the urban working class made up only 10% of the population.
Capitalist social relations had also penetrated the rural economy by the 1930s
-with agriculture oriented to the world market and approximately 90% of farm
-land in the hands of the bourgeoisie. [Fraser, **Op. Cit.**, p. 37] So by 1936
-agriculture was predominately capitalist, with Spanish agribusiness employing
-large numbers of labourers who either did not own enough land to support
-themselves or where landless. The labour movement in the Spanish countryside
-in the 1930s was precisely based on this large population of rural wage-
-earners (the socialist UGT land workers union had 451,000 members in 1933, 40%
-of its total membership, for example). In Russia at the time of the revolution
-of 1917, agriculture mostly consisted of small farms on which peasant families
-worked mainly for their own subsistence, bartering or selling their surplus.
-
-Therefore the Spanish Revolution cannot be dismissed as a product a of pre-
+with agriculture oriented to the world market and approximately 90% of
+farmland in the hands of the bourgeoisie. [Fraser, **Op. Cit.**, p. 37] So by
+1936 agriculture was predominately capitalist, with Spanish agribusiness
+employing large numbers of labourers who either did not own enough land to
+support themselves or were landless. The labour movement in the Spanish
+countryside in the 1930s was precisely based on this large population of rural
+wage-earners (the socialist UGT land workers union had 451,000 members in
+1933, 40% of its total membership, for example). In Russia at the time of the
+revolution of 1917, agriculture mostly consisted of small farms on which
+peasant families worked mainly for their own subsistence, bartering or selling
+their surplus.
+
+Therefore the Spanish Revolution cannot be dismissed as a product of a pre-
industrial society. The urban collectivisations occurred predominately in the
most heavily industrialised part of Spain and indicate that anarchist ideas
-are applicable to modern societies Indeed, comforting Marxist myths aside, the
-CNT organised most of the unionised urban working class and, internally,
-agricultural workers were a minority of its membership (by 1936, the CNT was
-making inroads in Madrid, previously a socialist stronghold while the UGT main
-area of growth in the 1930s was with, ironically, rural workers). The
-revolution in Spain was the work (mostly) of rural and urban wage labourers
-(joined with poor peasants) fighting a well developed capitalist system.
+are applicable to modern societies. Indeed, comforting Marxist myths aside,
+the CNT organised most of the unionised urban working class and agricultural
+workers were a minority of its membership (by 1936, the CNT was making inroads
+in Madrid, previously a socialist stronghold while the UGT main area of growth
+in the 1930s was with, ironically, rural workers). The revolution in Spain was
+the work (mostly) of rural and urban wage labourers (joined with poor
+peasants) fighting a well developed capitalist system.
In summary, then, the anarchist revolution in Spain has many lessons for
revolutionaries in developed capitalist countries and cannot be dismissed as a
-product of industrial backwardness. The main strength lay of the anarchist
-movement was in urban areas and, unsurprisingly, the social revolution took
-place in both the most heavily industrialised areas as well as on the land.
+product of industrial backwardness. The main strength of the anarchist
+movement was in urban areas and unsurprisingly, the social revolution took
+place in the most heavily industrialised areas as well as on the land.
## I.8.2 How were the anarchists able to obtain mass popular support in Spain?
@@ -317,10 +316,10 @@ everyday life, the anarchists in Spain ensured that anarchist ideas became
commonplace and accepted in a large section of the population.
This acceptance of anarchism cannot be separated from the structure and
-tactics of the CNT and its fore-runners. The practice of direct action and
+tactics of the CNT and its forerunners. The practice of direct action and
solidarity encouraged workers to rely on themselves, to identify and solve
their own problems. The decentralised structure of the anarchist unions had an
-educational effect of their members. By discussing issues, struggles, tactics,
+educational effect on their members. By discussing issues, struggles, tactics,
ideals and politics in their union assemblies, the members of the union
educated themselves and, by the process of self-management in the struggle,
prepared themselves for a free society. The very organisational structure of
@@ -335,8 +334,8 @@ Jerome R. Mintz, **The Anarchists of Casas Viejas**, p. 27]
It was by working in the union meetings that anarchists influenced their
fellow workers. The idea that the anarchists, through the FAI, controlled the
CNT is a myth. Not all anarchists in the CNT were members of the FAI, for
-example. Almost all FAI members were also rank-and-file members of the CNT who
-took part in union meetings as equals. Anarchists were not members of the FAI
+example, while FAI members were also rank-and-file members of the CNT who took
+part in union meetings as equals. Anarchists who were not members of the FAI
indicate this. Jose Borras Casacarosa confirmed that _"[o]ne has to recognise
that the FAI did not intervene in the CNT from above or in an authoritarian
manner as did other political parties in the unions. It did so from the base
@@ -490,8 +489,8 @@ and acting for themselves, directly. This prepared them to manage their own
personal and collective interests in a free society (as seen by the success of
the self-managed collectives created in the revolution). Thus the process of
self-managed struggle and direct action prepared people for the necessities of
-the social revolution and the an anarchist society -- it built, as Bakunin
-argued, the seeds of the future in the present.
+the social revolution and an anarchist society -- it built, as Bakunin argued,
+the seeds of the future in the present.
In other words, _"the route to radicalisation . . . came from direct
involvement in struggle and in the design of alternative social
@@ -534,9 +533,9 @@ to the streets to stop fascism.
The revolution in Spain did not "just happen"; it was the result of nearly
seventy years of persistent anarchist agitation and revolutionary struggle,
including a long series of strikes, protests, boycotts, uprisings and other
-forms of direct action that prepared the peasants and workers organise popular
-resistance to the attempted fascist coup in July 1936 and to take control of
-society when they had defeated it in the streets.
+forms of direct action that prepared the peasants and workers to organise
+popular resistance to the attempted fascist coup in July 1936 and to take
+control of society when they had defeated it in the streets.
## I.8.3 How were Spanish industrial collectives organised?
@@ -671,9 +670,9 @@ with many collectives selling the product of their own labour on the market.
This lead to some economic problems as there existed no framework of
institutions between collectives to ensure efficient co-ordination of activity
-and so lead to pointless competition between collectives (which led to even
+and so led to pointless competition between collectives (which led to even
more problems). As there were initially no confederations of collectives nor
-mutual/communal banks this lead to the continuation of any inequalities that
+mutual/communal banks this led to the continuation of any inequalities that
initially existed between collectives (due to the fact that workers took over
rich and poor capitalist firms) and it made the many ad hoc attempts at mutual
aid between collectives difficult and often of an ad hoc nature.
@@ -691,14 +690,14 @@ predicted in anarchist theory and the programme of the CNT). Gaston Leval
gives the example of Hospitalet del Llobregat with regards to this process:
> _"Local industries went through stages almost universally adopted in that
-revolution . . . [I]n the first instance, **comites** nominated by the workers
-employed in them [were organised]. Production and sales continued in each one.
-But very soon it was clear that this situation gave rise to competition
-between the factories . . . creating rivalries which were incompatible with
-the socialist and libertarian outlook. So the CNT launched the watchword: 'All
-industries must be ramified in the Syndicates, completely socialised, and the
-regime of solidarity which we have always advocated be established once and
-for all.'_
+revolution . . . [I]n the first instance, **comités** [committees] nominated
+by the workers employed in them [were organised]. Production and sales
+continued in each one. But very soon it was clear that this situation gave
+rise to competition between the factories . . . creating rivalries which were
+incompatible with the socialist and libertarian outlook. So the CNT launched
+the watchword: 'All industries must be ramified in the Syndicates, completely
+socialised, and the regime of solidarity which we have always advocated be
+established once and for all.'_
> _"The idea won support immediately."_ [**Collectives in the Spanish
Revolution**, pp. 291-2]
@@ -735,29 +734,13 @@ not compete with each other for profits, as surpluses were pooled and
distributed on a wider basis than the individual collective.
This process went on in many different unions and collectives and,
-unsurprisingly, the forms of co-ordination agreed to lead to different forms
-of organisation in different areas and industries, as would be expected in a
-free society. However, the two most important forms can be termed
-syndicalisation and confederationalism (we will ignore the forms created by
-the collectivisation decree as these were not created by the workers
-themselves).
-
-_**Syndicalisation**_ (our term) meant that the CNT's industrial union ran the
-whole industry. This solution was tried by the woodworkers' union after
-extensive debate. One section of the union, _"dominated by the FAI, maintained
-that anarchist self-management meant that the workers should set up and
-operate autonomous centres of production so as to avoid the threat of
-bureaucratisation."_ However, those in favour of syndicalisation won the day
-and production was organised in the hands of the union, with administration
-posts and delegate meetings elected by the rank and file. However, the _"major
-failure . . . (and which supported the original anarchist objection) was that
-the union became like a large firm"_ and its _"structure grew increasingly
-rigid."_ [Ronald Fraser, **Blood of Spain**, p. 222] According to one
-militant, _"From the outside it began to look like an American or German
-trust"_ and the workers found it difficult to secure any changes and _"felt
-they weren't particularly involved in decision making."_ [quoted by Fraser,
-**Op. Cit.**, p. 222 and p. 223] However, this did not stop workers re-
-electing almost all posts at the first Annual General Assembly.
+unsurprisingly, the forms of co-ordination agreed to led to different forms of
+organisation in different areas and industries, as would be expected in a free
+society. However, the two most important forms can be termed syndicalisation
+and confederationalism (we will ignore the forms created by the
+collectivisation decree as these were not created by the workers themselves).
+
+**_Syndicalisation_** (our term) meant that the CNT's industrial union ran the whole industry. This solution was tried by the woodworkers' union after extensive debate. One section of the union, _"dominated by the FAI, maintained that anarchist self-management meant that the workers should set up and operate autonomous centres of production so as to avoid the threat of bureaucratisation."_ However, those in favour of syndicalisation won the day and production was organised in the hands of the union, with administration posts and delegate meetings elected by the rank and file. However, the _"major failure . . . (and which supported the original anarchist objection) was that the union became like a large firm"_ and its _"structure grew increasingly rigid."_ [Fraser, **Op. Cit.**, p. 222] According to one militant, _"From the outside it began to look like an American or German trust"_ and the workers found it difficult to secure any changes and _"felt they weren't particularly involved in decision making."_ [quoted by Fraser, **Op. Cit.**, p. 222 and p. 223] However, this did not stop workers re-electing almost all posts at the first Annual General Assembly.
In the end, the major difference between the union-run industry and a
capitalist firm organisationally appeared to be that workers could vote for
@@ -770,7 +753,7 @@ structure of any industry and so we cannot say that the form of organisation
created was totally responsible for any marginalisation that took place.
The other important form of co-operation was what we will term
-_**confederalisation**_. This system was based on horizontal links between
+**_confederalisation_**. This system was based on horizontal links between
workplaces (via the CNT union) and allowed a maximum of self-management
**and** mutual aid. This form of co-operation was practised by the Badalona
textile industry (and had been defeated in the woodworkers' union). It was
@@ -819,17 +802,15 @@ estates. Many of these peasants, together with the CNT, organised collectives,
pooling their land, animals, tools, chickens, grain, fertiliser, and even
their harvested crops._
-> _ "Privately owned farms located in the midst of collectives interfered with
+> _"Privately owned farms located in the midst of collectives interfered with
efficient cultivation by splitting up the collectives into disconnected
parcels. To induce owners to move, they were given more or even better land
-located on the perimeter of the collective.
-
->
+located on the perimeter of the collective. _
-> "The collectivist who had nothing to contribute to the collective was
+> _"The collectivist who had nothing to contribute to the collective was
admitted with the same rights and the same duties as the others. In some
collectives, those joining had to contribute their money (Girondella in
-Catalonia, Lagunarrotta in Aragn, and Cervera del Maestra in Valencia)."_
+Catalonia, Lagunarrotta in Aragón, and Cervera del Maestra in Valencia)."_
[**The Anarchist Collectives**, p. 112]
Dolgoff observed that _"supreme power was vested in, and actually exercised
@@ -868,12 +849,12 @@ the assemblies. We would try to speak to them in terms they understood. We'd
ask, 'Did you think it was fair when the **cacique** [local boss] let people
starve if there wasn't enough work?' and they said, 'Of course not.' They
would eventually come around. Don't forget, there were three hundred thousand
-collectivists [in Aragn], but only ten thousand of us had been members of the
+collectivists [in Aragón], but only ten thousand of us had been members of the
CNT. We had a lot of educating to do."_ [quoted by Ackelsberg, **Op. Cit.**,
p. 107]
In addition, regional federations of collectives were formed in many areas of
-Spain (for example, in Aragn and the Levant). The federations were created at
+Spain (for example, in Aragón and the Levant). The federations were created at
congresses to which the collectives in an area sent delegates. These
congresses agreed a series of general rules about how the federation would
operate and what commitments the affiliated collectives would have to each
@@ -893,7 +874,7 @@ the first time in history outside the State and governmental structures, the
whole of social life."_ [Gaston Leval, **Collectives in the Spanish
Revolution**, p. 154]
-The Aragn Federation statues were agreed at its founding congress in mid-
+The Aragón Federation statues were agreed at its founding congress in mid-
February 1937 by 500 delegates. These stated that there would be _"as many
county federations"_ as deemed _"necessary for the proper running of the
collectives"_ and the Federation would _"hold its ordinary congress at
@@ -912,7 +893,7 @@ collectives to pool resources together in order to improve the infrastructure
of the area (building roads, canals, hospitals and so on) and invest in means
of production which no one collective could afford. In this way individual
collectives pooled their resources, increased and improved the means of
-production ad the social and economic infrastructure of their regions. All
+production and the social and economic infrastructure of their regions. All
this, combined with an increase of consumption in the villages and towns as
well as the feeding of militia men and women fighting the fascists at the
front.
@@ -947,7 +928,7 @@ p. 95]
More importantly, however, this improvement in the quality of life included an
increase in freedom as well as in consumption. To re-quote the member of the
-Beceite collective in Aragn: _"it was marvellous . . . to live in a
+Beceite collective in Aragón: _"it was marvellous . . . to live in a
collective, a free society where one could say what one thought, where if the
village committee seemed unsatisfactory one could say. The committee took no
big decisions without calling the whole village together in a general
@@ -960,7 +941,7 @@ examples provided by Jose Peirats:
> _"In Montblanc the collective dug up the old useless vines and planted new
vineyards. The land, improved by modern cultivation with tractors, yielded
-much bigger and better crops . . . Many Aragn collectives built new roads and
+much bigger and better crops . . . Many Aragón collectives built new roads and
repaired old ones, installed modern flour mills, and processed agricultural
and animal waste into useful industrial products. Many of these improvements
were first initiated by the collectives. Some villages, like Calanda, built
@@ -1021,7 +1002,7 @@ importance was the right of women to livelihood, regardless of occupation or
function. In about half of the agrarian collectives, the women received the
same wages as men; in the rest the women received less, apparently on the
principle that they rarely live alone . . . In all the agrarian collectives of
-Aragn, Catalonia, Levant, Castile, Andalusia, and Estremadura, the workers
+Aragón, Catalonia, Levant, Castile, Andalusia, and Estremadura, the workers
formed groups to divide the labour or the land; usually they were assigned to
definite areas. Delegates elected by the work groups met with the collective's
delegate for agriculture to plan out the work. This typical organisation arose
@@ -1029,12 +1010,12 @@ quite spontaneously, by local initiative . . . In addition . . . the
collective as a whole met in weekly, bi-weekly or monthly assembly . . . The
assembly reviewed the activities of the councillors it named, and discussed
special cases and unforeseen problems. All inhabitants -- men and women,
-producers and non-producers \-- took part in the discussion and decisions . .
-. In land cultivation the most significant advances were: the rapidly
-increased use of machinery and irrigation; greater diversification; and
-forestation. In stock raising: the selection and multiplication of breeds; the
-adaptation of breeds to local conditions; and large-scale construction of
-collective stock barns."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 166-167]
+producers and non-producers -- took part in the discussion and decisions . . .
+In land cultivation the most significant advances were: the rapidly increased
+use of machinery and irrigation; greater diversification; and forestation. In
+stock raising: the selection and multiplication of breeds; the adaptation of
+breeds to local conditions; and large-scale construction of collective stock
+barns."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 166-167]
Collectivisation, as Graham Kelsey notes, _"allowed a rationalisation of
village societies and a more efficient use of the economic resources
@@ -1097,14 +1078,14 @@ evidence to refute claims that the rural collectives were created by force.
Firstly, we should point out that rural collectives were created in many
different areas of Spain, such as the Levant (900 collectives), Castile (300)
and Estremadera (30), where the anarchist militia did not exist. In Catalonia,
-for example, the CNT militia passed through many villages on its way to Aragn
-and only around 40 collectives were created unlike the 450 in Aragn. In other
+for example, the CNT militia passed through many villages on its way to Aragón
+and only around 40 collectives were created unlike the 450 in Aragón. In other
words, the rural collectivisation process occurred independently of the
existence of anarchist troops, with the majority of the 1,700 rural
collectives created in areas without a predominance of anarchist militias.
One historian, Ronald Fraser, seems to imply that collectives were imposed
-upon the Aragn population. As he put it, the _"collectivisation, carried out
+upon the Aragón population. As he put it, the _"collectivisation, carried out
under the general cover, if not necessarily the direct agency, of CNT militia
columns, represented a revolutionary minority's attempt to control not only
production but consumption for egalitarian purposes and the needs of the
@@ -1124,21 +1105,21 @@ total. [**Blood of Spain**, p. 370, p. 349 and p. 366] This is shown in his
own book as collectivists interviewed continually note that people remained
outside their collectives!
-Thus Fraser's attempts to paint the Aragn collectives as a form of _"war
+Thus Fraser's attempts to paint the Aragón collectives as a form of _"war
communism"_ imposed upon the population by the CNT and obligatory for all
-fails to co-incidence with the evidence he presents.
+fails to co-incide with the evidence he presents.
Fraser states that _"[t]here was no need to dragoon them [the peasants] at
pistol point [into collectives]: the coercive climate, in which 'fascists'
were being shot, was sufficient. 'Spontaneous' and 'forced' collectives
existed, as did willing and unwilling collectivists within them."_ [**Op.
-Cit.**, p. 349] Therefore, his implied suggestion that the Aragn collectives
+Cit.**, p. 349] Therefore, his implied suggestion that the Aragón collectives
were imposed upon the rural population is based upon the insight that there
-was a _"coercive climate"_ in Aragn at the time. Of course a civil war against
-fascism would produce a _"coercive climate"_ particularly near the front line.
-However, the CNT can hardly be blamed for that. As historian Gabriel Jackson
-summarised, while such executions took place the CNT did not conduct a general
-wave of terror:
+was a _"coercive climate"_ in Aragón at the time. Of course a civil war
+against fascism would produce a _"coercive climate"_ particularly near the
+front line. However, the CNT can hardly be blamed for that. As historian
+Gabriel Jackson summarised, while such executions took place the CNT did not
+conduct a general wave of terror:
> _"the anarchists made a constant effort to separate active political enemies
from those who were simply bourgeois by birth or ideology or economic
@@ -1162,7 +1143,7 @@ they lost.
The question does arise, however, of whether the climate was made so coercive
by the war and the nearness of the anarchist militia that individual choice
was impossible. The facts speak for themselves. At its peak, rural
-collectivisation in Aragn embraced around 70% of the population in the area
+collectivisation in Aragón embraced around 70% of the population in the area
saved from fascism. Around 30% of the population felt safe enough not to join
a collective, a sizeable percentage. If the collectives had been created by
anarchist terror or force, we would expect a figure of 100% membership. This
@@ -1183,7 +1164,7 @@ collectives to peak almost overnight, not grow slowly over time:
villages of the region.' This, however, was but a beginning. By the end of
April the number of collectivists had risen to 140,000; by the end of the
first week of May to 180,000; and by the end of June to 300,000."_ [Graham
-Kelsey, _"Anarchism in Aragn,"_ pp. 60-82, **Spain in Conflict 1931-1939**,
+Kelsey, _"Anarchism in Aragón,"_ pp. 60-82, **Spain in Conflict 1931-1939**,
Martin Blinkhorn (ed.), p. 61]
If the collectives had been created by force, then their membership would have
@@ -1199,12 +1180,12 @@ standard of living of the entire community.
The voluntary nature of the collectives is again emphasised by the number of
collectives which allowed people to remain outside. There _"were few villages
which were completely collectivised."_ [Beevor, **Op. Cit.**, p. 94] One eye-
-witness in Aragn, an anarchist schoolteacher, noted that the forcing of
+witness in Aragón, an anarchist schoolteacher, noted that the forcing of
smallholders into a collective _"wasn't a widespread problem, because there
weren't more than twenty or so villages where collectivisation was total and
no one was allowed to remain outside."_ [quoted by Fraser, **Op. Cit.**, p.
366] Instead of forcing the minority in a village to agree with the wishes of
-the majority, the vast majority (95%) of Aragn collectives stuck to their
+the majority, the vast majority (95%) of Aragón collectives stuck to their
libertarian principles and allowed those who did not wish to join to remain
outside.
@@ -1213,7 +1194,7 @@ the population felt safe enough **not** to join. In other words, in the vast
majority of collectives those joining could see that those who did not were
safe. These figures indicate of the basically spontaneous and voluntary nature
of the movement as do the composition of the new municipal councils created
-after July 19th. As Graham Kesley notes: _"What is immediately noticeable from
+after July 19th. As Graham Kelsey notes: _"What is immediately noticeable from
the results is that although the region has often been branded as one
controlled by anarchists to the total exclusion of all other forces, the CNT
was far from enjoying the degree of absolute domination often implied and
@@ -1221,7 +1202,7 @@ inferred."_ [**Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Communism and the State**, p.
198]
In his account of the rural revolution, Burnett Bolloten noted that it
-_"embraced more than 70 percent of the population"_ in liberated Aragn and
+_"embraced more than 70 percent of the population"_ in liberated Aragón and
that _"many of the 450 collectives of the region were largely voluntary"_
although _"it must be emphasised that this singular development was in some
measure due to the presence of militiamen from the neighbouring region of
@@ -1232,18 +1213,18 @@ these forces . . . favoured indirectly these constructive achievements by
preventing active resistance by the supporters of the bourgeois republic and
of fascism."_ [**Collectives in the Spanish Revolution**, p. 90]
-So the presence of the militia changed the balance of class forces in Aragn by
-destroying the capitalist state (i.e. the local bosses -- caciques -- could
+So the presence of the militia changed the balance of class forces in Aragón
+by destroying the capitalist state (i.e. the local bosses -- caciques -- could
not get state aid to protect their property) and many landless workers took
over the land. The presence of the militia ensured that land could be taken
over by destroying the capitalist "monopoly of force" that existed before the
revolution (the power of which will be highlighted below) and so the CNT
-militia allowed the possibility of experimentation by the Aragnese population.
-This class war in the countryside is reflected by Bolloten: _"If the
-individual farmer viewed with dismay the swift and widespread collectivisation
-of agriculture, the farm workers of the Anarchosyndicalist CNT and the
-Socialist UGT saw it as the commencement of a new era."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 63]
-Both were mass organisations and supported collectivisation.
+militia allowed the possibility of experimentation by the Aragónese
+population. This class war in the countryside is reflected by Bolloten: _"If
+the individual farmer viewed with dismay the swift and widespread
+collectivisation of agriculture, the farm workers of the Anarchosyndicalist
+CNT and the Socialist UGT saw it as the commencement of a new era."_ [**Op.
+Cit.**, p. 63] Both were mass organisations and supported collectivisation.
Therefore, anarchist militias allowed the rural working class to abolish the
artificial scarcity of land created by private property (and enforced by the
@@ -1263,7 +1244,7 @@ the thumb of the big landowners and heartless usurers, it appeared as
salvation."_ [quoted by Bolloten, **Op. Cit.**, p. 71]
However, many historians ignore the differences in class that existed in the
-countryside and explain the rise in collectives in Aragn (and ignore those
+countryside and explain the rise in collectives in Aragón (and ignore those
elsewhere) as the result of the CNT militia. For example, Fraser:
> _"Very rapidly collectives . . . began to spring up. It did not happen on
@@ -1271,7 +1252,7 @@ instructions from the CNT leadership -- no more than had the [industrial]
collectives in Barcelona. Here, as there, the initiative came from CNT
militants; here, as there, the 'climate' for social revolution in the
rearguard was created by CNT armed strength: the anarcho-syndicalists'
-domination of the streets of Barcelona was re-enacted in Aragn as the CNT
+domination of the streets of Barcelona was re-enacted in Aragón as the CNT
militia columns, manned mainly by Catalan anarcho-syndicalist workers, poured
in. Where a nucleus of anarcho-syndicalists existed in a village, it seized
the moment to carry out the long-awaited revolution and collectivised
@@ -1279,56 +1260,50 @@ spontaneously. Where there was none, villagers could find themselves under
considerable pressure from the militias to collectivise."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p.
347]
-Fraser implies that the revolution was mostly imported into Aragn from
+Fraser implies that the revolution was mostly imported into Aragón from
Catalonia. However, as he himself notes, the CNT column leaders (except
-Durruti) _"opposed"_ the creation of the Council of Aragn (a confederation for
-the collectives). Hardly an example of Catalan CNT imposed social revolution!
-Moreover, the Aragn CNT was a widespread and popular organisation, suggesting
-that the idea that the collectives were imported into the region by the
-Catalan CNT is simply **false**. Fraser states that in _"some [of the Aragnese
-villages] there was a flourishing CNT, in others the UGT was strongest, and in
-only too many there was no unionisation at all."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 350 and p.
-348] The question arises of how extensive was that strength. The evidence
-shows that the rural CNT in Aragn was extensive, strong and growing, so making
-the suggestion of imposed collectives a false one. In fact, by the 1930s the
-_"authentic peasant base of the CNT . . . lay in Aragn."_ CNT growth in
-Zaragoza _"provided a springboard for a highly effective libertarian agitation
-in lower Aragn, particularly among the impoverished labourers and debt-ridden
-peasantry of the dry steppes region."_ [Murray Bookchin, **The Spanish
-Anarchists**, p. 203]
-
-
-
- Graham Kelsey, in his social history of the CNT in Aragn between 1930 and
+Durruti) _"opposed"_ the creation of the Council of Aragón (a confederation
+for the collectives). Hardly an example of Catalan CNT imposed social
+revolution! Moreover, the Aragón CNT was a widespread and popular
+organisation, suggesting that the idea that the collectives were imported into
+the region by the Catalan CNT is simply **false**. Fraser states that in
+_"some [of the Aragónese villages] there was a flourishing CNT, in others the
+UGT was strongest, and in only too many there was no unionisation at all."_
+[**Op. Cit.**, p. 350 and p. 348] The question arises of how extensive was
+that strength. The evidence shows that the rural CNT in Aragón was extensive,
+strong and growing, so making the suggestion of imposed collectives a false
+one. In fact, by the 1930s the _"authentic peasant base of the CNT . . . lay
+in Aragón."_ CNT growth in Zaragoza _"provided a springboard for a highly
+effective libertarian agitation in lower Aragón, particularly among the
+impoverished labourers and debt-ridden peasantry of the dry steppes region."_
+[Murray Bookchin, **The Spanish Anarchists**, p. 203]
+
+Graham Kelsey, in his social history of the CNT in Aragón between 1930 and
1937, provides more evidence on this matter. He points out that as well as the
_"spread of libertarian groups and the increasing consciousness among CNT
members of libertarian theories . . . contribu[ting] to the growth of the
-anarchosyndicalist movement in Aragn"_ the existence of _"agrarian unrest"_
+anarchosyndicalist movement in Aragón"_ the existence of _"agrarian unrest"_
also played an important role in that growth. This all lead to the
-_"revitalisation of the CNT network in Aragn"_. So by 1936, the CNT had built
+_"revitalisation of the CNT network in Aragón"_. So by 1936, the CNT had built
upon the _"foundations laid in 1933"_ and _"had finally succeeded in
translating the very great strength of the urban trade-union organisation in
Zaragoza into a regional network of considerable extent."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp.
80-81, p. 82 and p. 134]
-
-
- Kelsey notes the long history of anarchism in Aragn, dating back to the late
-1860s. However, before the 1910s there had been little gains in rural Aragn by
-the CNT due to the power of local bosses (called **caciques**):
+Kelsey notes the long history of anarchism in Aragón, dating back to the late
+1860s. However, before the 1910s there had been little gains in rural Aragón
+by the CNT due to the power of local bosses (called **caciques**):
> _"Local landowners and small industrialists, the **caciques** of provincial
-Aragn, made every effort to enforce the closure of these first rural
+Aragón, made every effort to enforce the closure of these first rural
anarchosyndicalist cells [created after 1915]. By the time of the first rural
-congress of the Aragnese CNT confederation in the summer of 1923, much of the
+congress of the Aragónese CNT confederation in the summer of 1923, much of the
progress achieved through the organisation's considerable propaganda efforts
-had been countered by repression elsewhere."_ [_"Anarchism in Aragn"_, **Op.
+had been countered by repression elsewhere."_ [_"Anarchism in Aragón"_, **Op.
Cit.**, p. 62]
-
-
- A CNT activist indicated the power of these bosses and how difficult it was
-to be a union member in Aragn:
+A CNT activist indicated the power of these bosses and how difficult it was to
+be a union member in Aragón:
> _"Repression is not the same in the large cities as it is in the villages
where everyone knows everybody else and where the Civil Guards are immediately
@@ -1337,108 +1312,94 @@ spared. All those who do not serve the state's repressive forces
unconditionally are pursued, persecuted and on occasions beaten up."_ [quoted
by Kelsey, **Op. Cit.**, p. 74]
-
-
- However, while there were some successes in organising rural unions, even in
+However, while there were some successes in organising rural unions, even in
1931 _"propaganda campaigns which led to the establishment of scores of
village trade-union cells, were followed by a counter-offensive from village
**caciques** which forced them to close."_ [**Op. Cit.** p. 67] Even in the
face of this repression the CNT grew and _"from the end of 1932"_ there was
_"a successful expansion of the anarchosyndicalist movement into several parts
-of the region where previously it had never penetrated."_ [Kesley,
+of the region where previously it had never penetrated."_ [Kelsey,
**Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Communism and the State**, p. 185] This
growth was built upon in 1936, with increased rural activism which had slowly
eroded the power of the **caciques** (which in part explains their support for
the fascist coup). After the election of the Popular Front, years of anarchist
propaganda and organisation paid off with _"dramatic growth in rural anarcho-
syndicalist support"_ in the six weeks after the general election. This _"was
-emphasised"_ in the Aragn CNT's April congress's agenda and it was decided to
+emphasised"_ in the Aragón CNT's April congress's agenda and it was decided to
direct _"attention to rural problems"_ while the agreed programme was
-_"exactly what was to happen four months later in liberated Aragn."_ In its
+_"exactly what was to happen four months later in liberated Aragón."_ In its
aftermath, a series of intensive propaganda campaigns was organised through
each of the provinces of the regional confederation. Many meetings were held
in villages which had never before heard anarcho-syndicalist propaganda. This
-was very successful and by the beginning of June, 1936, the number of Aragn
-unions had topped 400, compared to only 278 one month earlier. [Kesley,
-_"Anarchism in Aragn"_, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 75-76]
-
+was very successful and by the beginning of June, 1936, the number of Aragón
+unions had topped 400, compared to only 278 one month earlier. [Kelsey,
+_"Anarchism in Aragón"_, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 75-76]
-
- This increase in union membership reflected increased social struggle by the
-Aragnese working population and their attempts to improve their standard of
+This increase in union membership reflected increased social struggle by the
+Aragónese working population and their attempts to improve their standard of
living, which was very low for most of the population. A journalist from the
-conservative Catholic **Heraldo de Aragn** visited lower Aragn in the summer
+conservative Catholic **Heraldo de Aragón** visited lower Aragón in the summer
of 1935 and noted _"[t]he hunger in many homes, where the men are not working,
is beginning to encourage the youth to subscribe to misleading teachings."_
-[quoted by Kesley, **Op. Cit.**, p. 74] Little wonder, then, the growth in CNT
-membership and social struggle Kesley indicates:
+[quoted by Kelsey, **Op. Cit.**, p. 74] Little wonder, then, the growth in CNT
+membership and social struggle Kelsey indicates:
> _"Evidence of a different kind was also available that militant trade
-unionism in Aragn was on the increase. In the five months between mid-February
-and mid-July 1936 the province of Zaragoza experienced over seventy strikes,
-more than had previously been recorded in any entire year, and things were
-clearly no different in the other two provinces . . . the great majority of
-these strikes were occurring in provincial towns and villages. Strikes racked
-the provinces and in at least three instances were actually transformed into
-general strikes."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 76]
-
-
-
- So in the spring and summer of 1936 there was a massive growth in CNT
+unionism in Aragón was on the increase. In the five months between mid-
+February and mid-July 1936 the province of Zaragoza experienced over seventy
+strikes, more than had previously been recorded in any entire year, and things
+were clearly no different in the other two provinces . . . the great majority
+of these strikes were occurring in provincial towns and villages. Strikes
+racked the provinces and in at least three instances were actually transformed
+into general strikes."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 76]
+
+So in the spring and summer of 1936 there was a massive growth in CNT
membership which reflected the growing militant struggle by the urban and
-rural population of Aragn. Years of propaganda and organising had ensured this
-growth in libertarian influence, a growth which was reflected in the creation
-of collectives in liberated Aragn during the revolution. Therefore, the
-construction of a collectivised society was founded directly upon the
+rural population of Aragón. Years of propaganda and organising had ensured
+this growth in libertarian influence, a growth which was reflected in the
+creation of collectives in liberated Aragón during the revolution. Therefore,
+the construction of a collectivised society was founded directly upon the
emergence, during the five years of the Second Republic, of a mass trade-union
movement infused by anarchist principles. These collectives were constructed
-in accordance with the programme agreed at the Aragn CNT conference of April
+in accordance with the programme agreed at the Aragón CNT conference of April
1936 which reflected the wishes of the rural membership of the unions within
-Aragn (and due to the rapid growth of the CNT afterwards obviously reflected
+Aragón (and due to the rapid growth of the CNT afterwards obviously reflected
popular feelings in the area):
-
-
- _"libertarian dominance in post-insurrection Aragn itself reflected the
+_"libertarian dominance in post-insurrection Aragón itself reflected the
predominance that anarchists had secured before the war; by the summer of 1936
-the CNT had succeeded in establishing throughout Aragn a mass trade-union
+the CNT had succeeded in establishing throughout Aragón a mass trade-union
movement of strictly libertarian orientation, upon which widespread and well-
supported network the extensive collective experiment was to be founded."_
-[Kesley, **Op. Cit.**, p. 61]
-
+[Kelsey, **Op. Cit.**, p. 61]
-
- Additional evidence that supports a high level of CNT support in rural Aragn
-can be provided by the fact that it was Aragn that was the centre of the
+Additional evidence that supports a high level of CNT support in rural Aragón
+can be provided by the fact that it was Aragón that was the centre of the
December 1933 insurrection organised by the CNT. As Bookchin noted, _"only
-Aragn rose on any significant scale, particularly Saragossa . . . many of the
+Aragón rose on any significant scale, particularly Saragossa . . . many of the
villages declared libertarian communism and perhaps the heaviest fighting took
place between the vineyard workers in Rioja and the authorities"_. [**Op.
Cit.**, p. 238] It is unlikely for the CNT to organise an insurrection in an
-area within which it had little support or influence. According to Kesley,
+area within which it had little support or influence. According to Kelsey,
_"it was precisely those areas which had most important in December 1933"_
which were in 1936 _"seeking to create a new pattern of economic and social
-organisation, to form the basis of libertarian Aragn."_ [**Anarchosyndicalism,
-Libertarian Communism and the State**, p. 161]
-
+organisation, to form the basis of libertarian Aragón."_
+[**Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Communism and the State**, p. 161]
-
- So the majority of collectives in Aragn were the product of CNT (and UGT)
+So the majority of collectives in Aragón were the product of CNT (and UGT)
influenced workers taking the opportunity to create a new form of social life,
-a form marked by its voluntary and directly democratic nature. For from being
-unknown in rural Aragn, the CNT was well established and growing at a fast
+a form marked by its voluntary and directly democratic nature. Far from being
+unknown in rural Aragón, the CNT was well established and growing at a fast
rate: _"Spreading out from its urban base . . . the CNT, first in 1933 and
then more extensively in 1936, succeeded in converting an essentially urban
-organisation into a truly regional confederation."_ [Kesley, **Op. Cit.**, p.
+organisation into a truly regional confederation."_ [Kelsey, **Op. Cit.**, p.
184]
-
-
- The evidence suggests that historians like Fraser are wrong to imply that the
-Aragn collectives were created by the CNT militia and enforced upon a
-unwilling population. The Aragn collectives were the natural result of years
-of anarchist activity within rural Aragn and directly related to the massive
-growth in the CNT between 1930 and 1936. Thus Kesley is correct to state that
+The evidence suggests that historians like Fraser are wrong to imply that the
+Aragón collectives were created by the CNT militia and enforced upon a
+unwilling population. The Aragón collectives were the natural result of years
+of anarchist activity within rural Aragón and directly related to the massive
+growth in the CNT between 1930 and 1936. Thus Kelsey is correct to state that
libertarian communism and agrarian collectivisation _"were not economic terms
or social principles enforced upon a hostile population by special teams of
urban anarchosyndicalists."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 161] This is not to suggest
@@ -1448,9 +1409,7 @@ villages which did not have a CNT union within them before the war and so
created a collective because of the existence of the CNT militia. It is to
suggest that these can be considered as exceptions to the rule.
-
-
- Moreover, the way the CNT handled such a situation is noteworthy. Fraser
+Moreover, the way the CNT handled such a situation is noteworthy. Fraser
indicates such a situation in the village of Alloza. In the autumn of 1936,
representatives of the CNT district committee had come to suggest that the
villagers collectivise (we would like to stress here that the CNT militia
@@ -1469,39 +1428,33 @@ to join; we weren't living under a dictatorship."_ [quoted by Fraser, **Op.
Cit.**, p. 362] In other words, **no** force was used to create the collective
and the collective was organised by local people directly.
-
-
- Of course, as with any public good (to use economic jargon), all members of
+Of course, as with any public good (to use economic jargon), all members of
the community had to pay for the war effort and feed the militia. As Kelsey
notes, _"[t]he military insurrection had come at a critical moment in the
-agricultural calendar. Throughout lower Aragn there were fields of grain ready
-for harvesting . . . At the assembly in Albalate de Cinca the opening clause
-of the agreed programme had required everyone in the district, independent
-farmers and collectivists alike, to contribute equally to the war effort,
-thereby emphasising one of the most important considerations in the period
-immediately following the rebellion."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 164] In addition, the
-collectives controlled the price of crops in order to ensure that speculation
-and inflation were controlled. However, these policies as with the equal
-duties of individualists and collectivists in the war effort were enforced
-upon the collectives by the war.
-
-
-
- Lastly, in support of the popular nature of the rural collectives, we will
+agricultural calendar. Throughout lower Aragón there were fields of grain
+ready for harvesting . . . At the assembly in Albalate de Cinca the opening
+clause of the agreed programme had required everyone in the district,
+independent farmers and collectivists alike, to contribute equally to the war
+effort, thereby emphasising one of the most important considerations in the
+period immediately following the rebellion."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 164] In
+addition, the collectives controlled the price of crops in order to ensure
+that speculation and inflation were controlled. However, these policies as
+with the equal duties of individualists and collectivists in the war effort
+were enforced upon the collectives by the war.
+
+Lastly, in support of the popular nature of the rural collectives, we will
indicate the effects of the suppression of the collectives in August 1937 by
the Communists, namely the collapse of the rural economy. This sheds
considerable light on the question of popular attitudes.
-
-
- In October 1937, the Communist-controlled Regional Delegation of Agrarian
+In October 1937, the Communist-controlled Regional Delegation of Agrarian
Reform acknowledged that _"in the majority of villages agricultural work was
paralysed causing great harm to our agrarian economy."_ This is confirmed by
Jose Silva, a Communist Party member and general secretary of the Institute of
-Agrarian Reform, who commented that after Lister had attacked Aragn, _"labour
+Agrarian Reform, who commented that after Lister had attacked Aragón, _"labour
in the fields was suspended almost entirely, and a quarter of the land had not
been prepared at the time for sowing."_ At a meeting of the agrarian
-commission of the Aragnese Communist Party (October 9th, 1937), Silva
+commission of the Aragónese Communist Party (October 9th, 1937), Silva
emphasised _"the little incentive to work of the entire peasant population"_
and that the situation brought about by the dissolution of the collectives was
_"grave and critical."_ [quoted by Bolloten, **Op. Cit.**, p. 530] Jose
@@ -1514,16 +1467,14 @@ communists]. Dispossessed peasants, intransigent collectivists, refused to
work in a system of private property, and were even less willing to rent out
their labour."_ [**Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution**, p. 258]
-
-
- If the collectives were unpopular, created by anarchist force, then why did
+If the collectives were unpopular, created by anarchist force, then why did
the economy collapse after the suppression? If Lister had overturned a
totalitarian anarchist regime, why did the peasants not reap the benefit of
their toil? Could it be because the collectives were essentially a spontaneous
-Aragnese development and supported by most of the population there? This
+Aragónese development and supported by most of the population there? This
analysis is supported by historian Yaacov Oved:
-> _"Those who were responsible for this policy [of attacking the Aragn
+> _"Those who were responsible for this policy [of attacking the Aragón
collectives], were convinced that the farmers would greet it joyfully because
they had been coerced into joining the collectives. But they were proven
wrong. Except for the rich estate owners who were glad to get their land back,
@@ -1534,9 +1485,7 @@ minister of agriculture were forced to retreat from their hostile policy."_
[**"Communismo Libertario" and Communalism in the Spanish Collectivisations
(1936-1939)**, pp. 53-4]
-
-
- Even in the face of Communist repression, most of the collectives kept going.
+Even in the face of Communist repression, most of the collectives kept going.
This, if nothing else, proves that the collectives were popular institutions.
_"Through the widespread reluctance of collectivists to co-operate with the
new policy,"_ Oved argues, _"it became evident that most members had
@@ -1545,9 +1494,7 @@ wave of collectives was established. However, the wheel could not be turned
back. An atmosphere of distrust prevailed between the collectives and the
authorities and every initiative was curtailed"_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 54]
-
-
- Jose Peirats summed up the situation after the communist attack on the
+Jose Peirats summed up the situation after the communist attack on the
collectives and the legalisation of the collectives as follows:
> _"It is very possible that this second phase of collectivisation better
@@ -1555,12 +1502,10 @@ reflects the sincere convictions of the members. They had undergone a severe
test and those who had withstood it were proven collectivists. Yet it would be
facile to label as anti-collectivists those who abandoned the collectives in
this second phase. Fear, official coercion and insecurity weighed heavily in
-the decisions of much of the Aragnese peasantry."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 258]
+the decisions of much of the Aragónese peasantry."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 258]
-
-
- While the collectives had existed, there was a 20% increase in production
-(and this is compared to the pre-war harvest which had been _"a good crop"_
+While the collectives had existed, there was a 20% increase in production (and
+this is compared to the pre-war harvest which had been _"a good crop"_
[Fraser, **Op. Cit.**p. 370]). After the destruction of the collectives, the
economy collapsed. Hardly the result that would be expected if the collectives
were forced upon an unwilling peasantry (the forced collectivisation by Stalin
@@ -1570,9 +1515,7 @@ countryside. The same land-owners who welcomed the Communist repression of the
collectives also, we are sure, welcomed the fascists who ensured a lasting
victory of property over liberty.
-
-
- So, overall, the evidence suggests that the Aragn collectives, like their
+So, overall, the evidence suggests that the Aragón collectives, like their
counterparts in the Levante, Catalonia and so on, were **popular**
organisations, created by and for the rural population and, essentially, an
expression of a spontaneous and popular social revolution. Claims that the
@@ -1589,13 +1532,9 @@ by the generally spontaneous and far-reaching character of its collectivist
movement and by its promise of moral and spiritual renewal. Nothing like this
spontaneous movement had ever occurred before."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 78]
+## I.8.8 But did the Spanish collectives innovate?
-
- ## I.8.8 But did the Spanish collectives innovate?
-
-
-
- Yes. In contradiction to the old capitalist claim that no one will innovate
+Yes. In contradiction to the old capitalist claim that no one will innovate
unless private property exists, the workers and peasants exhibited much more
incentive and creativity under libertarian socialism than they had under the
private enterprise system. This is apparent from Gaston Leval's description of
@@ -1623,9 +1562,7 @@ fields. Had the Minister of Agriculture followed the example of these peasants
throughout the Republican zone, the bread shortage problem would have been
overcome in a few months."_ [**Anarchist Collectives**, p. 153]
-
-
- This is just one from a multitude of examples presented in the accounts of
+This is just one from a multitude of examples presented in the accounts of
both the industrial and rural collectives. We have already noted some examples
of the improvements in efficiency realised by collectivisation during the
Spanish Revolution ([section I.4.10](secI4.html#seci410)). Another example was
@@ -1641,14 +1578,12 @@ collectivised hairdressing, shoe-making, wood-working and engineering
industries were all improved, with small, unhealthy and inefficient workplaces
closed and replaced by larger, more pleasant and efficient establishments.
_"Socialisation went hand in hand with rationalisation."_ [Gaston Leval,
-**Collectives in the Spanish Revolution**, p. 287] For more see [
-sectionI.8.6](secI8.html#seci86) as well as [section C.2.8](secC2.html#secc28)
-(in which we present more examples when refuting the charge that workers'
-control would stifle innovation).
-
-
+**Collectives in the Spanish Revolution**, p. 287] For more see
+[sectionI.8.6](secI8.html#seci86) as well as [section
+C.2.8](secC2.html#secc28) (in which we present more examples when refuting the
+charge that workers' control would stifle innovation).
- The substantial evidence available, of which these examples are but a small
+The substantial evidence available, of which these examples are but a small
number, proves that the membership of the collectives showed a keen awareness
of the importance of investment and innovation in order to increase
production, to make work both lighter and more interesting **and** that the
@@ -1676,9 +1611,7 @@ immediately applied for the common good. I am convinced that this superiority
would very soon manifest itself in a socialised society."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p.
347]
-
-
- Therefore the actual experiences of self-management in Spain supports the
+Therefore the actual experiences of self-management in Spain support the
points made in [section I.4.11](secI4.html#seci411). Freed from hierarchy,
individuals will creatively interact with the world to improve their
circumstances. For the human mind is an active agent and unless crushed by
@@ -1686,40 +1619,30 @@ authority it can no more stop thinking and acting than the Earth can stop
revolving round the Sun. In addition, the Collectives indicate that self-
management allows ideas to be enriched by discussion.
-
-
- The experience of self-management proved Bakunin's point that society is
+The experience of self-management proved Bakunin's point that society is
collectively more intelligent than even the most intelligent individual simply
because of the wealth of viewpoints, experience and thoughts contained there.
Capitalism impoverishes individuals and society by its artificial boundaries
and authority structures.
+## I.8.9 Why, if it was so good, did it not survive?
-
- ## I.8.9 Why, if it was so good, did it not survive?
-
-
-
- Just because something is good does not mean that it will survive. For
+Just because something is good does not mean that it will survive. For
example, the Warsaw Ghetto uprising against the Nazis failed but that does not
mean that the uprising was a bad cause or that the Nazi regime was correct,
-far from it. Similarly, while the experiments in workers' self-management and
+far from it. Similarly, while the experiment in workers' self-management and
free communes undertaken across Republican Spain is one of the most important
social experiments in a free society ever undertaken, this cannot change the
fact that Franco's forces and the Communists had access to more and better
weapons.
+Faced with the aggression and terrorism of Franco, and behind him the military
+might of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, the treachery of the Communists, and
+the aloofness of the Western "democratic" states (whose policy of "non-
+intervention" was strangely ignored when their citizens aided Franco) it is
+amazing the revolution lasted as long as it did.
-
- Faced with the aggression and terrorism of Franco, and behind him the
-military might of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, the treachery of the
-Communists, and the aloofness of the Western "democratic" states (whose policy
-of "non-intervention" was strangely ignored when their citizens aided Franco)
-it is amazing the revolution lasted as long as it did.
-
-
-
- This does not excuse the actions of the anarchists themselves. As is well
+This does not excuse the actions of the anarchists themselves. As is well
known, the CNT co-operated with the other anti-fascist parties and trade
unions on the Republican side ultimately leading to anarchists joining the
government (see [next section](secI8.html#seci810)). This co-operation helped
@@ -1733,9 +1656,7 @@ _"Friends of Durruti"_ anarchist group were mostly ex-militia men). However,
it seems that the mirage of anti-fascist unity proved too much for the
majority of CNT members (see [section I.8.12](secI8.html#seci812)).
-
-
- A few anarchists still maintain that the Spanish anarchist movement had no
+A few anarchists still maintain that the Spanish anarchist movement had no
choice and that collaboration (while having unfortunate effects) was the only
choice available. This view was defended by Sam Dolgoff and finds some support
in the writings of Gaston Leval, August Souchy and other participants in the
@@ -1750,11 +1671,9 @@ FAI** by Juan Gomaz Casas and **Durruti in the Spanish Revolution** by Abel
Paz as well as in a host of pamphlets and articles written by anarchists ever
since.
-
-
- So, regardless of how good a social system is, objective facts will overcome
+So, regardless of how good a social system is, objective facts will overcome
that experiment. Saturnino Carod (a leader of a CNT Militia column at the
-Aragn Front) summed up the successes of the revolution as well as its
+Aragón Front) summed up the successes of the revolution as well as its
objective limitations:
> _"Always expecting to be stabbed in the back, always knowing that if we
@@ -1768,20 +1687,14 @@ who kept agricultural production increasing, who formed militias and later
joined the army. Without their creative endeavour, the republic could not have
fought the war . . ."_ [quoted by Ronald Fraser, **Blood of Spain**, p. 394]
-
-
- So, regardless of its benefits, regardless of its increase in liberty and
+So, regardless of its benefits, regardless of its increase in liberty and
equality, the revolution was defeated. This should not blind us to its
achievements or the potential it expressed. Rather, it should be used both as
a source of inspiration and lessons.
+## I.8.10 Why did the CNT collaborate with the state?
-
- ## I.8.10 Why did the CNT collaborate with the state?
-
-
-
- As is well know, in September 1936 the CNT joined the Catalan government,
+As is well known, in September 1936 the CNT joined the Catalan government,
followed by the central government in November. This flowed from the decision
made on July 21st to not speak of Libertarian Communism until after Franco had
been defeated. In other words, to collaborate with other anti-fascist parties
@@ -1793,9 +1706,7 @@ and groups. From this it was only a matter of time until the CNT joined an
official government as no other means of co-ordinating activities existed (see
[section I.8.13](secI8.html#seci813)).
-
-
- The question must arise, **why** did the CNT decide to collaborate with the
+The question must arise, **why** did the CNT decide to collaborate with the
state, forsake its principles and, in its own way, contribute to the counter-
revolution and the loosing of the war. This is an important question. Indeed,
it is one Marxists always throw up in arguments with anarchists or in anti-
@@ -1811,32 +1722,26 @@ anarchists and syndicalists failed to put their theories to the test, adopting
instead the tactics of the enemy."_ [**Lessons of the Spanish Revolution**, p.
14]
-
-
- So, why **did** the CNT collaborate with the state during the Spanish Civil
+So, why **did** the CNT collaborate with the state during the Spanish Civil
War? Simply put, rather than being the fault of anarchist theory (as Marxists
like to claim), its roots can be discovered in the situation facing the
Catalan anarchists on July 20th. The objective conditions facing the leading
militants of the CNT and FAI influenced the decisions they took, decisions
which they later justified by **mis**-using anarchist theory.
-
-
- What was the situation facing the Catalan anarchists on July 20th? Simply
-put, it was an unknown situation, as the report made by the CNT to the
+What was the situation facing the Catalan anarchists on July 20th? Simply put,
+it was an unknown situation, as the report made by the CNT to the
**International Workers Association** made clear:
> _"Levante was defenceless and uncertain . . . We were in a minority in
Madrid. The situation in Andalusia was unknown . . . There was no information
from the North, and we assumed the rest of Spain was in the hands of the
-fascists. The enemy was in Aragn, at the gates of Catalonia. The nervousness
+fascists. The enemy was in Aragón, at the gates of Catalonia. The nervousness
of foreign consular officials led to the presence of a great number of war
ships around our ports."_ [quoted by Jose Peirats, **Anarchists in the Spanish
Revolution**, p. 180]
-
-
- Anarchist historian Jose Peirats noted that according to the report _"the CNT
+Anarchist historian Jose Peirats noted that according to the report _"the CNT
was in absolute control of Catalonia in July 19, 1936, but its strength was
less in Levante and still less in central Spain where the central government
and the traditional parties were dominant. In the north of Spain the situation
@@ -1855,9 +1760,7 @@ responsibilities of government with the other antifascist fractions."_ [quoted
by Robert Alexander, **The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War**, vol. 2, p.
1156]
-
-
- Moreover, as Gaston Leval later argued, given that the _"general
+Moreover, as Gaston Leval later argued, given that the _"general
preoccupation"_ of the majority of the population was _"to defeat the fascists
. . . the anarchists would, if they came out against the state, provoke the
antagonism . . . of the majority of the people, who would accuse them of
@@ -1868,9 +1771,7 @@ arms would be completely cut off, and the anarchists would rightly be held
responsible for the disastrous consequences."_ [**The Anarchist Collectives**,
p. 52 and p. 53]
-
-
- While the supporters of Lenin and Trotsky will constantly point out the
+While the supporters of Lenin and Trotsky will constantly point out the
objective circumstances in which their heroes made their decisions during the
Russian Revolution, they rarely mention those facing the anarchists in Spain
on the 20th of July, 1936. It seems hypocritical to point to the Russian Civil
@@ -1901,19 +1802,17 @@ removed the social transformation of Spain from their agenda._
or not to implement Libertarian Communism, was not theirs to make. Anarchism
was not something which could be transformed from theory into practice by
organisational decree . . . [the] spontaneous defensive movement of 19 July
-had developed a political direct of its own."_ [**We, the Anarchists!**, p.
+had developed a political direction of its own."_ [**We, the Anarchists!**, p.
99]
-
-
- Given that the pro-fascist army still controlled a third or more of Spain
-(including Aragn) and that the CNT was not the dominant force in the centre
+Given that the pro-fascist army still controlled a third or more of Spain
+(including Aragón) and that the CNT was not the dominant force in the centre
and north of Spain, it was decided that a war on three fronts would only aid
Franco. Moreover, it was a distinct possibility that by introducing
-libertarian communism in Catalonia, Aragn and elsewhere, the workers' militias
-and self-managed industries would have been starved of weapons, resources and
-credit. That isolation was a real problem can be seen from Abad de Santilln's
-later comments on why the CNT joined the government:
+libertarian communism in Catalonia, Aragón and elsewhere, the workers'
+militias and self-managed industries would have been starved of weapons,
+resources and credit. That isolation was a real problem can be seen from Abad
+de Santillán's later comments on why the CNT joined the government:
> _"The Militias Committee guaranteed the supremacy of the people in arms . .
. but we were told and it was repeated to us endlessly that as long as we
@@ -1927,13 +1826,11 @@ our people could not vanish completely from the new economic life, we quit the
Militias Committee to join the Generalidad government."_ [quoted by Christie,
**Op. Cit.**, p. 109]
-
-
- It was decided to collaborate and reject the basic ideas of anarchism until
+It was decided to collaborate and reject the basic ideas of anarchism until
the war was over. A terrible mistake, but one which can be understood given
the circumstances in which it was made. This is not, we stress, to justify the
decision but rather to explain it and place it in context. Ultimately, the
-**experience** of the Civil War saw a blockade of Republic by both
+**experience** of the Civil War saw a blockade of the Republic by both
"democratic" and fascist governments, the starving of the militias and self-
managed collectives of resources and credit as well as a war on two fronts
when the State felt strong enough to try and crush the CNT and the semi-
@@ -1943,43 +1840,34 @@ communists would prefer to undermine the anti-fascist struggle by attacking
the CNT. They were wrong and, in this, history proved Durruti totally correct:
> _"For us it is a matter of crushing Fascism once and for all. Yes, and in
-spite of the Government.
-
-
-
- "No government in the world fights Fascism to the death. When the bourgeoisie
-sees power slipping from its grasp, it has recourse to Fascism to maintain
-itself. The liberal government of Spain could have rendered the fascist
-elements powerless long ago. Instead it compromised and dallied. Even now at
-this moment, there are men in this Government who want to go easy on the
-rebels. You can never tell, you know -- he laughed -- the present Government
-might yet need these rebellious forces to crush the workers' movement . . .
-
-
-
- "We know what we want. To us it means nothing that there is a Soviet Union
+spite of the Government. _
+
+> _"No government in the world fights Fascism to the death. When the
+bourgeoisie sees power slipping from its grasp, it has recourse to Fascism to
+maintain itself. The liberal government of Spain could have rendered the
+fascist elements powerless long ago. Instead it compromised and dallied. Even
+now at this moment, there are men in this Government who want to go easy on
+the rebels. You can never tell, you know -- he laughed -- the present
+Government might yet need these rebellious forces to crush the workers'
+movement . . . _
+
+> _"We know what we want. To us it means nothing that there is a Soviet Union
somewhere in the world, for the sake of whose peace and tranquillity the
workers of Germany and China were sacrificed to Fascist barbarians by Stalin.
We want revolution here in Spain, right now, not maybe after the next European
war. We are giving Hitler and Mussolini far more worry to-day with our
revolution than the whole Red Army of Russia. We are setting an example to the
-German and Italian working class on how to deal with fascism.
-
+German and Italian working class on how to deal with fascism. _
-
- "I do not expect any help for a libertarian revolution from any Government in
-the world. Maybe the conflicting interests of the various imperialisms might
-have some influence in our struggle. That is quite possible . . . But we
+> _"I do not expect any help for a libertarian revolution from any Government
+in the world. Maybe the conflicting interests of the various imperialisms
+might have some influence in our struggle. That is quite possible . . . But we
expect no help, not even from our own Government, in the last analysis."_
-
-
- _"You will be sitting on a pile of ruins if you are victorious,"_ said [the
+> _"You will be sitting on a pile of ruins if you are victorious,"_ said [the
journalist] van Paasen.
-
-
- Durruti answered: _"We have always lived in slums and holes in the wall. We
+> Durruti answered: _"We have always lived in slums and holes in the wall. We
will know how to accommodate ourselves for a time. For, you must not forget,
we can also build. It is we the workers who built these palaces and cities
here in Spain and in America and everywhere. We, the workers, can build others
@@ -1990,47 +1878,37 @@ stage of history. We carry a new world here, in our hearts. That world is
growing this minute."_ [quoted by Vernon Richards, **Lessons of the Spanish
Revolution**, pp. 193-4f]
-
-
- This desire to push the revolution further was not limited to Durruti, as can
+This desire to push the revolution further was not limited to Durruti, as can
be seen from this communication from the Catalan CNT leadership in August
1936. It also expresses the fears driving the decisions which had been made:
-> _ "Reports have also been received from other regions. There has been some
+> _"Reports have also been received from other regions. There has been some
talk about the impatience of some comrades who wish to go further than
crushing fascism, but for the moment the situation in Spain as a whole is
extremely delicate. In revolutionary terms, Catalonia is an oasis within
Spain._
-> _ "Obviously no one can foresee the changes which may follow the civil war
+> _"Obviously no one can foresee the changes which may follow the civil war
and the conquest of that part of Spain which is still under the control of
mutinous reactionaries."_ [quoted by Jose Peirats, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 151-2]
-
-
- Isolation, the uneven support for a libertarian revolution across Spain and
+Isolation, the uneven support for a libertarian revolution across Spain and
the dangers of fascism were real problems, but they do not excuse the
libertarian movement for its mistakes. The biggest of these mistakes was
forgetting basic anarchist ideas and an anarchist approach to the problems
facing the Spanish people. If these ideas had been applied in Spain, the
outcome of the Civil War and Revolution could have been different.
-
-
- In summary, while the decision to collaborate is one that can be understood
+In summary, while the decision to collaborate is one that can be understood
(due to the circumstances under which it was made), it cannot be justified in
terms of anarchist theory. Indeed, as we argue in the [next
section](secI8.html#seci811), attempts by the CNT leadership to justify the
decision in terms of anarchist principles are not convincing and cannot be
done without making a mockery of anarchism.
+## I.8.11 Was the decision to collaborate a product of anarchist theory?
-
- ## I.8.11 Was the decision to collaborate a product of anarchist theory?
-
-
-
- Marxist critics of Anarchism point to CNT's decision to collaborate with the
+Marxist critics of Anarchism point to CNT's decision to collaborate with the
bourgeois state against Franco as the key proof that libertarian socialism is
flawed. Such a claim, anarchists reply, is false for rather than being the
product of anarchist ideology, the decision was made in light of the immediate
@@ -2038,13 +1916,13 @@ danger of fascism and the situation in other parts of the country. The fact is
that the circumstances in which the decision to collaborate was made are
rarely mentioned by Marxists. To quote a sadly typical Marxist diatribe:
-> _ "This question of state power, and which class holds it, was to prove
+> _"This question of state power, and which class holds it, was to prove
crucial for revolutionaries during the Spanish Civil War and in particular
during the revolutionary upheavals in Catalonia. Here anarchism faced its
greatest test and greatest opportunity, yet it failed the former and therefore
-missed the latter._
+missed the latter. _
-> _ "When the government in the region under the leadership of Companys
+> _"When the government in the region under the leadership of Companys
admitted its impotence and offered to dissolve, effectively handing power to
the revolutionary forces, the anarchists turned them down. CNT leader and FAI
. . . militant Garcia Oliver explained, 'The CNT and the FAI decided on
@@ -2061,9 +1939,7 @@ The movement that started by refusing to build a workers' state ended up by
recognising a capitalist one and betraying the revolution in the process."_
[Pat Stack, _"Anarchy in the UK?"_, **Socialist Review**, no. 246]
-
-
- There are four key flaws in this kind of argument. First, there is the actual
+There are four key flaws in this kind of argument. First, there is the actual
objective situation in which the decision to collaborate was made in.
Strangely, for all his talk of anarchists ignoring _"material conditions"_
when we discuss the Russian revolution, Stack fails to mention any when he
@@ -2076,13 +1952,11 @@ organisation which had significantly departed from its libertarian principles
to justify their actions. While this obviously suits Stack's idealist analysis
of events, its use is flawed for that reason. Thirdly, clearly the decision of
the CNT and FAI **ignored** anarchist theory. As such, it seems ironic to
-blame anarchism when anarchists ignores its recommendations, yet this is what
-Stack does. Lastly, there is the counter-example of Aragn, which clearly
+blame anarchism when anarchists ignore its recommendations, yet this is what
+Stack does. Lastly, there is the counter-example of Aragón, which clearly
refutes Stack's case.
-
-
- To understand why the CNT and FAI made the decisions it did, it is necessary
+To understand why the CNT and FAI made the decisions it did, it is necessary
to do what Stack fails to do, namely to provide some context. The decision to
ignore anarchist theory, ignore the state rather than smashing it and work
with other anti-fascist organisations was made immediately after the army had
@@ -2095,9 +1969,7 @@ military coup influenced the decision reached by the militants of Catalan
anarchism. They concluded that pursuing implementing anarchism in the
situation they faced would only aid Franco and result in a quick defeat.
-
-
- As such, the **real** choice facing the CNT was not _"between leaving the
+As such, the **real** choice facing the CNT was not _"between leaving the
state intact . . . or building a workers' government in Catalonia which could
act as a focal point for the defeat of Franco"_ but rather something
drastically different: Either work with other anti-fascists against Franco so
@@ -2110,9 +1982,7 @@ Catalan **Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias**. To downplay these
objective factors and the dilemma they provoked and instead simply blame the
decision on anarchist politics is a joke.
-
-
- Similarly, the Garcia Oliver quote provided by Stack dated from July 1937.
+Similarly, the Garcia Oliver quote provided by Stack dated from July 1937.
They were made as justifications of CNT-FAI actions and were designed for
political effect. As such, they simply cannot be taken at face value for these
two reasons. It is significant, though, that rather than discuss the actual
@@ -2122,9 +1992,7 @@ anarchist theory. So convinced of this, they rarely bother discussing the
problems facing the CNT after the defeat of the military coup nor do they
compare these quotes to the anarchist theory they claim inspired them.
-
-
- There are good reasons for this. Firstly, if they presented the objective
+There are good reasons for this. Firstly, if they presented the objective
circumstances the CNT found itself it then their readers may see that the
decision, while wrong, is understandable and had nothing to do with anarchist
theory. Secondly, by comparing this quote to anarchist theory their readers
@@ -2132,21 +2000,17 @@ would soon see how at odds they are with each other. Indeed, Garcia Oliver
invoked anarchism to justify conclusions that were the exact **opposite** to
what that theory actually recommends!
-
-
- So what can be made of Garcia Oliver's argument? As Abel Paz noted _"[i]t is
+So what can be made of Garcia Oliver's argument? As Abel Paz noted: _"It is
clear that the explanations given . . . were designed for their political
effect, hiding the atmosphere in which these decisions were taken. These
declarations were made a year later when the CNT were already far removed from
-their original positions It is also the period when they had become involved
+their original positions. It is also the period when they had become involved
in the policy of collaboration which led to them taking part in the Central
Government. But in a certain way they shed light on the unknown factors which
weighted so heavily on these who took part in the historic Plenum."_
[**Durruti: The People Armed**, p. 215]
-
-
- For example, when the decision was made, the revolution had not started yet.
+For example, when the decision was made, the revolution had not started yet.
The street fighting had just ended and the Plenum decided _"not to speak about
Libertarian Communism as long as part of Spain was in the hands of the
fascists."_ [Mariano R. Vesquez, quoted by Paz, **Op. Cit.**, p. 214] The
@@ -2165,9 +2029,7 @@ own hands._
they resolved to operate the machines themselves."_ [**The Spanish Civil
War**, pp. 54-5]
-
-
- The rank and file of the CNT, on their own initiative, took advantage of the
+The rank and file of the CNT, on their own initiative, took advantage of the
collapse of state power to transform the economy and social life of Catalonia.
Paz stressed that _"no orders were given for expropriation or collectivisation
-- which proved that the union, which represented the will of their members
@@ -2175,7 +2037,7 @@ until July 18th, had now been overtaken by events"_ and the _"union leaders of
the CNT committees were confronted with a revolution that they had not
foreseen . . . the workers and peasants had bypassed their leaders and taken
collective action."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 40 and p. 56] As historian Ronald
-summarises the _"revolutionary initiative had sprung not from the CNT's
+Fraser summarises the _"revolutionary initiative had sprung not from the CNT's
leading committees -- how could it when the libertarian revolution had been
officially 'postponed'? -- but from individual CNT unions impelled by the most
advanced syndicalist militants."_ So while the Catalan CNT _"had 'put off'
@@ -2183,9 +2045,7 @@ libertarian revolution . . . daily, the revolution in Barcelona was taking
root in CNT collectives and union-run industries."_ [**Blood of Spain**, p.
139 and p. 179]
-
-
- As the revolution had not yet begun and the CNT Plenum had decided **not** to
+As the revolution had not yet begun and the CNT Plenum had decided **not** to
call for its start, it is difficult to see how _"libertarian communism"_ (i.e.
the revolution) could _"lead to the strangulation of the revolution"_ (i.e.
libertarian communism). In other words, this particular rationale put forward
@@ -2195,9 +2055,7 @@ Moreover, the decision made then clearly stated that Libertarian Communism
would be back on the agenda once Franco was defeated. Oliver's comments were
applicable **after** Franco was defeated just as much as on July 20th, 1936.
-
-
- Similarly, Libertarian Communism is based on self-management, by its nature
+Similarly, Libertarian Communism is based on self-management, by its nature
opposed to dictatorship. According to the CNT's resolution at its congress in
Zaragoza in May, 1936, _"the foundation of this administration will be the
Commune"_ which is _"autonomous"_ and _"federated at regional and national
@@ -2217,9 +2075,7 @@ starting point is the individual, moving on through the commune, to the
federation and right on up finally to the confederation."_ [quoted by Peirats,
**Op. Cit.**, p. 107]
-
-
- Hardly a picture of _"anarchist dictatorship"_! Indeed, it is far more
+Hardly a picture of _"anarchist dictatorship"_! Indeed, it is far more
democratic than the capitalist state Oliver described as _"democracy."_ So
Oliver's arguments from 1937 are totally contradictory. After all, he is
arguing that libertarian communism (a society based on self-managed free
@@ -2229,9 +2085,7 @@ been fighting against between 1931 and 1936! Moreover, libertarian communism
**inspired** the revolution and so to reject it in favour of capitalist
democracy to stop _"the strangulation of the revolution"_ makes no sense.
-
-
- Clearly, these oft quoted words of Garcia Oliver cannot be taken at face
+Clearly, these oft quoted words of Garcia Oliver cannot be taken at face
value. Made in 1937, they present an attempt to misuse anarchist ideals to
defend the anti-anarchist activities of the CNT leadership rather than a
meaningful explanation of the decisions made on the 20th of July, 1936. It is
@@ -2240,9 +2094,7 @@ analysis of the actions of the Spanish Anarchists or the failings of anarchism
suggests an extremely superficial perspective. This is particularly the case
when we look at both the history of the CNT and anarchist theory.
-
-
- This can clearly been seen from the report made by the CNT to the
+This can clearly been seen from the report made by the CNT to the
**International Workers Association** to justify the decision to forget
anarchist theory and collaborate with bourgeois parties and join the
government. The report states that _"the CNT, loyal to its ideals and its
@@ -2256,9 +2108,7 @@ justify the CNT leaderships' betrayal of its ideals, is clear. To prove this
we just need to look at Bakunin and Kropotkin and look at the activities of
the CNT **before** the start of the war.
-
-
- According to anarchist ideas, to quote Bakunin, _"the revolution must set out
+According to anarchist ideas, to quote Bakunin, _"the revolution must set out
from the first to radically and totally destroy the State"_ and that the
_"natural and necessary consequence of this destruction"_ will include the
_"dissolution of army, magistracy, bureaucracy, police and priesthood"_ as
@@ -2271,18 +2121,14 @@ a revolutionary force capable of defeating reaction."_ [**Michael Bakunin:
Selected Writings**, pp. 170-1] For Kropotkin, the _"Commune . . . must break
the State and replace it by the Federation."_ [**Words of a Rebel**, p. 83]
-
-
- Thus anarchism has always been clear on what to do with the state, and it is
+Thus anarchism has always been clear on what to do with the state, and it is
obviously not what the CNT did to it! The CNT ignored these recommendations
and so given that it did **not** destroy the state, nor create a federation of
workers' councils, then how can anarchist theory be blamed? It seems strange
to point to the failure of anarchists to apply their politics as an example of
the failure of those politics, yet this is what the likes of Stack are doing.
-
-
- Nor had the CNT always taken this perspective. Before the start of the Civil
+Nor had the CNT always taken this perspective. Before the start of the Civil
War, the CNT had organised numerous insurrections against the state. For
example, in the spontaneous revolt of CNT miners in January 1932, the workers
_"seized town halls, raised the black-and-red flags of the CNT, and declared
@@ -2297,15 +2143,11 @@ barricades, attacked public buildings, and engaged in heavy street fighting .
. . many villages declared libertarian communism."_ [Murray Bookchin, **The
Spanish Anarchists**, p. 225, p. 226, p. 227 and p. 238]
-
-
- It seems that the CNT leadership's loyalty to _"its ideals and its purely
+It seems that the CNT leadership's loyalty to _"its ideals and its purely
anarchist nature"_ which necessitated _"not attack[ing] the forms of the
State"_ was a very recent development!
-
-
- As can be seen, the rationales later developed to justify the betrayal of
+As can be seen, the rationales later developed to justify the betrayal of
anarchist ideas and the revolutionary workers of Spain have no real
relationship to anarchist theory. They were created to justify a non-anarchist
approach to the struggle against fascism, an approach based on ignoring
@@ -2316,26 +2158,22 @@ alliance from below in favour of a top-down _"Workers' Alliance"_ which, they
believed, would be the only way which would allow them to control the labour
movement. The CNT, rightly, rejected such a position in favour of an alliance
from the bottom up yet, in July 1936, the need for unity was obvious and the
-UGT was not changing its position. So while in Barcelona the state has been
+UGT was not changing its position. So while in Barcelona the state had been
destroyed in all but name, _"in Madrid, thanks to the Socialist Party,
bourgeois structures were left intact and even fortified: a semi-dead state
received a new lease of life and no dual power was created to neutralise it."_
[Abel Paz, **Durruti in the Spanish Revolution**, p. 462]
+Rather than trying to cement a unity with other organisations at the top level
+in July 1936, the leadership of the CNT should have applied their anarchist
+ideas by inciting the oppressed to enlarge and consolidate their gains (which
+they did anyway). This would have liberated all the potential energy within
+the country (and elsewhere), energy that clearly existed as can be seen from
+the spontaneous collectivisations that occurred after the fateful Plenum of
+July 20th and the creation of volunteer workers' militia columns sent to
+liberate those parts of Spain which had fallen to Franco.
-
- Rather than trying to cement a unity with other organisations at the top
-level in July 1936, the leadership of the CNT should have applied their
-anarchist ideas by inciting the oppressed to enlarge and consolidate their
-gains (which they did anyway). This would have liberated all the potential
-energy within the country (and elsewhere), energy that clearly existed as can
-be seen from the spontaneous collectivisations that occurred after the fateful
-Plenum of July 20th and the creation of volunteer workers' militia columns
-sent to liberate those parts of Spain which had fallen to Franco.
-
-
-
- The role of anarchists, therefore, was that of _"inciting the people to
+The role of anarchists, therefore, was that of _"inciting the people to
abolish capitalistic property and the institutions through which it exercises
its power for the exploitation of the majority by a minority"_ and _"to
support, to incite and encourage the development of the social revolution and
@@ -2346,9 +2184,7 @@ bourgeois institutions through the creation of revolutionary organisms."_
193] In other words, to encourage, the kind of federation of communities and
workplaces Bakunin and Kropotkin had called for.
-
-
- Indeed, such an organisation already existing in embryo in the CNT's
+Indeed, such an organisation already existing in embryo in the CNT's
**barrios** defence committees which had led and co-ordinated the struggle
against the military coup throughout Barcelona. _"The Neighbourhood
Committees, which had diverse names but all shared a libertarian outlook,
@@ -2360,20 +2196,18 @@ political parties and the UGT at the top, in the Central Committee of Anti-
Fascist Militias, the CNT should have developed these organs of community
self-organisation:
-> _ "Power lay in the street on July 20, represented by the people in arms . .
+> _"Power lay in the street on July 20, represented by the people in arms . .
. Life took on a new momentum and it both destroyed and created as the people
worked to resolve practical necessities born from a collective life that lived
--- and wanted to continue living \-- in the street . . . The street and the
+-- and wanted to continue living -- in the street . . . The street and the
people in arms were the living force of the revolution . . . The Defence
Committees, now transformed into Revolutionary Committees, back up this force.
They organised what was called the 'Federation of Barricades.' Militants,
standing resolutely behind these barricades, represented them in the
Revolutionary Committees."_ [Paz, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 450-1]
-
-
- Later, a delegate meeting from the various workplaces (whether previously
-unionised or not) would have to had been arranged to organise, to re-quote
+Later, a delegate meeting from the various workplaces (whether previously
+unionised or not) would have had to been arranged to organise, to re-quote
Bakunin, _"the federal Alliance of all working men's associations"_ which
would _"constitute the Commune"_ and complement the _"federation of the
barricades."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 170] In more modern terminology, a federation
@@ -2389,23 +2223,19 @@ Committees. Together, those groups would form a Regional Assembly, which would
be the revolution's executive body."_ [Paz, **Op. Cit.**, p. 471] Such a
development, applying the basic ideas of anarchism (and as expounded in the
CNT's May resolution on Libertarian Communism), was not an impossibility.
-After all, as we will see, the CNT-FAI organised along those lines in Aragn.
-
+After all, as we will see, the CNT-FAI organised along those lines in Aragón.
-
- Concern that Catalonia would be isolated from the rest of the Republic was
+Concern that Catalonia would be isolated from the rest of the Republic was
foremost in the minds of many in the CNT and FAI. The fear that if libertarian
communism was implemented then a civil war within the anti-fascist forces
would occur (so aiding Franco) was a real one. Unfortunately, the conclusion
-draw from that fear, namely to win the war against Franco before talking about
-the revolution, was the wrong one. After all, a civil war within the
+drawn from that fear, namely to win the war against Franco before talking
+about the revolution, was the wrong one. After all, a civil war within the
Republican side **did** occur, when the state had recovered enough to start
it. Similarly, with the fear of a blockade by foreign governments. This
-happened away, confirming the analysis of activists like Durruti.
-
-
+happened anyway, confirming the analysis of activists like Durruti.
- Organising a full and proper delegate meeting in the first days of the
+Organising a full and proper delegate meeting in the first days of the
revolution would have allowed all arguments and suggestions to be discussed by
the whole membership of the CNT and, perhaps, a different decision may have
been reached on the subject of collaboration. After all, many CNT members were
@@ -2418,9 +2248,7 @@ initiative. It is also possible, as discussed in the [next
section](secI8.html#seci812), that anti-fascist unity would have prevailed and
so the some decision would have been reached.
-
-
- Be that as it may, by thinking they could postpone the revolution until after
+Be that as it may, by thinking they could postpone the revolution until after
the war, the CNT leadership made two mistakes. Firstly, they should have known
that their members would hardly miss this opportunity to implement libertarian
ideas so making their decision redundant (and a statist backlash inevitable).
@@ -2430,12 +2258,10 @@ participation of the working class. Such participation could never be achieved
by placing the war before the revolution and by working in top-down, statist
structures or within a state.
-
-
- Indeed, the mistake made by the CNT, while understandable, cannot be
-justified given that their consequences had been predicted by numerous
-anarchists beforehand, including Kropotkin. Decades earlier in an essay on the
-Paris Commune, the Russian anarchist refuted the two assumptions of the CNT
+Indeed, the mistake made by the CNT, while understandable, cannot be justified
+given that their consequences had been predicted by numerous anarchists
+beforehand, including Kropotkin. Decades earlier in an essay on the Paris
+Commune, the Russian anarchist refuted the two assumptions of the CNT
leadership -- first, of placing the war before the revolution and, second,
that the struggle could be waged by authoritarian structures or a state. He
explicitly attacked the mentality and logic of those who argued _"Let us first
@@ -2450,9 +2276,7 @@ consolidate the Commune first of all while postponing the social revolution
for later on, while the only effective way of proceeding was **to consolidate
the Commune by the social revolution**!"_ [**Words of a Rebel**, p. 97]
-
-
- Kropotkin's argument was sound, as the CNT discovered. By waiting until
+Kropotkin's argument was sound, as the CNT discovered. By waiting until
victory in the war they were defeated (as Abel Paz suggested, the workers of
Spain _"had to build a new world to secure and defend their victory."_ [**Op.
Cit.**, p. 451]). Kropotkin also indicated the inevitable effects of the CNT's
@@ -2465,9 +2289,7 @@ contact with the masses, they saw themselves reduced to impotence. Paralysed
by their distancing from the revolutionary centre -- the people -- they
themselves paralysed the popular initiative."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 97-8]
-
-
- Which, in a nutshell, was what happened to the leading militants of the CNT
+Which, in a nutshell, was what happened to the leading militants of the CNT
who collaborated with the state. Kropotkin was proved right, as was anarchist
theory from Bakunin onwards. As Vernon Richards argued, _"there can be no
excuse"_ for the CNT's decision, as _"they were not mistakes of judgement but
@@ -2477,56 +2299,50 @@ CNT when that theory argues the opposite position. That enemies of anarchism
quote Garcia Oliver's words from 1937 to draw conclusions about anarchist
theory says more about their politics than about anarchism!
-
-
- Moreover, while the experience of Spain confirms anarchist theory
+Moreover, while the experience of Spain confirms anarchist theory
**negatively**, it also confirms it **positively** by the creation of the
-Regional Defence Council of Aragn. The Council of Aragn was created by a
+Regional Defence Council of Aragón. The Council of Aragón was created by a
meeting of delegates from CNT unions, village collectives and militia columns
-to protect the new society based on libertarian communism the people of Aragn
+to protect the new society based on libertarian communism the people of Aragón
were building. The meeting also decided to press for the setting up of a
National Defence Committee which would link together a series of regional
bodies that were organised on principles similar to the one now established in
-Aragn. Durruti stressed that the collectives _"had to build their own means of
-self-defence and not rely on the libertarian columns which would leave Aragn
-as the war evolved. They needed to co-ordinate themselves, although he also
-warned themselves an anti-fascist political front like the type existing in
-other parts of Spain. They needn't make the same error as their compatriots
-elsewhere . . . The popular assembly must be sovereign."_ After a CNT regional
-assembly militants decided to _"form the Aragn Defence Council and the Aragn
-Federation of Collectives."_ [Paz, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 540-1] This exposes as
-false the claim that anarchism failed during the Spanish Civil War. In Aragn,
-the CNT **did** follow the ideas of anarchism, abolishing both the state and
-capitalism. If they had did this in Catalonia, the outcome of the Civil War
-may have been different.
-
-
-
- The continuity of what happened in Aragn with the ideas of anarchism and the
+Aragón. Durruti stressed that the collectives _"had to build their own means
+of self-defence and not rely on the libertarian columns which would leave
+Aragón as the war evolved. They needed to co-ordinate themselves, although he
+also warned them against forming an anti-fascist political front like the type
+existing in other parts of Spain. They needn't make the same error as their
+compatriots elsewhere . . . The popular assembly must be sovereign."_ After a
+CNT regional assembly militants decided to _"form the Aragón Defence Council
+and the Aragón Federation of Collectives."_ [Paz, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 540-1]
+This exposes as false the claim that anarchism failed during the Spanish Civil
+War. In Aragón, the CNT **did** follow the ideas of anarchism, abolishing both
+the state and capitalism. If they had done this in Catalonia, the outcome of
+the Civil War may have been different.
+
+The continuity of what happened in Aragón with the ideas of anarchism and the
CNT's 1936 Zaragoza Resolution on Libertarian Communism is obvious. The
formation of the Regional Defence Council was an affirmation of commitment to
the principles of libertarian communism. This principled stand for
revolutionary social and economic change stands at odds with the claims that
-the Spanish Civil War indicates the failure of anarchism. After all, in Aragn
+the Spanish Civil War indicates the failure of anarchism. After all, in Aragón
the CNT **did** act in accordance with anarchist theory as well as in its own
history and politics. It created a federation of workers' associations as
-argued by Bakunin. To contrast Catalonia and Aragn shows the weakness of
+argued by Bakunin. To contrast Catalonia and Aragón shows the weakness of
Stack's argument. The same organisation, with the same politics, yet different
results. How can anarchist ideas be blamed for what happened in Catalonia when
-they had been applied in Aragn? Such a position could not be logically argued
-and, unsurprisingly, Aragn usually fails to get mentioned by Marxists when
+they had been applied in Aragón? Such a position could not be logically argued
+and, unsurprisingly, Aragón usually fails to get mentioned by Marxists when
discussing Anarchism during the Spanish Civil War.
-
-
- Therefore, the activities of the CNT during the Civil War cannot be used to
+Therefore, the activities of the CNT during the Civil War cannot be used to
discredit anarchism although it can be used to show that anarchists, like
everyone else, can and do make wrong decisions in difficult circumstances.
That Marxists always point to this event in anarchist history is unsurprising,
for it **was** a terrible mistake. Yet how could anarchism have "failed"
during the Spanish Revolution when it was ignored in Catalonia (for fear of
-fascism) and applied in Aragn? How can it be argued that anarchist politics
-were to blame when those very same politics had formed the Council of Aragn?
+fascism) and applied in Aragón? How can it be argued that anarchist politics
+were to blame when those very same politics had formed the Council of Aragón?
It cannot. Simply put, the Spanish Civil War showed the failure of certain
anarchists to apply their ideas in a difficult situation rather than the
failure of anarchism. As Emma Goldman argued, the _"contention that there is
@@ -2535,41 +2351,35 @@ failed Anarchism seems to be very faulty reasoning . . . the failure of one or
several individuals can never take away from the depth and truth of an
ideal."_ [**Vision on Fire**, p. 299]
-
-
- To use the Catalan CNT to generalise about anarchism is false as it, firstly,
+To use the Catalan CNT to generalise about anarchism is false as it, firstly,
requires a dismissal of the objective circumstances the decision was made in
and, secondly, it means ignoring anarchist theory and history. It also gives
the impression that anarchism as a revolutionary theory must be evaluated
purely from one event in its history. The experiences of the Makhnovists in
the Ukraine, the USI and UAI in the factory occupations of 1920 and fighting
fascism in Italy, the insurrections of the CNT during the 1930s, the Council
-of Aragn created by the CNT in the Spanish Revolution and so on, are all
-ignored. Hardly convincing, although handy for Marxists. As is clear from, for
-example, the experiences of the Makhnovists and the Council of Aragn, that
-anarchism has been applied successfully on a large scale, both politically and
-economically, in revolutionary situations.
-
+of Aragón created by the CNT in the Spanish Revolution and so on, are all
+ignored. Hardly convincing, although handy for Marxists. As is clear from the
+experiences of the Makhnovists and the Council of Aragón, anarchism has been
+applied successfully on a large scale, both politically and economically, in
+revolutionary situations.
-
- Equally flawed are any attempts to suggest that those anarchists who remained
+Equally flawed are any attempts to suggest that those anarchists who remained
true to libertarian theory somehow, by so doing, rejected it and moved towards
Marxism. This is usually done to the anarchist group the **Friends of
Durruti** (FoD). In the words of Pat Stack:
-> _ "Interestingly the one Spanish anarchist group that developed the most
+> _"Interestingly the one Spanish anarchist group that developed the most
sophisticated critique of all this was the Friends of Durutti [sic!]. As
[Trotskyist] Felix Morrow points out, 'They represented a conscious break with
the anti-statism of traditional anarchism. They explicitly declared the need
for democratic organs of power, juntas or soviets, in the overthrow of
capitalism, and the necessary state measures of repression against the
counter-revolution.' The failure of the Spanish anarchists to understand
-exactly that these were the stark choices workers' power, or capitalist power
+exactly that these were the stark choices‚ workers' power, or capitalist power
followed by reaction."_ [**Op. Cit.**]
-
-
- That Stack could not bother to spell Durruti's name correctly shows how
+That Stack could not bother to spell Durruti's name correctly shows how
seriously we should take this analysis. The FoD were an anarchist grouping
within the CNT and FAI which, like a large minority of others, strongly and
consistently opposed the policy of anti-fascist unity. Rather than signify a
@@ -2585,9 +2395,7 @@ traditional positions of anarchism and cannot be considered to have broken
with it. If Stack or Morrow knew anything about anarchism, then they would
have known this.
-
-
- As such, the failure of the Spanish anarchists was not the _"stark choice"_
+As such, the failure of the Spanish anarchists was not the _"stark choice"_
between _"workers' power"_ and _"capitalist power"_ but rather the making of
the wrong choice in the real dilemma of introducing anarchism (which would, by
definition, be based on workers' power, organisation and self-management) or
@@ -2597,37 +2405,33 @@ suggests that he simply has no appreciation of the dynamics of the Spanish
Revolution and prefers abstract sloganeering to a serious analysis of the
problems facing it. He ends by summarising:
-> _ "The most important lesson . . . is that whatever ideals and gut instincts
+> _"The most important lesson . . . is that whatever ideals and gut instincts
individual anarchists may have, anarchism, both in word and deed, fails to
provide a roadworthy vehicle for human liberation. Only Marxism, which sees
the centrality of the working class under the leadership of a political party,
is capable of leading the working class to victory."_ [**Op. Cit.**]
-
-
- As a useful antidote to these claims, we need simply quote Trotsky on what
-the Spanish anarchists should have done. In his words: _"Because the leaders
-of the CNT renounced dictatorship **for themselves** they left the place open
-for the Stalinist dictatorship."_ Hardly an example of "workers' power"! Or,
-as he put it earlier in the same year, a _"revolutionary party, even having
-seized power (of which the anarchist leaders were incapable in spite of the
-heroism of the anarchist workers), is still by no means the sovereign ruler of
+As a useful antidote to these claims, we need simply quote Trotsky on what the
+Spanish anarchists should have done. In his words: _"Because the leaders of
+the CNT renounced dictatorship **for themselves** they left the place open for
+the Stalinist dictatorship."_ Hardly an example of "workers' power"! Or, as he
+put it earlier in the same year, a _"revolutionary party, even having seized
+power (of which the anarchist leaders were incapable in spite of the heroism
+of the anarchist workers), is still by no means the sovereign ruler of
society."_ Ultimately, it was the case that the failure of the Spanish
Revolution confirmed for Trotsky the truism that the _"revolutionary
dictatorship of a proletarian party . . . is an objective necessity . . . The
revolutionary party (vanguard) which renounces **its own dictatorship**
surrenders the masses to the counter-revolution."_ Rather than seeing, as
-anarchist do, workers' councils as being key, Trotsky considered the party, in
-fact the _"dictatorship of a party"_, as being the decisive factor. [our
+anarchists do, workers' councils as being key, Trotsky considered the party,
+in fact the _"dictatorship of a party"_, as being the decisive factor. [our
emphasis, **Writings of Leon Trotsky 1936-37**, p. 514, p. 488 and pp. 513-4]
At best, such organs would be used to achieve party power and would simply be
-a fig-leaf for its rule (see [section H.3.8](secH3.html#sech38)).
-
-
+a figleaf for its rule (see [section H.3.8](secH3.html#sech38)).
- Clearly, the leading Marxist at the time was not arguing for the _"centrality
+Clearly, the leading Marxist at the time was not arguing for the _"centrality
of the working class under the leadership of a political party."_ He was
-arguing for the dictatorship of a "revolutionary" party _**over**_ the working
+arguing for the dictatorship of a "revolutionary" party **_over_** the working
class. Rather than the working class being "central" to the running of a
revolutionary regime, Trotsky saw the party taking that position. What sort of
_"victory"_ is possible when the party has dictatorial power over the working
@@ -2638,51 +2442,41 @@ instrumental terms -- the means by which the party can seize power. As the
Russian Revolution proved beyond doubt, in a conflict between workers' power
and party power Leninists will suppress the former to ensure the latter.
-
-
- To paraphrase Stack, the most important lesson from both the Russian and
+To paraphrase Stack, the most important lesson from both the Russian and
Spanish revolutions is that whatever ideals and gut instincts individual
Leninists may have, Leninism, both in word and deed, fails to provide a
roadworthy vehicle for human liberation. Only Anarchism, which sees the
-centrality of the working class self-management of the class struggle and
+centrality of working class self-management of the class struggle and
revolution, is capable of ensuring the creation of a real, free, socialist
society.
-
-
- Lastly, it could be argued that our critique of the standard Leninist attack
+Lastly, it could be argued that our critique of the standard Leninist attack
on Spanish anarchism is similar to that presented by Leninists to justify
Bolshevik authoritarianism during the Russian Revolution. After all, Leninists
like Stack point to the objective circumstances facing Lenin's regime -- its
isolation, civil war and economic problems -- as explaining its repressive
actions. Yet any similarity is superficial as the defeat of the Revolution in
-Spain was due to anarchists **not** applying our ideas whole, while, in
+Spain was due to anarchists **not** applying all of our ideas, while, in
Russia, it was due to the Bolsheviks **applying** their ideology. The
difficulties that faced the Russian Revolution pushed the Bolsheviks further
-down the road they where already travelling down (not to mention that
-Bolshevik ideology significantly contributed to making many of these problem
-worse). As we discuss in [section H.6](secH6.html), the notion that "objective
+down the road they were already travelling down (not to mention that Bolshevik
+ideology significantly contributed to making many of these problems worse). As
+we discuss in [section H.6](secH6.html), the notion that "objective
circumstances" explains Bolshevik tyranny is simply unconvincing, particularly
given the role Bolshevik ideology played in this process.
-
-
- So, to conclude, rather than show the failure of anarchism, the experience of
+So, to conclude, rather than show the failure of anarchism, the experience of
the Spanish Revolution indicates the failure of anarchists to apply their
ideas in practice. Faced with extremely difficult circumstances, they
compromised their ideas in the name of anti-fascist unity. Their compromises
**confirmed** rather than refuted anarchist theory as they led to the defeat
of both the revolution **and** the civil war.
+## I.8.12 Was the decision to collaborate imposed on the CNT's membership?
-
- ## I.8.12 Was the decision to collaborate imposed on the CNT's membership?
-
-
-
- A few words have to be said about the development of the CNT and FAI after
-the 19th of July, 1936. It is clear that both changed in nature and were the
-not same organisations as they were **before** that date. Both organisations
+A few words have to be said about the development of the CNT and FAI after the
+19th of July, 1936. It is clear that both changed in nature and were the not
+same organisations as they were **before** that date. Both organisations
became more centralised and bureaucratic, with the membership excluded from
many major decisions. As Peirats suggested:
@@ -2708,9 +2502,7 @@ which is to say a necessary departure from the circuitous procedures of
federalist practice which operated from the bottom upwards."_ [**The CNT in
the Spanish Revolution**, vol. 1, p. 213]
-
-
- In other words, the CNT had become increasingly hierarchical, with the higher
+In other words, the CNT had become increasingly hierarchical, with the higher
committees becoming transformed into executive bodies rather than
administrative ones as _"it is safe to assert that the significant resolutions
in the organisation were adopted by the committees, very rarely by the mass
@@ -2720,9 +2512,7 @@ leaks. These necessities tempted the committees to abandon the federalist
procedures of the organisation."_ [Jose Peirats, **Anarchists in the Spanish
Revolution**, p. 188]
-
-
- Ironically, rather than the _"anarchist leaders"_ of the CNT failing to
+Ironically, rather than the _"anarchist leaders"_ of the CNT failing to
_"seize power"_ as Trotsky and his followers lament (see [last
section](secI8.html#seci811)), they did -- **in their own organisations.**
Such a development proved to be a disaster and re-enforced the anarchist
@@ -2734,25 +2524,20 @@ indicate below, it would be false to assert that these higher committees
simply imposed the decision to collaborate on their memberships (as, for
example, Vernon Richards seems to imply in his **Lessons of the Spanish
Revolution**). While it **is** true that the committees presented many
-decisions as a **fait accompli** the rank-and-file of the CNT and FAI did not
+decisions as a **fait accompli,** the rank-and-file of the CNT and FAI did not
simply follow orders nor ratify all of the decisions blindly.
-
-
- In any revolutionary situation decisions have to be made quickly and
-sometimes without consulting the base of the organisation. However, such
-decisions must be accountable to the membership who must discuss and ratify
-them (this was the policy within the CNT militias, for example). The
-experience of the CNT and FAI in countless strikes, insurrections and
-campaigns had proven the decentralised, federal structure was more than
-capable of pursuing the class war -- revolution is no exception as it is the
-class war in its most concentrated form. In other words, the organisational
-principles of the CNT and FAI were more than adequate for a revolutionary
-situation.
-
-
-
- The centralising tendencies, therefore, cannot be blamed on the exceptional
+In any revolutionary situation decisions have to be made quickly and sometimes
+without consulting the base of the organisation. However, such decisions must
+be accountable to the membership who must discuss and ratify them (this was
+the policy within the CNT militias, for example). The experience of the CNT
+and FAI in countless strikes, insurrections and campaigns had proven the
+decentralised, federal structure was more than capable of pursuing the class
+war -- revolution is no exception as it is the class war in its most
+concentrated form. In other words, the organisational principles of the CNT
+and FAI were more than adequate for a revolutionary situation.
+
+The centralising tendencies, therefore, cannot be blamed on the exceptional
circumstances of the war. Rather, it was the policy of collaboration which
explains them. Unlike the numerous strikes and revolts that occurred before
July 19th, 1936, the CNT higher committees had started to work within the
@@ -2765,9 +2550,7 @@ arms of the state, which increased hierarchical tendencies, which in turn
isolated these higher committees from the membership, which in turn encouraged
a conciliatory policy by those committees.
-
-
- This centralising and hierarchical tendency did not mean that the higher
+This centralising and hierarchical tendency did not mean that the higher
committees of the CNT simply imposed their will on the rest of the
organisation. It is very clear that the decision to collaborate had,
initially, the passive support of the majority of the CNT and FAI (probably
@@ -2786,9 +2569,7 @@ bulk of the membership was in thrall to a certain fatalism which was itself a
direct consequence of the tragic realities of the war."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p.
181]
-
-
- And:
+And:
> _"We have already seen how, on the economic plane, militant anarchism forged
ahead, undaunted, with its work of transforming the economy. It is not to be
@@ -2799,9 +2580,7 @@ organs broke out as soon as the backsliding began. In this connection, the
body of opinion hostile to any possible deviation in tactics and principles
was able to count throughout upon spirited champions."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 210]
-
-
- Thus, within the libertarian movement, there was a substantial minority who
+Thus, within the libertarian movement, there was a substantial minority who
opposed the policy of collaboration and made their opinions known in various
publications and meetings. While many (if not most) revolutionary anarchists
volunteered for the militias and so were not active in their unions as before,
@@ -2821,9 +2600,7 @@ public transit system or with the daily milk. [Abe Bluestein, _"Translator's
Note"_, Juan Gomez Casas, **Anarchist Organisation: The History of the FAI**,
p. 10]
-
-
- This suggests that in spite of centralising tendencies, the higher committees
+This suggests that in spite of centralising tendencies, the higher committees
of the CNT were still subject to some degree of popular influence and control
and should not be seen as having dictatorial powers over the organisation.
While many decisions **were** presented as **fait accompli** to the union
@@ -2840,10 +2617,8 @@ it cannot be argued that it was imposed upon the membership nor that they did
not hear opposing positions. Sadly, the call for anti-fascist unity dominated
the minds of the libertarian movement.
-
-
- In the early stages, the majority of rank-and-file militants believed that
-the war would be over in a matter of weeks. After all, a few days had been
+In the early stages, the majority of rank-and-file militants believed that the
+war would be over in a matter of weeks. After all, a few days had been
sufficient to rout the army in Barcelona and other industrial centres. This
inclined them to, firstly, tolerate (indeed, support) the collaboration of the
CNT with the _"Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias"_ and, secondly, to
@@ -2854,12 +2629,10 @@ believed that the revolution and libertarian communism, as debated and adopted
by the CNT's Zaragoza Congress of May that year, was an inseparable aspect of
the struggle against fascism and proceeded appropriately. The ignoring of the
state, rather than its destruction, was seen as a short-term compromise, soon
-to be corrected. Sadly, there were wrong -- collaboration had a logic all its
+to be corrected. Sadly, they were wrong -- collaboration had a logic all its
own, one which got worse as the war dragged on (and soon it was too late).
-
-
- Which, we must note indicates the superficial nature of most Marxist attacks
+Which, we must note indicates the superficial nature of most Marxist attacks
on anarchism using the CNT as the key evidence. After all, it was the
anarchists and anarchist influenced members of the CNT who organised the
collectives, militias and started the transformation of Spanish society. They
@@ -2870,9 +2643,7 @@ leadership. Thus, to attack "anarchism" by pointing to the anti-anarchist
actions of a few leaders while ignoring the anarchist actions of the majority
is flawed.
-
-
- Therefore, to summarise, it is clear that while the internal structure of the
+Therefore, to summarise, it is clear that while the internal structure of the
CNT was undermined and authoritarian tendencies increased by its collaboration
with the state, the CNT was not transformed into a mere appendage to the
higher committees of the organisation. The union plenums could and did reject
@@ -2887,9 +2658,7 @@ unsurprisingly, the divergences from the CNT's previous libertarian
organisational principles confirmed anarchist theory, becoming a drag on the
revolution and a factor in its defeat.
-
-
- As we argued in [section I.8.11](secI8.html#seci811), the initial compromise
+As we argued in [section I.8.11](secI8.html#seci811), the initial compromise
with the state, the initial betrayal of anarchist theory and CNT policy,
contained all the rest. Moreover, rather than refute anarchism, the experience
of the CNT after it had rejected anarchist theory confirmed it -- centralised,
@@ -2901,9 +2670,7 @@ centralisation within the CNT aided and empowered the leadership (a minority)
and disempowered the membership (the majority). Rather than federalism
hindering the revolution, it, as always, was centralism which did so.
-
-
- Therefore, in spite of a sizeable minority of anarchists **within** the CNT
+Therefore, in spite of a sizeable minority of anarchists **within** the CNT
and FAI arguing against the dominant policy of "anti-fascist unity" and
political collaboration, this policy was basically agreed to by the CNT
membership and was not imposed upon them. The membership of the CNT could, and
@@ -2912,13 +2679,9 @@ centralisation of power that occurred in the CNT due to the policy of
collaboration, it cannot be argued that this policy was alien to the wishes of
the rank-and-file however lamentable the results of that position were.
+## I.8.13 What political lessons were learned from the revolution?
-
- ## I.8.13 What political lessons were learned from the revolution?
-
-
-
- The most important political lesson learned from the Spanish Revolution is
+The most important political lesson learned from the Spanish Revolution is
that a revolution cannot compromise with existing power structures. In this,
it just confirmed anarchist theory and the basic libertarian position that a
social revolution will only succeed if it follows an anarchist path and does
@@ -2926,12 +2689,10 @@ not seek to compromise in the name of fighting a "greater evil." As Kropotkin
put it, a _"revolution that stops half-way is sure to be soon defeated."_
[**The Great French Revolution**, vol. 2, p. 553]
-
-
- On the 20th of July, after the fascist coup had been defeated in Barcelona,
+On the 20th of July, after the fascist coup had been defeated in Barcelona,
the CNT sent a delegation of its members to meet the leader of the Catalan
Government. A plenum of CNT union shop stewards, in the light of the fascist
-coup, agreed that libertarian communism would be postpone until Franco had
+coup, agreed that libertarian communism would be postponed until Franco had
been defeated (the rank and file ignored them and collectivised their
workplaces). They organised a delegation to visit the Catalan president to
discuss the situation:
@@ -2942,9 +2703,7 @@ Militias] as the ruling organisation or the CNT would **consult the rank and
file and expose the real situation to the workers.** Companys backed down."_
[our emphasis, Abel Paz, **Durruti: The People Armed**, p. 216]
-
-
- The CNT committee members used their new-found influence in the eyes of Spain
+The CNT committee members used their new-found influence in the eyes of Spain
to unite with the leaders of other organisations/parties but not the rank and
file. This process lead to the creation of the **Central Committee of Anti-
Fascist Militias**, in which political parties as well as labour unions were
@@ -2964,9 +2723,7 @@ But I repeat, once they had made common cause for the period of the anti-
Fascist war, they were driven by the logic of events to go further."_ [Emma
Goldman, **Vision on Fire**, pp. 100-1]
-
-
- The most obvious problem, of course, was that collaboration with the state
+The most obvious problem, of course, was that collaboration with the state
ensured that a federation of workers' associations could not be created to co-
ordinate the struggle against fascism and the social revolution. As Stuart
Christie argues: _"By imposing their leadership from above, these partisan
@@ -2980,10 +2737,8 @@ revolutionary task of social and economic reconstruction."_ [**We, the
Anarchists!**, pp. 99-100] Without such a federation, it was only a matter of
time before the CNT joined the bourgeois government.
-
-
- Rather than being _"a regime of **dual power**"_ and the _"most important"_
-of the _"new organs of power"_ as many Trotskyists, following Felix Morrow,
+Rather than being _"a regime of **dual power**"_ and the _"most important"_ of
+the _"new organs of power"_ as many Trotskyists, following Felix Morrow,
maintain, the **Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias** created on July
20th, 1936, was, in fact, an organ of class collaboration and a handicap to
the revolution. [**Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Spain**, p. 85 and p.
@@ -2997,9 +2752,7 @@ organisation of (to use Bakunin's expression) _"the social (and, by
consequence, anti-political) power of the working masses."_ [**Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings**, pp. 197-8]
-
-
- Therefore, the CNT forgot a basic principle of anarchism, namely _"the
+Therefore, the CNT forgot a basic principle of anarchism, namely _"the
destruction . . . of the States."_ Instead, like the Paris Commune, the CNT
thought that _"in order to combat . . . reaction, they had to organise
themselves in reactionary Jacobin fashion, forgetting or sacrificing what they
@@ -3013,24 +2766,20 @@ doing this, by working in a top-down compromise body rather than creating a
federation of workers' councils, the CNT leadership could not help eventually
sacrificing the revolution in favour of the war.
-
-
- Of course, if a full plenum of CNT unions and **barrios** defence committees,
+Of course, if a full plenum of CNT unions and **barrios** defence committees,
with delegates invited from UGT and unorganised workplaces, had taken place
there is no guarantee that the decision reached would have been in line with
anarchist theory. The feelings for antifascist unity were strong. However, the
decision would have been fully discussed by the rank and file of the union,
under the influence of the revolutionary anarchists who were later to join the
militias and leave for the front. It is likely, given the wave of
-collectivisation and what happened in Aragn, that the decision would have been
-different and the first step would have made to turn this plenum into the
+collectivisation and what happened in Aragón, that the decision would have
+been different and the first step would have made to turn this plenum into the
basis of a free federation of workers associations -- i.e. the framework of a
self-managed society -- which could have smashed the state and ensured no
other appeared to take its place.
-
-
- So the basic idea of anarchism, the need to create a federation of workers
+So the basic idea of anarchism, the need to create a federation of workers
councils, was ignored. In the name of "antifascist" unity, the CNT worked with
parties and classes which hated both them and the revolution. In the words of
Sam Dolgoff _"both before and after July 19th, an unwavering determination to
@@ -3040,9 +2789,7 @@ Collectives**, p. 40] Without creating a means to organise the _"social
power"_ of the working class, the CNT was defenceless against these parties
once the state had re-organised itself.
-
-
- To justify their collaboration, the leaders of the CNT-FAI argued that not to
+To justify their collaboration, the leaders of the CNT-FAI argued that not to
do so would have lead to a civil war within the civil war, so allowing Franco
easy victory. In practice, while paying lip service to the revolution, the
Communists and republicans attacked the collectives, murdered anarchists,
@@ -3053,9 +2800,7 @@ crush the CNT and the revolution). By collaborating, a civil war was not
avoided. One occurred anyway, with the working class as its victims, as soon
as the state felt strong enough.
-
-
- Garcia Oliver (the first ever, and hopefully last, "anarchist" minister of
+Garcia Oliver (the first ever, and hopefully last, "anarchist" minister of
justice) stated in 1937 that collaboration was necessary and that the CNT had
_"renounc[ed] revolutionary totalitarianism, which would lead to the
strangulation of the revolution by anarchist and Confederal [CNT]
@@ -3088,9 +2833,7 @@ were also transferred to a governing hierarchy, and this could not have other
than an adverse effect on the morale of the revolutionary fighters."_
[Richards, **Op. Cit.**, p. 42]
-
-
- The dilemma of _"anarchist dictatorship"_ or _"collaboration"_ raised in 1937
+The dilemma of _"anarchist dictatorship"_ or _"collaboration"_ raised in 1937
was fundamentally wrong. It was never a case of banning parties, and other
organisations under an anarchist system, far from it. Full rights of free
speech, organisation and so on should have existed for all but the parties
@@ -3111,9 +2854,7 @@ and in the economic organisations of the revolution as well as their political
organisations in the district and communities."_ [**Anarchist Organisation:
the History of the FAI**, p. 188f]
-
-
- Instead of this "collaboration" from the bottom up, by means of a federation
+Instead of this "collaboration" from the bottom up, by means of a federation
of workers' associations, community assemblies and militia columns as argued
for by anarchists from Bakunin onwards, the CNT and FAI committees favoured
"collaboration" from the top down. The leaders ignored the state and co-
@@ -3130,9 +2871,7 @@ enough in all places. Due to the political compromises of the CNT the
tendencies to co-ordination and mutual aid could not develop freely (see [next
section](secI8.html#seci814)).
-
-
- It is clear that the defeat in Spain was due to a failure not of anarchist
+It is clear that the defeat in Spain was due to a failure not of anarchist
theory and tactics but a failure of anarchists to **apply** their theory and
tactics. Instead of destroying the state, the CNT-FAI ignored it. For a
revolution to be successful it needs to create organisations which can
@@ -3141,9 +2880,7 @@ libertarian organisation for social and economic decision-making through which
working class people can start to set their own agendas. Only by going down
this route can the state and capitalism be effectively smashed.
-
-
- In building the new world we must destroy the old one. Revolutions may be, as
+In building the new world we must destroy the old one. Revolutions may be, as
Engels suggested, "authoritarian" by their very nature, but only in respect to
institutions, structures and social relations which promote injustice,
hierarchy and inequality. As discussed in [section H.7.4](secH4.html#sech47),
@@ -3154,9 +2891,7 @@ majority of the population, who have previously been excluded from decision-
making on social and economic issues. In fact, a revolution is the most
**libertarian** thing ever.
-
-
- As the **Friends of Durruti** argued a _"revolution requires the absolute
+As the **Friends of Durruti** argued a _"revolution requires the absolute
domination of the workers' organisations."_ [_"The Friends of Durruti
accuse"_, **Class War on the Home Front**, Wildcat Group (ed.), p. 34] Only
this, the creation of viable anarchist social organisations, can ensure that
@@ -3173,9 +2908,7 @@ for excuses for it, the same course will be repeated in the future . . .
exceptional circumstances will again put . . . anarchism on [its] knees before
the State."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 251]
-
-
- The second important lesson is on the nature of anti-fascism. The CNT
+The second important lesson is on the nature of anti-fascism. The CNT
leadership, along with many (if not most) of the rank-and-file, were totally
blinded by the question of anti-fascist unity, leading them to support a
"democratic" state against a "fascist" one. While the basis of a new world was
@@ -3196,9 +2929,7 @@ enemy, Capitalism, under a new and fearful sounding name . . . Anti-Fascism is
the new slogan by which the working class is being betrayed."_ [**Workers Free
Press**, October 1937]
-
-
- Thirdly, the argument of the CNT that Libertarian Communism had to wait until
+Thirdly, the argument of the CNT that Libertarian Communism had to wait until
after the war was a false one. Fascism can only be defeated by ending the
system that spawned it (i.e. capitalism). In addition, in terms of morale and
inspiration, the struggle against fascism could only be effective if it were
@@ -3214,33 +2945,25 @@ to the status quo? A status quo that they had rebelled against before the
start of the civil war and which had provoked the fascist coup in the first
place.
+Fourthly, the role of anarchists in a social revolution is to always encourage
+organisation _"from below"_ (to use one of Bakunin's favourite expressions),
+revolutionary organisations which can effectively smash the state. Bakunin
+himself argued (see [section I.8.11](secI8.html#seci811)) in favour of
+workers' councils, complemented by community assemblies (the federation of the
+barricades) and a self-managed militia. This model is still applicable today
+and was successfully applied in Aragón by the CNT.
-
- Fourthly, the role of anarchists in a social revolution is to always
-encourage organisation _"from below"_ (to use one of Bakunin's favourite
-expressions), revolutionary organisations which can effectively smash the
-state. Bakunin himself argued (see [section I.8.11](secI8.html#seci811)) in
-favour of workers' councils, complemented by community assemblies (the
-federation of the barricades) and a self-managed militia. This model is still
-applicable today and was successfully applied in Aragn by the CNT.
-
-
-
- Therefore, the political lessons gained from the experience of the CNT come
-as no surprise. They simply repeat long standing positions within anarchist
+Therefore, the political lessons gained from the experience of the CNT come as
+no surprise. They simply repeat long standing positions within anarchist
theory. As anarchists have argued since Bakunin, no revolution is possible
unless the state is smashed, capital expropriated and a free federation of
workers' associations created as the framework of libertarian socialism.
Rather than refuting anarchism, the experience of the Spanish Revolution
confirms it.
+## I.8.14 What economic lessons were learned from the revolution?
-
- ## I.8.14 What economic lessons were learned from the revolution?
-
-
-
- The most important economic lesson from the revolution is the fact that
+The most important economic lesson from the revolution is the fact that
working class people took over the management of industry and did an amazing
job of keeping (and improving!) production in the face of the direst
circumstances (a factor often overlooked by the opponents of anarchism and the
@@ -3250,29 +2973,25 @@ techniques and processes. The Spanish Revolution shows that self-management is
possible and that the constructive powers of people inspired by an ideal can
transform society.
-
-
- Self-management allowed a massive increase in innovation and new ideas. The
+Self-management allowed a massive increase in innovation and new ideas. The
Spanish Revolution is clear proof of the anarchist case against hierarchy and
-validates Isaac Puente words that in _"a free collective each benefits from
+validates Isaac Puente's words that in _"a free collective each benefits from
accumulated knowledge and specialised experiences of all, and vice versa.
There is a reciprocal relationship wherein information is in continuous
circulation."_ [**The Anarchist Collectives**, p. 32] The workers, freed from
-economic autocracy, started to transform their workplaces and how the produced
-goods.
-
-
-
- From the point of view of individual freedom, it is clear that self-
-management allowed previously marginalised people to take an active part in
-the decisions that affected them. Egalitarian organisations provided the
-framework for a massive increase in participation and individual self-
-government, which expressed itself in the extensive innovations carried out by
-the Collectives. The Collectives indicate, in Stirner's words, that _"[o]nly
-in the union can you assert yourself as unique, because the union does not
-possess you, but you possess it or make it of use to you."_ [**The Ego and Its
-Own**, p. 312] A fact Emma Goldman confirmed from her visits to collectives
-and discussions with their members:
+economic autocracy, started to transform their workplaces and how they
+produced goods.
+
+From the point of view of individual freedom, it is clear that self-management
+allowed previously marginalised people to take an active part in the decisions
+that affected them. Egalitarian organisations provided the framework for a
+massive increase in participation and individual self-government, which
+expressed itself in the extensive innovations carried out by the Collectives.
+The Collectives indicate, in Stirner's words, that _"[o]nly in the union can
+you assert yourself as unique, because the union does not possess you, but you
+possess it or make it of use to you."_ [**The Ego and Its Own**, p. 312] A
+fact Emma Goldman confirmed from her visits to collectives and discussions
+with their members:
> _"I was especially impressed with the replies to my questions as to what
actually had the workers gained by the collectivisation . . . the answer
@@ -3280,9 +2999,7 @@ always was, first, greater freedom. And only secondly, more wages and less
time of work. In two years in Russia [1920-21] I never heard any workers
express this idea of greater freedom."_ [**Vision on Fire**, p. 62]
-
-
- As predicted in anarchist theory, and borne out by actual experience, there
+As predicted in anarchist theory, and borne out by actual experience, there
exists large untapped reserves of energy and initiative in the ordinary person
which self-management can call forth. The collectives proved Kropotkin's
argument that co-operative work is more productive and that if the economists
@@ -3292,14 +3009,10 @@ under the form of communal property land never produces such rich harvests as
when the possession is private. But this they could not prove; in fact, it is
the contrary that has been observed."_ [**The Conquest of Bread**, p. 146]
-
-
- Beyond this five important lessons can be derived from the actual experience
+Beyond this five important lessons can be derived from the actual experience
of a libertarian socialist economy:
-
-
- Firstly, that an anarchist society cannot be created overnight, but is a
+Firstly, that an anarchist society cannot be created overnight, but is a
product of many different influences as well as the objective conditions. In
this the anarchist collectives confirmed the ideas of anarchist thinkers like
Bakunin and Kropotkin (see [section I.2.2](secI2.html#seci22)). The
@@ -3310,9 +3023,7 @@ well as libertarian theory and, with regards the latter, were somewhat
limited. However, they were organisations created from below by the revolution
and so capable of development and progress.
-
-
- The lesson from every revolution is that the mistakes made in the process of
+The lesson from every revolution is that the mistakes made in the process of
liberation by people themselves are always minor compared to the results of a
self-proclaimed vanguard creating institutions **for** people. The Spanish
Revolution is a clear example of this, with the Catalan state's
@@ -3330,11 +3041,9 @@ interests of the working class only if working class people solve them
themselves. For this to happen it requires working class people to manage
their own affairs directly -- and this implies anarchism, not centralisation
or state control/ownership. The experience of the collectives in Spain
-supports.
-
+supports this.
-
- Secondly, the importance of decentralisation of management. As discussed in
+Secondly, the importance of decentralisation of management. As discussed in
[section I.8.4](secI8.html#seci84), different areas and industries tried
different forms of federation. The woodworkers' union experience indicates
that a collectivised industry can became centralised, with even a
@@ -3347,25 +3056,21 @@ anarchist ideas of self-management. Importantly, however, the collectivisation
experiments also indicate that co-operation need not imply centralisation (as
can be seen from the Badelona collectives).
-
-
- Thirdly, the importance of building links of solidarity between workplaces as
+Thirdly, the importance of building links of solidarity between workplaces as
soon as possible. While the importance of starting production after the
fascist uprising made attempts at co-ordination seem of secondary importance
to the collectives, the competition that initially occurred between workplaces
helped the state to undermine self-management (for example, the state _"was
actively using its control of finances to contain and stifle radical change"_
-[Graham Kesley, **Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Communism and the State**,
+[Graham Kelsey, **Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Communism and the State**,
p. 172]). As there was no People's Bank or federal body to co-ordinate credit
and production, state control of credit and the gold reserves made it easier
for the Republican state to undermine the revolution by controlling the
collectives and (effectively) nationalising them in time (Durruti and a few
others planned to seize the gold reserves but were advised not to by Abad de
-Santilln).
-
+Santillán).
-
- This attack on the revolution started when the Catalan State issued a decree
+This attack on the revolution started when the Catalan State issued a decree
legalising (and so controlling) the collectives in October 1936 (the infamous
_"Collectivisation Decree"_). The counter-revolution also withheld funds for
collectivised industries, even war industries, until they agreed to come under
@@ -3375,12 +3080,10 @@ the communists) and in the words of Gaston Leval, _"the decree had the baneful
effect of preventing the workers' syndicates from extending their gains. It
set back the revolution in industry."_ [**The Anarchist Collectives**, p. 54]
-
-
- And lastly, that an economic revolution can only succeed if the existing
-state is destroyed. As Kropotkin argued, _"a new form of economic organisation
-will necessarily require a new form of political structure."_ [**Anarchism**,
-p. 181] Capitalism needs the state, socialism needs anarchy. Without the new
+And lastly, that an economic revolution can only succeed if the existing state
+is destroyed. As Kropotkin argued, _"a new form of economic organisation will
+necessarily require a new form of political structure."_ [**Anarchism**, p.
+181] Capitalism needs the state, socialism needs anarchy. Without the new
political structure, the new economic organisation cannot develop to its full
potential. Due to the failure to consolidate the revolution **politically**,
it was lost **economically**. The decree _"legalising"_ collectivisation
@@ -3392,7 +3095,7 @@ beginning"_ due to the decree, as one participant put it). Collectives, of
course, tried to ignore the state. As an eyewitness pointed out, the CNT's
_"policy was thus not the same as that pursued by the decree."_ [quoted by
Ronald Fraser, **Blood of Spain**, p. 230 and p. 213] Indeed, leading
-anarchists like Abad de Santilln opposed it:
+anarchists like Abad de Santillán opposed it:
> _"I was an enemy of the decree because I considered it premature . . . when
I became councillor, I had no intention of taking into account or carrying out
@@ -3400,9 +3103,7 @@ the decree: I intended to allow our great people to carry on the task as they
best saw fit, according to their own inspiration."_ [quoted by Fraser, **Op.
Cit.**, p. 212fn]
-
-
- However, with the revolution lost politically, the CNT was soon forced to
+However, with the revolution lost politically, the CNT was soon forced to
compromise and support the decree (the CNT did propose more libertarian forms
of co-ordination between workplaces but these were undermined by the state). A
lack of effective mutual aid organisations allowed the state to gain power
@@ -3411,10 +3112,8 @@ class control over the economy (important as it is) does not automatically
destroy the state. In other words, the economic aspects of the revolution
cannot be considered in isolation from its political ones.
-
-
- Yet these points do not diminish the successes of the Spanish revolution. As
-Gaston Leval argued, _"in spite of these shortcomings"_ caused lack of
+Yet these points do not diminish the successes of the Spanish revolution. As
+Gaston Leval argued, _"in spite of these shortcomings"_ caused by lack of
complete socialisation _"the important fact is that the factories went on
working, the workshops and works produced without the owners, capitalists,
shareholders and without high management executives."_ [**Collectives in the
@@ -3429,3 +3128,7 @@ society is possible. They gave a concrete example of what was previously just
a vision, a world which was more humane, more free, more equitable and more
civilised than that run by capitalists, managers, politicians and bureaucrats.
+[‹ I.7 Won't Libertarian Socialism destroy individuality?](/afaq/secI7.html
+"Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secIcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [Section
+J - What do anarchists do? ›](/afaq/secJcon.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secIcon.md b/markdown/secIcon.md
index fe7047ebac6d0a95767ff588ca9672fc54d6ba77..67512e4be9b491ca3e4fe0654b7884b04b79f38b 100644
--- a/markdown/secIcon.md
+++ b/markdown/secIcon.md
@@ -1,29 +1,33 @@
-# Section I - What would an anarchist society look like?
+# Section I - What would an anarchist society look like?
+
+##
## [Introduction](secIint.html)
+##
+
## [I.1 Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron?](secI1.html)
-### [I.1.1 Is socialism impossible?](secI1.html#seci11)
+### [I.1.1 Is socialism impossible?](secI1.html#seci11)
[I.1.2 Is libertarian communism impossible?](secI1.html#seci12)
[I.1.3 What is wrong with markets anyway?](secI1.html#seci13)
[I.1.4 If capitalism is exploitative, then isn't socialism as
well?](secI1.html#seci14)
-[I.1.5 Does capitalism efficiently allocate resources?](secI1.html#seci15)
+[I.1.5 Does capitalism efficiently allocate resources?](secI1.html#seci15)
## [I.2 Is this a blueprint for an anarchist society?](secI2.html)
-### [I.2.1 Why discuss what an anarchist society would be like at all?
+### [I.2.1 Why discuss what an anarchist society would be like at all?
](secI2.html#seci21)
[I.2.2 Will it be possible to go straight to an anarchist society from
capitalism?](secI2.html#seci22)
[I.2.3 How is the framework of an anarchist society created?
-](secI2.html#seci23)
+](secI2.html#seci23)
## [I.3 What could the economic structure of an anarchist society look
like?](secI3.html)
-### [I.3.1 What is a _"syndicate"_?](secI3.html#seci31)
+### [I.3.1 What is a _"syndicate"_?](secI3.html#seci31)
[I.3.2 What is workers' self-management?](secI3.html#seci32)
[I.3.3 What does socialisation mean?](secI3.html#seci33)
[I.3.4 What relations exist between individual syndicates?](secI3.html#seci34)
@@ -32,11 +36,11 @@ like?](secI3.html)
[I.3.7 What about people who do not want to join a
syndicate?](secI3.html#seci37)
[I.3.8 Do anarchists seek _"small autonomous communities, devoted to small
-scale production"_?
+scale production"_? ](secI3.html#seci38)
## [I.4 How would an anarchist economy function?](secI4.html)
-### [I.4.1 What is the point of economic activity in
+### [I.4.1 What is the point of economic activity in
anarchy?](secI4.html#seci41)
[I.4.2 Why do anarchists desire to abolish work?](secI4.html#seci42)
[I.4.3 How do anarchists intend to abolish work?](secI4.html#seci43)
@@ -59,11 +63,11 @@ reappear?](secI4.html#seci412)
[I.4.14 What about the person who will not work?](secI4.html#seci414)
[I.4.15 What will the workplace of tomorrow look like?](secI4.html#seci415)
[I.4.16 Won't a libertarian communist society be
-inefficient?](secI4.html#seci416)
+inefficient?](secI4.html#seci416)
## [I.5 What would the social structure of anarchy look like?](secI5.html)
-### [I.5.1 What are participatory communities?](secI5.html#seci51)
+### [I.5.1 What are participatory communities?](secI5.html#seci51)
[I.5.2 Why are confederations of participatory communities
needed?](secI5.html#seci52)
[I.5.3 Would confederations produce bureaucrats and
@@ -82,27 +86,28 @@ bodies?](secI5.html#seci510)
[I.5.11 How will an anarchist society defend itself the power
hungry?](secI5.html#seci511)
[I.5.12 Would an anarchist society provide health care and other public
-services?](secI5.html#seci512)
+services?](secI5.html#seci512)
## [I.6 What about the _"Tragedy of the Commons"_?](secI6.html)
-### [I.6.1 How can property _"owned by everyone in the world"_ be
+### [I.6.1 How can property _"owned by everyone in the world"_ be
used?](secI6.html#seci61)
[I.6.2 Doesn't communal ownership restrict individual liberty?
+](secI6.html#seci62)
## [I.7 Won't Libertarian Socialism destroy individuality? ](secI7.html)
-### [I.7.1 Do tribal cultures indicate that communalism defends
+### [I.7.1 Do tribal cultures indicate that communalism defends
individuality?](secI7.html#seci71)
[I.7.2 Do anarchists worship the past or the "noble
savage"?](secI7.html#seci72)
[I.7.3 Is the law required to protect individual rights?](secI7.html#seci73)
-[I.7.4 Does capitalism protect individuality?
+[I.7.4 Does capitalism protect individuality? ](secI7.html#seci74)
## [I.8 Does revolutionary Spain show that libertarian socialism can work in
practice?](secI8.html)
-### [I.8.1 Is the Spanish Revolution inapplicable as a model for modern
+### [I.8.1 Is the Spanish Revolution inapplicable as a model for modern
societies?](secI8.html#seci81)
[I.8.2 How were the anarchists able to obtain mass popular support in
Spain?](secI8.html#seci82)
@@ -123,5 +128,19 @@ membership?](secI8.html#seci812)
[I.8.13 What political lessons were learned from the
revolution?](secI8.html#seci813)
[I.8.14 What economic lessons were learned from the
-revolution?](secI8.html#seci814)
+revolution?](secI8.html#seci814)
+
+ * [I.0 Section I Introduction](/afaq/secIint.html)
+ * [I.1 Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron?](/afaq/secI1.html)
+ * [I.2 Is this a blueprint for an anarchist society?](/afaq/secI2.html)
+ * [I.3 What could the economic structure of anarchy look like?](/afaq/secI3.html)
+ * [I.4 How could an anarchist economy function?](/afaq/secI4.html)
+ * [I.5 What could the social structure of anarchy look like?](/afaq/secI5.html)
+ * [I.6 What about the "Tragedy of the Commons"?](/afaq/secI6.html)
+ * [I.7 Won't Libertarian Socialism destroy individuality?](/afaq/secI7.html)
+ * [I.8 Does revolutionary Spain show that libertarian socialism can work in practice?](/afaq/secI8.html)
+
+[‹ H.6 Why did the Russian Revolution fail?](/afaq/secH6.html "Go to previous
+page" ) [up](/afaq/index.html "Go to parent page" ) [I.0 Section I
+Introduction ›](/afaq/secIint.html "Go to next page" )
diff --git a/markdown/secIint.md b/markdown/secIint.md
index 0fb9fca5e1f170d70e20bde2eede0f3114e54341..609d7e94776853777f4ad89188317d38fb85fef2 100644
--- a/markdown/secIint.md
+++ b/markdown/secIint.md
@@ -6,8 +6,8 @@ refuting some bogus "solutions" that have been offered by authoritarians of
both the right and the left. It is now time to examine the constructive side
of anarchism -- the libertarian-socialist society that anarchists envision.
This is important because anarchism is essentially a **constructive** theory,
-in stark contradiction to the picture of usually painted of anarchism as chaos
-or mindless destruction.
+in stark contradiction to the picture usually painted of anarchism as chaos or
+mindless destruction.
In this section of the FAQ we will give an outline of what an anarchist
society might look like. Such a society has basic features -- such as being
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ Bakunin**, p. 249]
Looking at capitalism, we find that under wage labour people sell their
creative energy and control over their activity for a given period. The boss
does not just take surplus value from the time employees sell, but the time
-itself \-- their liberty, their ability to make their own decisions, express
+itself -- their liberty, their ability to make their own decisions, express
themselves through work and with their fellow workers. Wage labour equals wage
slavery as you sell your time and skills (i.e. liberty) everyday at work and
you will never be able to buy that time back for yourself. Once it is gone; it
@@ -93,8 +93,8 @@ without being forced to sell his [or her] work and his [or her] liberty to
others who accumulate wealth by the labour of their serfs."_ [Kropotkin,
**Words of a Rebel**, p. 208]
-Thus the aim of anarchism is to create a society in which every person
-_"should have the material and moral means to develop his humanity"_ and so to
+Thus the aim of anarchism is to create a society in which every person _should
+have the material and moral means to develop his humanity"_ and so to
_"**organise society in such a way that every individual . . . should find . .
. approximately equal means for the development of [their] various faculties
and for their utilisation in [their] work**; to create a society which would
@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ desired to be) a definitive statement of how they **must** be embodied. The
idea that a few people could determine exactly what a free society would look
like is contrary to the anarchist principles of free growth and thought, and
is far from our intention. Here we simply try to indicate some of the
-structures that an anarchist society may contain, based on the what ideals and
+structures that an anarchist society may contain, based on the ideals and
ideas anarchists hold, informed by the few examples of anarchy in action that
have existed and our critical evaluation of their limitations and successes.
As Herbert Read once put it, _"it is always a mistake to build **a priori**
@@ -177,26 +177,27 @@ principles of equity, of individual freedom, of workers' control. The
community then aims at the establishment of these principles from the
starting-point of local needs and local conditions."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 51]
-Moreover, we must remember that, the state has changed over time and, indeed,
-has not always existed. Thus it is possible to have a social organisation
-which is not a state and to confuse the two would be a _"confusion"_ made by
-those _"who cannot visualise Society without a concentration of the State."_
-Yet this _"is to overlook the fact that Man lived in Societies for thousands
-of years before the State had been heard of"_ and that _"large numbers of
-people [have] lived in communes and free federations."_ These were not states
-as the state _"is only one of the forms assumed by society in the course of
-history. Why then make no distinction between what is permanent and what is
-accidental?"_ [Kropotkin, **The State: Its Historic Role**, pp. 9-10]
-Similarly, the axioms of capitalist economics **not** withstanding, capitalism
-is but latest of a series of economies. Just as serfdom replaced slavery and
-capitalism replaced serfdom, so free (associated) labour can replace hired
-labour. As Proudhon noted, the _"period through which we are now passing . . .
-is distinguished by a special characteristic, - WAGES."_ Capitalism, this
-system of wage-labour, has not always existed nor need it continue. Thus _"the
-radical vice of political economy"_, namely _"affirming as a definitive state
-a transitory condition - namely, the division of society into patricians and
-proletares."_ [**System of Economic Contradictions**, p. 198 and p. 67]
-Anarchists seek to make that transitory condition shorter rather than longer.
+Moreover, we must remember that the state has changed over time and has not
+always existed. Thus it is possible to have a social organisation which is not
+a state and to confuse the two would be a _"confusion"_ made by those _"who
+cannot visualise Society without a concentration of the State."_ Yet this _"is
+to overlook the fact that Man lived in Societies for thousands of years before
+the State had been heard of"_ and that _"large numbers of people [have] lived
+in communes and free federations."_ These were not states as the state _"is
+only one of the forms assumed by society in the course of history. Why then
+make no distinction between what is permanent and what is accidental?"_
+[Kropotkin, **The State: Its Historic Role**, pp. 9-10] Similarly, the axioms
+of capitalist economics **not** withstanding, capitalism is but latest of a
+series of economies. Just as serfdom replaced slavery and capitalism replaced
+serfdom, so free (associated) labour can replace hired labour. As Proudhon
+noted, the _"period through which we are now passing" _is_ "distinguished by a
+special characteristic: WAGE-LABOUR."_ Capitalism has not always existed nor
+need it continue. So while _"the radical vice of political economy"_ is
+_"affirming as a definitive state a transitory condition - namely, the
+division of society into patricians and proletarians"_ in reality, _"__in its
+present form, the organisation [of labour] is inadequate and transitory. "_
+[**Property Is Theft!**, p. 190, p. 174 and p. 170] Anarchists seek to make
+that transitory condition shorter rather than longer.
Ultimately, a free society based on self-managed communities and associated
labour is, in many ways, a natural evolution of tendencies **within** existing
@@ -221,7 +222,7 @@ and alienated society is a necessary part of the struggle and the maintaining
of your liberty and humanity in the insane world of hierarchical society. As
such, an anarchist society will be the generalisation of the various types of
**_"anarchy in action"_** created in the various struggles against all forms
-of oppression and exploitation (see [section I.2.3](secI2.html#seci23)).
+of oppression and exploitation (see [section I.2.3](secI2.html#seci23) ).
This means that how an anarchist society would look like and work is not
independent of the specific societies it is created from nor the means used to
@@ -292,10 +293,10 @@ So anarchists are realistic in their hopes and dreams. We do not conjure up
hopes that cannot achieved but rather base our visions in an analysis of what
is wrong with society today and a means of changing the world for the better.
And even if some people call us utopians, we shrug off the accusation with a
-smile. After all, dreams are important, not only because they often the source
-of change in reality but because of the hope they express:
+smile. After all, dreams are important, not only because they are often the
+source of change in reality but because of the hope they express:
-> _ "People may . . . call us dreamers . . . They fail to see that dreams are
+> _"People may . . . call us dreamers . . . They fail to see that dreams are
also a part of the reality of life, that life without dreams would be
unbearable. No change in our way of life would be possible without dreams and
dreamers. The only people who are never disappointed are those who never hope
@@ -379,3 +380,8 @@ of the FAQ will inspire more debate and discussion of how a free society would
work. In addition, and equally as important, we hope it will help inspire the
struggle that will create that society.
+[‹ Section I - What would an anarchist society look like?](/afaq/secIcon.html
+"Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secIcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [I.1
+Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron? ›](/afaq/secI1.html "Go to next page"
+)
+
diff --git a/markdown/secJ1.md b/markdown/secJ1.md
index e932dd7a41a12ab26c7501daaadbd4cdf94e119a..61ed614179fb43d0c5dcf280a19a28c1437979f0 100644
--- a/markdown/secJ1.md
+++ b/markdown/secJ1.md
@@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ capitalism will or can concede. Hence the need for a revolutionary change.
Only this can ensure that anarchist ideas are the most popular ones for if we
think a movement is, all things considered, a positive or progressive one then
we should not abstain but should seek to popularise anarchist ideas and
-strategies within it. In this way we create _**"schools of anarchy"**_ within
+strategies within it. In this way we create **_"schools of anarchy"_** within
the current system and lay the foundations of something better. Revolutionary
tendencies and movements, in other words, must create the organisations that
contain, in embryo, the society of the future (see [section
@@ -518,7 +518,7 @@ focusing exclusively on narrow aspects of a problem, they choose to believe
that is the whole problem. In this wilfully narrow examination of pressing
social ills, reformists are, more often than not, counter-productive. The
disaster of the urban rebuilding projects in the United States (and similar
-projects in Britain which moved inter-city working class communities into edge
+projects in Britain which moved inner-city working class communities into edge
of town developments during the 1950s and 1960s) are an example of reformism
at work: upset at the growing slums, reformists supported projects that
destroyed the ghettos and built brand-new housing for working class people to
@@ -604,7 +604,7 @@ expressed in the law an accomplished **fact**._
> _"On the other hand . . . the Anarchists have always advised taking an
active part in those workers' organisations which carry on the **direct**
-struggle of Labour against Capital and its protector, \-- the State._
+struggle of Labour against Capital and its protector, -- the State._
> _"Such a struggle . . . better than any other indirect means, permits the
worker to obtain some temporary improvements in the present conditions of work
@@ -678,7 +678,7 @@ Firstly, we must note that anarchists do take part in "single-issue"
campaigns, but do not nourish false hopes in them. This section explains what
anarchists think of such campaigns.
-A "single-issue" campaign are usually run by a pressure group which
+A "single-issue" campaign is usually run by a pressure group which
concentrates on tackling issues one at a time. For example, C.N.D. (The
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) is a classic example of "single-issue"
campaigning with the aim of getting rid of nuclear weapons as the be-all and
@@ -767,15 +767,15 @@ to replace a few workers, but a whole workforce would be far more difficult.
By organising all workers in the same industry, the power of each workplace is
correspondingly increased. Extending this example to outside the workplace,
its clear that by mutual support between different groups increases the
-chances of each group winning its fight. As the I.W.W. put it: _**"An injury
-to one is an injury to all."**_ By generalising struggles, by practising
+chances of each group winning its fight. As the I.W.W. put it: **_"An injury
+to one is an injury to all."_** By generalising struggles, by practising
mutual aid we can ensure that when we are fighting for our rights and against
injustice we will not be isolated and alone. If we don't support each other,
groups will be picked off one by one. and if we go into struggle, there will
be no one there to support us and we are more likely to be defeated.
Therefore, from an anarchist point of view, the best thing about generalising
-struggles is that as well as increasing the likilihood of success
+struggles is that as well as increasing the likelihood of success
(_"Solidarity is Strength"_) it leads to an increased spirit of solidarity,
responsibility and class consciousness. This is because by working together
and showing solidarity those involved get to understand their common interests
@@ -821,30 +821,24 @@ to **know** each other, to **confront** each other; they would **explore**
each other with a view of achieving the most complete, unalienated
relationships. Women would discuss sexism, as well as their welfare
allotments, child-rearing as well as harassment by landlords, their dreams and
-hopes as human beings as well as the cost of living.
+hopes as human beings as well as the cost of living. _
->
-
-> "From this intimacy there would grow, hopefully, a supportive system of
+> _"From this intimacy there would grow, hopefully, a supportive system of
kinship, mutual aid, sympathy and solidarity in daily life. The women might
collaborate to establish a rotating system of baby sitters and child-care
attendants, the co-operative buying of good food at greatly reduced prices,
the common cooking and partaking of meals, the mutual learning of survival
skills and the new social ideas, the fostering of creative talents, and many
other shared experiences. Every aspect of life that could be explored and
-changed would be one part of the kind of relationships . . .
-
->
+changed would be one part of the kind of relationships . . . _
-> "The struggle for increased allotments would expand beyond the welfare
+> _"The struggle for increased allotments would expand beyond the welfare
system to the schools, the hospitals, the police, the physical, cultural,
aesthetic and recreational resources of the neighbourhood, the stores, the
houses, the doctors and lawyers in the area, and so on -- into the very
-ecology of the district.
+ecology of the district. _
->
-
-> "What I have said on this issue could be applied to every issue --
+> _"What I have said on this issue could be applied to every issue --
unemployment, bad housing, racism, work conditions -- in which an insidious
assimilation of bourgeois modes of functioning is masked as 'realism' and
'actuality.' The new order of relationships that could be developed from a
@@ -855,7 +849,7 @@ recasts the way people 'organise' and the goals for which they strive."_
As the anarchist slogan puts it: **_"Resistance is Fertile."_** Planting the
seed of autonomy, direct action and self-liberation can result, potentially,
in the blossoming of free individuals due to the nature of struggle itself
-(see [section A.2.7](secA2.html#seca27)) Therefore, the generalisation of
+(see [section A.2.7](secA2.html#seca27)). Therefore, the generalisation of
social struggle is not only a key way of winning a specific fight, it can (and
should) also spread into different aspects of life and society and play a key
part in developing free individuals who reject hierarchy in all aspects of
@@ -871,3 +865,7 @@ thirdly, to encourage the transformation of those involved into unique
individuals in touch with their humanity, a humanity eroded by hierarchical
society and domination.
+[‹ J.0 Section J Introduction](/afaq/secJint.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/secJcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [J.2 What is direct action?
+›](/afaq/secJ2.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secJ2.md b/markdown/secJ2.md
index e65632724b8256db2cf33155941c2145dcd03ef7..2ddb787ea92f892838ba2c9081eb3de1c9c55bf2 100644
--- a/markdown/secJ2.md
+++ b/markdown/secJ2.md
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ So direct action means acting for yourself against injustice and oppression.
It can, sometimes, involve putting pressure on politicians or companies, for
example, to ensure a change in an oppressive law or destructive practices.
However, such appeals are direct action simply because they do not assume that
-the parties in question we will act for us -- indeed the assumption is that
+the parties in question will act for us -- indeed the assumption is that
change only occurs when we act to create it. Regardless of what it is, _"if
such actions are to have the desired empowerment effect, they must be largely
self-generated, rather than being devised and directed from above"_ and be
@@ -109,8 +109,8 @@ Simply because it is effective and it has a radicalising impact on those who
practice it. As it is based on people acting for themselves, it shatters the
dependency and marginalisation created by hierarchy. This is key:
-_"What is even more important about direct action is that it forms a decisive
-step toward recovering the personal power over social life that the
+> _"What is even more important about direct action is that it forms a
+decisive step toward recovering the personal power over social life that the
centralised, over-bearing bureaucracies have usurped from the people . . . we
not only gain a sense that we can control the course of social events again;
we recover a new sense of selfhood and personality without which a truly free
@@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ For anarchists, the general nature of the state and its role within society is
to ensure _"the preservation of the economic 'status quo,' the protection of
the economic privileges of the ruling class, whose agent and **gendarme** it
is"_. [Luigi Galleani, **The End of Anarchism?**, p. 28] As such, the state
-and capital restricts and controls the outcome of political action of the so-
+and capital restrict and control the outcome of political action of the so-
called sovereign people as expressed by voting.
Taking capital to begin with, if we assume that a relatively reformist
@@ -235,14 +235,14 @@ pressures. Either capital would disinvest, so forcing the government to back
down in the face of economic collapse, or the government in question would
control capital leaving the country and so would soon be isolated from new
investment and its currency would become worthless. Either is an effective
-weapon to control democratically elected governments as before ensure that the
+weapon to control democratically elected governments as both ensure that the
economy would be severely damaged and the promised "reforms" would be dead
letters. Far fetched? No, not really. As discussed in [section
D.2.1](secD2.html#secd21) such pressures were inflicted on the 1974 Labour
Government in Britain and we see the threat reported everyday when the media
reports on what _"the markets"_ think of government policies or when loans are
-given only guarantee that the country is structurally adjusted in-line with
-corporate interests and bourgeous economic dogma.
+given only with the guarantee that the country is structurally adjusted in-
+line with corporate interests and bourgeois economic dogma.
As far as political pressures go, we must remember that there is a difference
between the state and government. The state is the permanent collection of
@@ -350,7 +350,7 @@ Therefore we cannot expect a different group of politicians to react in
different ways to the same economic and institutional influences and
interests. Its no coincidence that left-wing, reformist parties have
introduced right-wing, pro-capitalist ("Thatcherite/Reaganite") policies
-similiar to those right-wing, explicitly pro-capitalist parties have. This is
+similar to those right-wing, explicitly pro-capitalist parties have. This is
to be expected as the basic function of any political system is to manage the
existing state and economic structures and a society's power relationships. It
is **not** to alter them radically, The great illusion of politics is the
@@ -414,12 +414,12 @@ History confirms Proudhon's argument that the state _"can only turn into
something and do the work of the revolution insofar as it will be so invited,
provoked or compelled by some power outside of itself that seizes the
initiative and sets things rolling,"_ namely by _"a body representative of the
-proletariat be formed in Paris . . . in opposition to the bourgeoisies
-representation."_ [**Le Reprsentant du Peuple**, 5th May 1848] So, if
-extensive reforms have implemented by the state, just remember what they were
-in response to militant pressure from below and that we could have got so much
-more. In general, things have little changed since this anarchist argument
-against electioneering was put forward in the 1880s:
+proletariat be formed in Paris . . . in opposition to the bourgeoisie’s
+representation."_ [**Property is Theft!**, p. 325] So, if extensive reforms
+have implemented by the state, just remember that they were in response to
+militant pressure from below and that we could have got so much more. In
+general, things have little changed since this anarchist argument against
+electioneering was put forward in the 1880s:
> _"in the electoral process, the working class will always be cheated and
deceived . . . if they did manage to send, one, or ten, or fifty of
@@ -440,11 +440,11 @@ mean that bosses will pay any attention to them. While firing people for
joining a union is illegal in America, it does not stop bosses doing so.
Similarly, many would be surprised to discover that the 8 hour working day was
legally created in many US states by the 1870s but workers had to strike for
-it in 1886 as it as not enforced. Ultimately, political action is dependent on
-direct action to be enforced where it counts (in the workplace and streets).
-And if only direct action can enforce a political decision once it is made,
-then it can do so beforehand so showing the limitations in waiting for
-politicians to act.
+it in 1886 as it was not enforced. Ultimately, political action is dependent
+on direct action to be enforced where it counts (in the workplace and
+streets). And if only direct action can enforce a political decision once it
+is made, then it can do so beforehand so showing the limitations in waiting
+for politicians to act.
Anarchists reject voting for other reasons. The fact is that electoral
procedures are the opposite of direct action. They are **based** on getting
@@ -588,7 +588,7 @@ and obedience, which gives most of us a deep-seated tendency to leave
important matters to the "experts" and "authorities." Kropotkin described well
the net effect:
-> _"Vote! Greater men that you will tell you the moment when the self-
+> _"Vote! Greater men than you will tell you the moment when the self-
annihilation of capital has been accomplished. They will then expropriate the
few usurpers left . . . and you will be freed without having taken any more
trouble than that of writing on a bit of paper the name of the man whom the
@@ -597,7 +597,7 @@ Kinna, _"Kropotkin's theory of Mutual Aid in Historical Context"_, pp.
259-283, **International Review of Social History**, No. 40, pp. 265-6]
Anarchists also criticise elections for giving citizens the false impression
-that the government serves, or can serve, the people. As Martin remains us
+that the government serves, or can serve, the people. As Martin reminds us
_"the founding of the modern state a few centuries ago was met with great
resistance: people would refuse to pay taxes, to be conscripted or to obey
laws passed by national governments. The introduction of voting and the
@@ -673,7 +673,7 @@ As discussed in [section H.3.9](secH3.html#sech39), the state is more
complicated than the simple organ of the economically dominant class pictured
by Marxists. There are continual struggles both inside and outside the state
bureaucracies, struggles that influence policies and empower different groups
-of people. This can produce clashes with the ruling elite, while the need of
+of people. This can produce clashes within the ruling elite, while the need of
the state to defend the system **as a whole** causes conflict with the
interests of sections of the capitalist class. Due to this, many radical
parties believe that the state is neutral and so it makes sense to work within
@@ -733,7 +733,7 @@ only real response to the problems of representative democracy is to urge
people not to vote. Such anti-election campaigns can be a valuable way of
making others aware of the limitations of the current system, which is a
necessary condition for their seriously considering the anarchist alternative
-of using direct action and build alternative social and economic
+of using direct action and building alternative social and economic
organisations. The implications of abstentionism are discussed in the [next
section](secJ2.html#secj25).
@@ -769,7 +769,7 @@ anarchists (usually) advocate abstentionism at election time as a means of
exposing the farce of "democracy", the disempowering nature of elections and
the real role of the state.
-For anarchists, then, when you vote, you are choosing between rulers. Instead
+For anarchists then, when you vote, you are choosing between rulers. Instead
of urging people to vote we raise the option of choosing to rule yourself, to
organise freely with others -- in your workplace, in your community,
everywhere -- as equals. The option of something you cannot vote for, a new
@@ -794,8 +794,8 @@ who do not vote do so for essentially political reasons, such as being fed up
with the political system, failing to see any major differences between the
parties, or recognition that the candidates were not interested in people like
them. These non-voters are often disproportionately left-leaning, compared
-with those who did vote. So, anarchist abstentionism is a means of turning
-this negative reaction to an unjust system into positive activity.
+with those who did vote. Anarchist abstentionism is a means of turning this
+negative reaction to an unjust system into positive activity.
So, anarchist opposition to electioneering has deep political implications
which Luigi Galleani addressed when he wrote:
@@ -819,7 +819,7 @@ now the working people are fully capable of handling their own political and
administrative interests."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 13-14]
Therefore abstentionism stresses the importance of self-activity and self-
-libertarian as well as having an important educational effect in highlighting
+liberation as well as having an important educational effect in highlighting
that the state is not neutral but serves to protect class rule and that
meaningful change only comes from below, by direct action. For the dominant
ideas within any class society reflect the opinions of the ruling elite of
@@ -888,7 +888,7 @@ Assembly to realise how the men who are most completely ignorant of the state
of the country are almost always those who represent it."_ There was
_"ignorance of daily facts"_ and _"fear of the people"_ (_"the sickness of all
those who belong to authority"_) for _"the people, for those in power, are the
-enemy."_ [**The Anarchist Reader**, p. 111] Ultimately, as syndicalist Emile
+enemy."_ [**Property is Theft!**, p. 19] Ultimately, as syndicalist Emile
Pouget argued, this fate was inevitable as any socialist politician _"could
not break the mould; he is only a cog in the machine of oppression and whether
he wishes it or not he must, as minister, participate in the job of crushing
@@ -1101,9 +1101,9 @@ good for nothing, that they are petty-bourgeois and treacherous by nature, and
that their bankruptcy is inevitable."_ If we _"want the **masses** to follow
us"_, we need to _"support"_ such parties _"in the same way as the rope
supports a hanged man."_ In this way, by experiencing the reformists in
-official, _"the majority will soon become disappointed in their leaders and
-will begin to support communism."_ [**The Lenin Anthology**, p. 603, p. 605
-and p. 602]
+office, _"the majority will soon become disappointed in their leaders and will
+begin to support communism."_ [**The Lenin Anthology**, p. 603, p. 605 and p.
+602]
This tactic is suggested for two reasons. The first is that revolutionaries
will be able to reach more people by being seen to support popular, trade
@@ -1214,7 +1214,7 @@ That is why anarchist abstentionism always stresses the need for direct action
and organising economically and socially to change things, to resist
oppression and exploitation. In such circumstances, the effect of an electoral
strike would be fundamentally different than an apathy induced lack of voting.
-_"If the anarchists", _ Vernon Richards argued, _"could persuade half the
+_"If the anarchists", _Vernon Richards argued, _"could persuade half the
electorate to abstain from voting this would, from an electoral point of view,
contribute to the victory of the Right. But it would be a hollow victory, for
what government could rule when half the electorate by not voting had
@@ -1249,12 +1249,12 @@ laws. Howard Zinn expressed it well:
> _"I think a way to behave is to think not in terms of representative
government, not in terms of voting, not in terms of electoral politics, but
thinking in terms of organising social movements, organising in the workplace,
-organising in the neighborhood, organising collectives that can become strong
+organising in the neighbourhood, organising collectives that can become strong
enough to eventually take over -- first to become strong enough to resist what
has been done to them by authority, and second, later, to become strong enough
to actually take over the institutions . . . the crucial question is not who
is in office, but what kind of social movement do you have. Because we have
-seen historically that if you have a powerful social movement, it doesnt
+seen historically that if you have a powerful social movement, it doesn’t
matter who is in office. Whoever is in office, they could be Republican or
Democrat, if you have a powerful social movement, the person in office will
have to yield, will have to in some ways respect the power of social movements
@@ -1302,7 +1302,7 @@ the oppression of government is the power with which the people show
themselves capable of opposing it."_ [Malatesta, **Errico Malatesta: His Life
and Ideas**, p. 196] Hence Vernon Richards:
-> _ "If the anarchist movement has a role to play in practical politics it is
+> _"If the anarchist movement has a role to play in practical politics it is
surely that of suggesting to, and persuading, as many people as possible that
their freedom from the Hitlers, Francos and the rest, depends not on the right
to vote or securing a majority of votes 'for the candidate of ones choice,'
@@ -1442,14 +1442,12 @@ took place between 1931 and 1933 about whether to institute the approved
Agrarian Reform law."_ [Abel Paz, **Durruti in the Spanish Revolution**, p.
391]
-
-
- The second strategy of building alternatives flows naturally from the first.
+The second strategy of building alternatives flows naturally from the first.
Any form of campaign requires organisation and by organising in an anarchist
-manner we build organisations that _"bear in them the living seed of the new
-society which is replace the old world."_ [Bakunin, **Op. Cit.**, p. 255] In
-organising strikes in the workplace and community we can create a network of
-activists and union members who can encourage a spirit of revolt against
+manner we build organisations that _"bear in them the living seeds of the new
+society which is to replace the old world."_ [Bakunin, **Op. Cit.**, p. 255]
+In organising strikes in the workplace and community we can create a network
+of activists and union members who can encourage a spirit of revolt against
authority. By creating assemblies where we live and work we can create an
effective countering power to the state and capital. Such a union, as the
anarchists in Spain and Italy proved, can be the focal point for recreating
@@ -1465,9 +1463,7 @@ governments. In the words of a C.N.T. militant:
within bourgeois society and do so precisely to combat that society with our
own special weapons."_ [quoted by Kelsey, **Op. Cit.**, p. 79]
-
-
- So, far from doing nothing, by not voting the anarchist actively encourages
+So, far from doing nothing, by not voting the anarchist actively encourages
alternatives. As the British anarchist John Turner argued, we _"have a line to
work upon, to teach the people self-reliance, to urge them to take part in
non-political [i.e. non-electoral] movements directly started by themselves
@@ -1479,10 +1475,8 @@ the country."_ [quoted by John Quail, **The Slow Burning Fuse**, p. 87] In
this way we encourage self-activity, self-organisation and self-help -- the
opposite of apathy and doing nothing.
-
-
- Ultimately, what the state and capital gives, they can also take away. What
-we build by our own self-activity can last as long as we want it to and act to
+Ultimately, what the state and capital gives, they can also take away. What we
+build by our own self-activity can last as long as we want it to and act to
protect it:
> _"The future belongs to those who continue daringly, consistently, to fight
@@ -1495,9 +1489,7 @@ contains. Any diversion from this stand will only retard our movement and make
it a stepping stone for political climbers."_ [Emma Goldman, **Vision on
Fire**, p. 92]
-
-
- In short, what happens in our communities, workplaces and environment is too
+In short, what happens in our communities, workplaces and environment is too
important to be left to politicians -- or the ruling elite who control
governments. Anarchists need to persuade _"as many people as possible that
their freedom . . . depends not on the right to vote or securing a majority of
@@ -1508,13 +1500,9 @@ life of the community."_ [_"Anarchists and Voting"_, pp. 176-87, **The
Raven**, No. 14, pp. 177-8] We discuss what new forms of economic and social
organisations that this could involve in [section J.5](secJ5.html).
+## J.2.10 Does rejecting electioneering mean that anarchists are apolitical?
-
- ## J.2.10 Does rejecting electioneering mean that anarchists are apolitical?
-
-
-
- No. Far from it. The "apolitical" nature of anarchism is Marxist nonsense. As
+No. Far from it. The "apolitical" nature of anarchism is Marxist nonsense. As
it desires to fundamentally change society, anarchism can be nothing but
political. However, anarchism does reject (as we have seen) "normal" political
activity as ineffectual and corrupting. However, many (particularly Marxists)
@@ -1524,9 +1512,7 @@ forth. By so doing, Marxists claim that anarchists leave the political agenda
to be dominated by capitalist ideology, with disastrous results for the
working class.
-
-
- This view, however, is **utterly** wrong. Indeed, Bakunin explicitly rejected
+This view, however, is **utterly** wrong. Indeed, Bakunin explicitly rejected
the idea that working people could ignore politics and actually agreed with
the Marxists that political indifference only led to capitalist control of the
labour movement:
@@ -1545,20 +1531,16 @@ subordinated the proletariat to the bourgeoisie which exploits it and for
which it was to remain an obedient and mindless tool."_ [**Statism and
Anarchy**, p. 174]
-
-
- In addition, Bakunin argued that the labour movement (and so the anarchist
+In addition, Bakunin argued that the labour movement (and so the anarchist
movement) would have to take into account political ideas and struggles but to
do so in a working class way:
-> _ "The International does not reject politics of a general kind; it will be
+> _"The International does not reject politics of a general kind; it will be
compelled to intervene in politics so long as it is forced to struggle against
the bourgeoisie. It rejects only bourgeois politics."_ [**The Political
Philosophy of Bakunin**, p. 313]
-
-
- To state the obvious, anarchists only reject working class _"political
+To state the obvious, anarchists only reject working class _"political
action"_ if you equate (as did the early Marxists) "political action" with
electioneering, standing candidates for Parliament, local town councils and so
on -- what Bakunin termed bourgeois politics. We do not reject "political
@@ -1572,15 +1554,13 @@ also noted that syndicalists _"have proven time and again that they can solve
the many so-called political questions by direct action."_ [Earl C. Ford and
William Z. Foster, **Syndicalism**, p. 19f and p. 23]
-
-
- So, anarchists reject capitalist politics (i.e. electioneering), but we do
-not ignore politics, wider political discussion or political struggles.
-Anarchists have always recognised the importance of political debate and ideas
-in social movements. Bakunin asked should a workers organisation _"cease to
-concern itself with political and philosophical questions? Would [it] . . .
-ignore progress in the world of thought as well as the events which accompany
-or arise from the political struggle in and between states, concerning itself
+So, anarchists reject capitalist politics (i.e. electioneering), but we do not
+ignore politics, wider political discussion or political struggles. Anarchists
+have always recognised the importance of political debate and ideas in social
+movements. Bakunin asked should a workers organisation _"cease to concern
+itself with political and philosophical questions? Would [it] . . . ignore
+progress in the world of thought as well as the events which accompany or
+arise from the political struggle in and between states, concerning itself
only with the economic problem?"_ He rejected such a position: _"We hasten to
say that it is absolutely impossible to ignore political and philosophical
questions. An exclusive pre-occupation with economic questions would be fatal
@@ -1591,9 +1571,7 @@ depriving themselves of the intellectual and moral power which is so necessary
for the conquest of their economic rights."_ [**Bakunin on Anarchism**, p.
301]
-
-
- Nor do anarchists ignore elections. As Vernon Richards suggested, anarchists
+Nor do anarchists ignore elections. As Vernon Richards suggested, anarchists
_"cannot be uninterested in . . . election results, whatever their view about
the demerits of the contending Parties. The fact that the anarchist movement
has campaigned to persuade people not to use their vote is proof of our
@@ -1606,9 +1584,7 @@ Democracy**, p. 141] Nor, needless to say, are anarchists indifferent to
struggles for political reforms and the need to stop the state pursuing
authoritarian policies, imperialist adventures and such like.
-
-
- Thus the charge anarchists are apolitical or indifferent to politics (even
+Thus the charge anarchists are apolitical or indifferent to politics (even
capitalist politics) is a myth. Rather, _"we are not concerned with choosing
between governments but with creating the situation where government can no
longer operate, because only then will we organise locally, regionally,
@@ -1618,9 +1594,7 @@ to fight both, and at the same time encourage people to take what steps they
can to run their own lives."_ [_"Anarchists and Voting"_, pp. 176-87, **The
Raven**, No. 14, p. 179]
-
-
- Part of this process will be the discussion of political, social and economic
+Part of this process will be the discussion of political, social and economic
issues in whatever self-managed organisations people create in their
communities and workplaces (as Bakunin argued) and the use of these
organisations to fight for (political, social and economic) improvements and
@@ -1636,9 +1610,7 @@ oppression. The exploitation of man by man and the domination of man over man
are inseparable, and each is the condition of the other."_ [**Anarcho-
Syndicalism**, p. 11]
-
-
- Such a unification must take place on the social and economic field, not the
+Such a unification must take place on the social and economic field, not the
political, as that is where the working class is strongest. So anarchists are
well aware of the need to fight for political issues and reforms, and so are
_"not in any way opposed to the political struggle, but in their opinion this
@@ -1670,9 +1642,7 @@ representatives. No. We will not go to the Town Hall, to the Provincial
Capitol, to Parliament."_ [quoted by Jose Pierats, **Anarchists in the Spanish
Revolution**, p. 173]
-
-
- Indeed, Rudolf Rocker makes the point very clear. _"It has often been charged
+Indeed, Rudolf Rocker makes the point very clear. _"It has often been charged
against Anarcho-Syndicalism,"_ he wrote, _"that it has no interest in the
political structure of the different countries, and consequently no interest
in the political struggles of the time, and confines its activities entirely
@@ -1687,9 +1657,7 @@ the present-day state is exactly the same as it takes towards the system of
capitalist exploitation"_ and _"pursue the same tactics in their fight against
. . . the state."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 73-4]
-
-
- As historian Bob Holton suggests, the notion that syndicalism is apolitical
+As historian Bob Holton suggests, the notion that syndicalism is apolitical
_"is certainly a deeply embedded article of faith among those marxists who
have taken Lenin's strictures against syndicalism at face value. Yet it bears
little relation to the actual nature of revolutionary industrial movements . .
@@ -1706,9 +1674,7 @@ socialist assumptions that the existing state could be captured by electoral
means and used as an agent of through-going social reform."_ [**British
Syndicalism, 1900-1914**, pp. 21-2 and p. 204]
-
-
- Thus anarchism is not indifferent to or ignores political struggles and
+Thus anarchism is not indifferent to or ignores political struggles and
issues. Rather, it fights for political change and reforms as it fights for
economic ones -- by direct action and solidarity. If anarchists _"reject any
participation in the works of bourgeois parliaments, it is not because they
@@ -1731,9 +1697,7 @@ politicians) but instead lie in the hands of those directly affected by it.
Also, in this way the social struggle encourages the political development of
its members by the process of participation and self-management.
-
-
- In other words, political issues must be raised in economic and social
+In other words, political issues must be raised in economic and social
organisations and discussed there, where working class people have real power.
As Bakunin put it, _"the proletariat itself will pose"_ political and
philosophical questions in their own organisations and so the political
@@ -1753,9 +1717,7 @@ the State and of the bourgeois world, [the working class movement] thereby
constructed a new world, the world of the united proletarians of all lands."_
[**Op. Cit.**, p. 302 p. 276, p. 303 and p. 305]
-
-
- History supports Bakunin's arguments, as it indicates that any attempt at
+History supports Bakunin's arguments, as it indicates that any attempt at
taking social and economic issues into political parties has resulting in
wasted energy and their watering down into, at best, reformism and, at worse,
the simple ignoring of them by politicians once in office (see [section
@@ -1770,11 +1732,9 @@ the proletariat and the bourgeoisie"_ that economic and social struggle
creates and, worse, _"have tied the proletariat to the bourgeois towline."_
[**Op. Cit.**, p. 290]
-
-
- In addition, so-called "economic" struggles do not occur in a vacuum. They
+In addition, so-called "economic" struggles do not occur in a vacuum. They
take place in a social and political context and so, necessarily, there can
-exist an separation of political and economic struggles only in the mind.
+exist a separation of political and economic struggles only in the mind.
Strikers or eco-warriors, for example, face the power of the state enforcing
laws which protect the power of employers and polluters. This necessarily has
a "political" impact on those involved in struggle. By channelling any
@@ -1786,15 +1746,13 @@ surprising that anarchists argue that the people _"must organise their powers
apart from and against the State."_ [Bakunin, **The Political Philosophy of
Bakunin**, p. 376]
-
-
- To conclude, anarchists are only "apolitical" about bourgeois elections and
+To conclude, anarchists are only "apolitical" about bourgeois elections and
the dubious liberty and benefits associated with picking who will rule us and
maintain capitalism for the next four or five years as well as the usefulness
of socialists participating in them. We feel that our predictions have been
confirmed time and time again. Anarchists reject electioneering not because
they are "apolitical" but because they do not desire to see politics remain a
-thing purely for politicians and bureucrats. Political issues are far too
+thing purely for politicians and bureaucrats. Political issues are far too
important to leave to such people. Anarchists desire to see political
discussion and change develop from the bottom up, this is hardly "apolitical"
-- in fact with our desire to see ordinary people directly discuss the issues
@@ -1803,3 +1761,7 @@ conclusions from their own activity anarchists are very "political." The
process of individual and social liberation is the most political activity we
can think of!
+[‹ J.1 Are anarchists involved in social struggles?](/afaq/secJ1.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secJcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [J.3 What kinds
+of organisation do anarchists build? ›](/afaq/secJ3.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secJ3.md b/markdown/secJ3.md
index 431efb4405c6dfd5155fbd1c45c64c8297141b67..3b74c1ee3d367593ca557ccf33da59de8046b59c 100644
--- a/markdown/secJ3.md
+++ b/markdown/secJ3.md
@@ -127,12 +127,12 @@ In the sections that follow, we discuss the nature and role of anarchist
organisation. Anarchists would agree with Situationist Guy Debord that a
_"revolutionary organisation must always remember that its objective is not
getting people to listen to speeches by expert leaders, but getting them to
-speak for themselves."_ We organise their groups accordingly. In [section
+speak for themselves."_ We organise our groups accordingly. In [section
J.3.1](secJ3.html#secj31) we discuss the basic building block of specifically
anarchist organisations, the **_"affinity group."_** Sections
[J.3.2](secJ3.html#secj32), [J.3.3](secJ3.html#secj33),
[J.3.4](secJ3.html#secj34) and [J.3.5](secJ3.html#secj35), we discuss the main
-types of federations of _**affinity groups**_ anarchist create to help spread
+types of federations of **_affinity groups_** anarchists create to help spread
our message and influence. Then [section J.3.6](secJ3.html#secj36) highlights
the role these organisations play in our struggles to create an anarchist
society. In [section J.3.7](secJ3.html#secj37), we analyse Bakunin's
@@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ which, in isolation, would be either impossible or ineffective."_ [Malatesta,
To aid in this process of propaganda, agitation, political discussion and
development, anarchists organise federations of affinity groups. These take
-three main forms, _**"synthesis"_** federations (see [section
+three main forms, **_"synthesis"_** federations (see [section
J.3.2](secJ3.html#secj32)), **_"Platformist"_** federations (see [section
J.3.3](secJ3.html#secj33) while [section J.3.4](secJ3.html#secj34) has
criticism of this tendency) and **_"class struggle"_** groups (see [section
@@ -329,9 +329,7 @@ its means of fighting for liberation; its humanitarian character is its
ethical aspect, the foundation of society; its individualism is the goal of
humanity."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 32]
-
-
- So, as can be seen, the "synthesis" tendency aims to unite all anarchists (be
+So, as can be seen, the "synthesis" tendency aims to unite all anarchists (be
they individualist, mutualist, syndicalist or communist) into one common
federation. Thus the "synthesis" viewpoint is "inclusive" and obviously has
affinities with the _"anarchism without adjectives"_ approach favoured by many
@@ -340,9 +338,7 @@ anarchists (see [section A.3.8](secA3.html#seca38)). However, in practice many
unite all **social** anarchists) and so there can be a difference between the
general idea of the synthesis and how it is concretely applied.
-
-
- The basic idea behind the synthesis is that the anarchist movement (in most
+The basic idea behind the synthesis is that the anarchist movement (in most
countries, at most times, including France in the 1920s and Russia during the
revolution and at this time) is divided into three main tendencies: communist
anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, and individualist anarchism. This division can
@@ -359,25 +355,20 @@ reasons for unifying into one organisation, namely allowing the movement to
have access to more resources and being able to co-ordinate them so as to
maximise their use and impact.
-
-
- The "synthesis" federation, like all anarchist groups, aims to spread
+The "synthesis" federation, like all anarchist groups, aims to spread
anarchist ideas within society as a whole. They believe that their role is to
_"assist the masses only when they need such assistance . . . the anarchists
are part of the membership in the economic and social mass organisations [such
as trade unions]. They act and build as part of the whole. An immense field of
-action is opened to them for ideological [sic!], social and creative activity
-without assuming a position of superiority over the masses. Above all they
-must fulfil their ideological and ethical influence in a free and natural
-manner . . . [they] offer ideological assistance, but not in the role of
-leaders."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 33] This, as we shall see in [section
-J.3.6](secJ3.html#secj36), is the common anarchist position as regards the
-role of an anarchist group.
-
-
-
- The great strength of "synthesis" federations, obviously, is that they allow
-a wide and diverse range of viewpoints to be expressed within the organisation
+action is opened to them for ideological, social and creative activity without
+assuming a position of superiority over the masses. Above all they must fulfil
+their ideological and ethical influence in a free and natural manner . . .
+[they] offer ideological assistance, but not in the role of leaders."_ [**Op.
+Cit.**, p. 33] This, as we shall see in [section J.3.6](secJ3.html#secj36), is
+the common anarchist position as regards the role of an anarchist group.
+
+The great strength of "synthesis" federations, obviously, is that they allow a
+wide and diverse range of viewpoints to be expressed within the organisation
which can allow the development of political ideas and theories by constant
discussion and debate. They allow the maximum amount of resources to be made
available to individuals and groups within the organisation by increasing the
@@ -388,17 +379,15 @@ ideological work on a series of important problems that seek the clearest
possible collective solution,"_ discussing _"concrete questions"_ rather than
_"philosophical problems and abstract dissertations"_ and _"suggest that there
be a publication for discussion in every country where the problems in our
-ideology [sic!] and tactics can be fully discussed, regardless of how 'acute'
-or even 'taboo' it may be. The need for such a printed organ, as well as oral
+ideology and tactics can be fully discussed, regardless of how 'acute' or even
+'taboo' it may be. The need for such a printed organ, as well as oral
discussion, seems to us to be a 'must' because it is the practical way to try
to achieve 'ideological unity', 'tactical unity', and possibly organisation .
. . A full and tolerant discussion of our problems . . . will create a basis
for understanding, not only among anarchists, but among different conceptions
of anarchism."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 35]
-
-
- The "synthesis" idea for anarchist organisation was taken up by those who
+The "synthesis" idea for anarchist organisation was taken up by those who
opposed the Platform (see [next section](secJ3.html#secj33)). For both Faure
and Voline, the basic idea was the same, namely that the various tendencies in
anarchism must co-operate and work in the same organisation. However, there
@@ -416,9 +405,7 @@ organisation where these tendencies would disappear (both individually and
organisationally, i.e. there would not be an "anarcho-syndicalist" specific
tendency inside the organisation, and so forth).
-
-
- The "synthesis" federation would be based on complete autonomy (within the
+The "synthesis" federation would be based on complete autonomy (within the
basic principles of the Federation and Congress decisions, of course) for
groups and individuals, so allowing all the different trends to work together
and express their differences in a common front. The various groups would be
@@ -429,9 +416,7 @@ groups in a town or city), at the regional level (i.e. all groups in, say,
Strathclyde are members of the same regional union) up to the "national" level
(i.e. all groups in Scotland, say) and beyond.
-
-
- As every group in the federation is autonomous, it can discuss, plan and
+As every group in the federation is autonomous, it can discuss, plan and
initiate an action (such as campaign for a reform, against a social evil, and
so on) without having to wait for others in the federation (or have to wait
for instructions). This means that the local groups can respond quickly to
@@ -443,9 +428,7 @@ group has the freedom **not** to participate on a specific issue while leaving
others to do so. Thus groups can concentrate on what they are interested in
most.
-
-
- The programme and policies of the federation would be agreed at regular
+The programme and policies of the federation would be agreed at regular
delegate meetings and congresses. The "synthesis" federation is managed at the
federal level by "relations committees" made up of people elected and mandated
at the federation congresses. These committees would have a purely
@@ -457,18 +440,14 @@ committee, just as members of their local group or as individuals). These
administrative committees are accountable to the federation and subject to
both mandates and recall.
-
-
- Most national sections of the **International Anarchist Federation** (IFA)
+Most national sections of the **International of Anarchist Federations** (IFA)
are good examples of successful federations which are heavily influenced by
"synthesis" ideas (such as the French and Italian federations). Obviously,
though, how effective a "synthesis" federation is depends upon how tolerant
members are of each other and how seriously they take their responsibilities
towards their federations and the agreements they make.
-
-
- Of course, there are problems with most forms of organisation, and the
+Of course, there are problems with most forms of organisation, and the
"synthesis" federation is no exception. While diversity can strengthen an
organisation by provoking debate, a too diverse grouping can often make it
difficult to get things done. Platformist and other critics of the "synthesis"
@@ -488,55 +467,47 @@ escaping from any social or organisational perspective. This seems to have
been the fate of many groups in Britain and America during the 1960s and
1970s, for example.
-
-
- It is this (potential) disunity that lead the authors of the Platform to
-argue that _"[s]uch an organisation having incorporated heterogeneous
-theoretical and practical elements, would only be a mechanical assembly of
-individuals each having a different conception of all the questions of the
-anarchist movement, an assembly which would inevitably disintegrate on
-encountering reality."_ [**The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian
-Communists**, p. 12] The Platform suggested _"Theoretical and Tactical Unity"_
-as a means of overcoming this problem, but that term provoked massive
-disagreement in anarchist circles (see [section J.3.4](secJ3.html#secj34)). In
-reply to the Platform, supporters of the "synthesis" counter by pointing to
-the fact that "Platformist" groups are usually very small, far smaller that
-"synthesis" federations (for example, compare the size of the **French
-Anarchist Federation** with, say, the Irish **Workers Solidarity Movement** or
-the French-language **Alternative Libertaire**). This means, they argue, that
-the Platform does not, in fact, lead to a more effective organisation,
-regardless of the claims of its supporters. Moreover, they argue that the
-requirements for _"Theoretical and Tactical Unity"_ help ensure a small
-organisation as differences would express themselves in splits rather than
-constructive activity. Needless to say, the discussion continues within the
-movement on this issue!
-
-
-
- What can be said is that this potential problem within "synthesisism" has
-been the cause of some organisations failing or becoming little more than
-talking shops, with each group doing its own thing and so making co-ordination
+It is this (potential) disunity that lead the authors of the Platform to argue
+that _"[s]uch an organisation having incorporated heterogeneous theoretical
+and practical elements, would only be a mechanical assembly of individuals
+each having a different conception of all the questions of the anarchist
+movement, an assembly which would inevitably disintegrate on encountering
+reality."_ [**The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists**, p.
+12] The Platform suggested _"Theoretical and Tactical Unity"_ as a means of
+overcoming this problem, but that term provoked massive disagreement in
+anarchist circles (see [section J.3.4](secJ3.html#secj34)). In reply to the
+Platform, supporters of the "synthesis" counter by pointing to the fact that
+"Platformist" groups are usually very small, far smaller that "synthesis"
+federations (for example, compare the size of the **French Anarchist
+Federation** with, say, the Irish **Workers Solidarity Movement** or the
+French-language **Alternative Libertaire**). This means, they argue, that the
+Platform does not, in fact, lead to a more effective organisation, regardless
+of the claims of its supporters. Moreover, they argue that the requirements
+for _"Theoretical and Tactical Unity"_ help ensure a small organisation as
+differences would express themselves in splits rather than constructive
+activity. Needless to say, the discussion continues within the movement on
+this issue!
+
+What can be said is that this potential problem within "synthesisism" has been
+the cause of some organisations failing or becoming little more than talking
+shops, with each group doing its own thing and so making co-ordination
pointless as any agreements made would be ignored. Most supporters of the
synthesis would argue that this is not what the theory aims for and that the
problem lies in misunderstanding it rather than in the theory itself (as can
-be seen from mainland European, "synthesis" inspired federations can be
-**very** successful). Non-supporters are more critical, with some supporting
-the "Platform" as a more effective means of organising to spread anarchist
-ideas and influence (see the [next section](secJ3.html#secj33)). Other social
+be seen from mainland Europe, "synthesis" inspired federations can be **very**
+successful). Non-supporters are more critical, with some supporting the
+"Platform" as a more effective means of organising to spread anarchist ideas
+and influence (see the [next section](secJ3.html#secj33)). Other social
anarchists create the "class struggle" type of federation (this is a common
organisational form in Britain, for example) as discussed in [section
J.3.5](secJ3.html#secj35).
+## J.3.3 What is the "Platform"?
-
- ## J.3.3 What is the "Platform"?
-
-
-
- The Platform is a current within anarcho-communism which has specific
+The Platform is a current within anarcho-communism which has specific
suggestions on the nature and form which an anarchist federation should take.
Its roots lie in the Russian anarchist movement, a section of which, in 1926,
-published _**"The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists"_**
+published **_"The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists"_**
when in exile from the Bolshevik dictatorship. The authors of the work
included Nestor Makhno, Peter Arshinov and Ida Mett. At the time it provoked
intense debate (and still does in many anarchist circles) between supporters
@@ -546,9 +517,7 @@ the "synthesis"). We will discuss why many anarchists oppose the Platform in
the [next section](secJ3.html#secj34). Here we discuss what the Platform
argued for.
-
-
- Like the "synthesis" federation (see [last section](secJ3.html#secj32)), the
+Like the "synthesis" federation (see [last section](secJ3.html#secj32)), the
Platform was created in response to the experiences of the Russian Revolution.
The authors of the Platform (like Voline and other supporters of the
"synthesis") had participated in that Revolution and saw all their work, hopes
@@ -558,19 +527,16 @@ production, trade union democracy as well as fundamental individual freedoms
and rights (see the [section H.6](secH6.html) for details). Moreover, the
authors of the Platform had been leading activists in the Makhnovist movement
in the Ukraine which had successfully resisted both White and Red armies in
-the name of working class self-determination and anarchism (see the appendix
-["Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism?
-"](append46.html)). Facing the same problems of the Bolshevik government, the
-Makhnovists had actively encouraged popular self-management and organisation,
-freedom of speech and of association, and so on, whereas the Bolsheviks had
-not. Thus they were aware that anarchist ideas not only worked in practice,
-but that the claims of Leninists who maintained that Bolshevism (and the
-policies it introduced at the time) was the only "practical" response to the
-problems facing a revolution were false.
-
-
-
- They wrote the pamphlet in order to examine why the anarchist movement had
+the name of working class self-determination and anarchism. Facing the same
+problems as the Bolshevik government, the Makhnovists had actively encouraged
+popular self-management and organisation, freedom of speech and of
+association, and so on, whereas the Bolsheviks had not. Thus they were aware
+that anarchist ideas not only worked in practice, but that the claims of
+Leninists who maintained that Bolshevism (and the policies it introduced at
+the time) was the only "practical" response to the problems facing a
+revolution were false.
+
+They wrote the pamphlet in order to examine why the anarchist movement had
failed to build on its successes in gaining influence within the working
class. As can be seen from libertarian participation in the factory committee
movement, where workers organised self-management in their workplaces and
@@ -587,9 +553,7 @@ remains weak despite everything, and has appeared, very often, in the history
of working class struggles as a small event, an episode, and not an important
factor."_ [**Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists**, p. 11]
-
-
- This weakness in the movement derived, they argued, from a number of causes,
+This weakness in the movement derived, they argued, from a number of causes,
the main one being _"the absence of organisational principles and practices"_
within the anarchist movement. This resulted in an anarchist movement
_"represented by several local organisations advocating contradictory theories
@@ -602,13 +566,11 @@ with the anarchist movement in many countries, these words will still strike
home. Thus the Platform still appears to many anarchists a relevant and
important document, even if they are not Platformists.
-
-
- The author's of the Platform proposed a solution to this problem, namely the
+The author's of the Platform proposed a solution to this problem, namely the
creation of a new type of anarchist organisation. This organisation would be
based upon communist-anarchist ideas exclusively, while recognising
syndicalism as a principal method of struggle. Like most anarchists, the
-Platform placed class and class struggle as the centre of their analysis,
+Platform placed class and class struggle at the centre of their analysis,
recognising that the _"social and political regime of all states is above all
the product of class struggle . . . The slightest change in the course of the
battle of classes, in the relative locations of the forces of the class
@@ -621,15 +583,13 @@ consumption, united federatively and self-administering."_ The _"birth, the
blossoming, and the realisation of anarchist ideas have their roots in the
life and the struggle of the working masses and are inseparable bound to their
fate."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 14, p. 15, p. 19 and p. 15] Again, most anarchists
-(particularly social anarchists) would agree -- anarchist ideas will (and
-have) wither when isolated from working class life since only working class
-people, the vast majority, can create a free society and anarchist ideas are
-expressions of working class experience (remove the experience and the ideas
-do not develop as they should).
-
-
+(particularly social anarchists) would agree -- anarchist ideas will wither
+when isolated from working class life since only working class people, the
+vast majority, can create a free society and anarchist ideas are expressions
+of working class experience (remove the experience and the ideas do not
+develop as they should).
- In order to create such a free society it is necessary, argue the
+In order to create such a free society it is necessary, argue the
Platformists, _"to work in two directions: on the one hand towards the
selection and grouping of revolutionary worker and peasant forces on a
libertarian communist theoretical basis (a specifically libertarian communist
@@ -644,9 +604,7 @@ this theoretical driving force should not be confused with the political
leadership of the statist parties which leads finally to State Power."_ [**Op.
Cit.**, p. 20 and p. 21]
-
-
- This _"leadership of ideas"_ (as it has come to be known) would aim at
+This _"leadership of ideas"_ (as it has come to be known) would aim at
developing and co-ordinating libertarian feelings already existing within
social struggle. _"Although the masses,"_ explained the Platform, _"express
themselves profoundly in social movements in terms of anarchist tendencies and
@@ -661,23 +619,19 @@ statists and authoritarians who have their own agendas. This would be done by
actively working in mass organisation and winning people to libertarian ideas
and practices by argument (see [section J.3.6](secJ3.html#secj36)).
-
-
- However, these principles do not, in themselves, determine a Platformist
+However, these principles do not, in themselves, determine a Platformist
organisation. After all, most anarcho-syndicalists and non-Platformist
communist-anarchists would agree with these positions. The main point which
distinguishes the Platform is its position on how an anarchist organisation
should be structured and work. This is sketched in the _"Organisational
Section,"_ the shortest and most contentious part of the whole work. They
called this the **General Union of Anarchists** and where they introduced the
-concepts of _**"Theoretical and Tactical Unity"_** and **_"Collective
+concepts of **_"Theoretical and Tactical Unity"_** and **_"Collective
Responsibility,"_** concepts which are unique to the Platform. Even today
within the anarchist movement these are contentious ideas so it is worth
exploring them in a little more detail.
-
-
- By _"Theoretical Unity"_ the Platform meant any anarchist organisation must
+By _"Theoretical Unity"_ the Platform meant any anarchist organisation must
come to an agreement on the theory upon which it is based. In other words,
that members of the organisation must agree on a certain number of basic
points, such as class struggle, social revolution and libertarian communism,
@@ -696,9 +650,7 @@ strategy has been agreed by the Union, all members would work towards ensuring
its success (even if they initially opposed it). In this way resources and
time are concentrated in a common direction, towards an agreed objective.
-
-
- Thus _"Theoretical and Tactical Unity"_ means an anarchist organisation that
+Thus _"Theoretical and Tactical Unity"_ means an anarchist organisation that
agrees specific ideas and the means of applying them. The Platform's basic
assumption is that there is a link between coherency and efficiency. By
increasing the coherency of the organisation by making collective decisions
@@ -715,9 +667,7 @@ between competing ideas of how society should be organised and if the
anarchist voice is weak, quiet and disorganised it will not be heard and other
arguments, other perspectives, will win the day.
-
-
- Which brings us to _"Collective Responsibility,"_ which the Platform defines
+Which brings us to _"Collective Responsibility,"_ which the Platform defines
as _"the entire Union will be responsible for the political and revolutionary
activity of each member; in the same way, each member will be responsible for
the political and revolutionary activity of the Union."_ In short, that each
@@ -729,9 +679,7 @@ Platform calls this _"the tactic of irresponsible individualism"_). [**Op.
Cit.**, p. 32] With _"Collective Responsibility,"_ the strength of all the
individuals that make up the group is magnified and collectively applied.
-
-
- The last principle in the _"Organisational Section"_ of the Platform is
+The last principle in the _"Organisational Section"_ of the Platform is
_"Federalism,"_ which it defined as _"the free agreement of individuals and
organisations to work collectively towards a common objective"_ and which
_"reconciles the independence and initiative of individuals and the
@@ -745,9 +693,7 @@ individual liberty and initiative, requires each member to undertake fixed
organisation duties, and demands execution of communal decisions."_ [**Op.
Cit.**, p. 33 and pp. 33-4]
-
-
- As part of their solution to the problem of anarchist organisation, the
+As part of their solution to the problem of anarchist organisation, the
Platform suggested that each group would have _"its secretariat, executing and
guiding theoretically the political and technical work of the organisation."_
Moreover, the Platform urged the creation of an _"**executive committee of the
@@ -761,9 +707,7 @@ other organisation."_ The rights, responsibilities and practical tasks of the
executive committee are fixed by the congress of the Union. [**Op. Cit.**, p.
34]
-
-
- This suggestion, unsurprisingly, meet with strong disapproval by most
+This suggestion, unsurprisingly, meet with strong disapproval by most
anarchists, as we will see in the [next section](secJ3.html#secj34), who
argued that this would turn the anarchist movement into a centralised,
hierarchical party similar to the Bolsheviks. Needless to say, supporters of
@@ -774,9 +718,7 @@ structure (it could, in fact, be argued that there are no actual "Platformist"
groups, rather groups influenced by the Platform, namely on the issues of
_"Theoretical and Tactical Unity"_ and _"Collective Responsibility"_).
-
-
- Similarly, most modern day Platformists reject the idea of gathering all
+Similarly, most modern day Platformists reject the idea of gathering all
anarchists into one organisation. The original Platform seemed to imply that
the **General Union** would be an umbrella organisation, made up of different
groups and individuals. Most Platformists would argue that not only will there
@@ -785,9 +727,7 @@ necessary. Instead they envisage the existence of a number of organisations,
each internally unified, each co-operating with each other where possible, a
much more amorphous and fluid entity than a **General Union of Anarchists**.
-
-
- As well as the original Platform, most Platformists place the **Manifesto of
+As well as the original Platform, most Platformists place the **Manifesto of
Libertarian Communism** by Georges Fontenis and **Towards a Fresh Revolution**
by the _"Friends of Durruti"_ as landmark texts in the Platformist tradition.
A few anarcho-syndicalists question this last claim, arguing that the
@@ -801,19 +741,13 @@ Platformist and Platformist influenced organisations in the world today, such
as the Irish **Workers Solidarity Movement** and Italian **Federation of
Anarchist Communists**.
-
-
- In the [next section](secJ3.html#secj34) we discuss the objections that most
+In the [next section](secJ3.html#secj34) we discuss the objections that most
anarchists have towards the Platform.
+## J.3.4 Why do many anarchists oppose the "Platform"?
-
- ## J.3.4 Why do many anarchists oppose the "Platform"?
-
-
-
- When the "Platform" was published it provoked a massive amount of debate and
-comment, the majority of it critical. Most of famous anarchists rejected the
+When the "Platform" was published it provoked a massive amount of debate and
+comment, the majority of it critical. Most famous anarchists rejected the
Platform. Indeed, only Nestor Makhno (who co-authored the work) supported its
proposals, with (among others) Alexander Berkman, Emma Goldman, Voline, G.P.
Maximoff, Luigi Fabbri, Camilo Berneri and Errico Malatesta rejecting its
@@ -826,9 +760,7 @@ Malatesta, suggested that the authors were too impressed by the apparent
a lot of debate in anarchist circles. So why do so many anarchists oppose the
Platform?
-
-
- While many of the anti-Platformists made points about most parts of the
+While many of the anti-Platformists made points about most parts of the
Platform (both Maximoff and Voline pointed out that while the Platform denied
the need of a _"Transitional Period"_ in theory, it accepted it in practice,
for example) the main bone of contention was found in the _"Organisational
@@ -838,14 +770,12 @@ organisation. Here most anarchists found ideas they considered incompatible
with libertarian ideas. We will concentrate on this issue as it is usually
considered as the most important.
-
-
- Today, in some quarters of the libertarian movement, the Platformists are
+Today, in some quarters of the libertarian movement, the Platformists are
often dismissed as "would-be leaders." Yet this was not where Malatesta and
other critics of the Platform took issue. Malatesta and Maximoff both argued
that, to use Maximoff's words, anarchists should _"go into the masses. . . ,
work[ing] with them, struggle for their soul, and attempt to win it
-**ideologically** [sic!] and give it guidance."_ So the question was _"not the
+**ideologically** and give it guidance."_ So the question was _"not the
rejection of **leadership,** but making certain it is **free** and
**natural.**"_ [**Constructive Anarchism**, p. 19] Moreover, as Maximoff
noted, the "synthesis" anarchists came to the same conclusion. Thus all sides
@@ -853,9 +783,7 @@ of the debate accepted that anarchists should take the lead. The question, as
Malatesta and the others saw it, was not whether to lead, but rather **how**
you should lead - a fairly important distinction.
-
-
- Malatesta posed two alternatives, either you _"provide leadership by advice
+Malatesta posed two alternatives, either you _"provide leadership by advice
and example leaving people themselves to . . . adopt our methods and solutions
if these are, or seem to be, better than those suggested and carried out by
others"_ or you can _"direct by taking over command, that is by becoming a
@@ -869,9 +797,7 @@ Committee"_ in the Platform which would _"give ideological and organisational
direction to the association."_ [**The Anarchist Revolution**, p. 108 and p.
110]
-
-
- Maximoff made the same point, arguing that the Platform implied that
+Maximoff made the same point, arguing that the Platform implied that
anarchists in the unions are responsible to the anarchist federation, **not**
to the union assemblies that elected them. As he put it, according to the
Platform anarchists _"are to join the Trades Unions with ready-made recipes
@@ -895,9 +821,7 @@ the validity of their ideas by argument which was something Maximoff did not
disagree with. In short, the disagreement becomes one of unclear (or bad) use
of language by the Platform's authors.
-
-
- Despite many efforts and many letters on the subject (in particular between
+Despite many efforts and many letters on the subject (in particular between
Malatesta and Makhno) the question of "leadership" could not be clarified to
either side's satisfaction, in part because there was an additional issue in
dispute. This was the related issue of organisational principles (which in
@@ -908,9 +832,7 @@ Revolution**, p. 97] This was because of two main reasons, the first being the
issue of the Platform's "secretariats" and "executive committee" and the issue
of "Collective Responsibility." We will take each in turn.
-
-
- With an structure based round "secretariats" and "executive committees" the
+With a structure based round "secretariats" and "executive committees" the
_"will of the [General] Union [of Anarchists] can only mean the will of the
majority, expressed through congresses which nominate and control the
**Executive Committee** and decide on all important issues. Naturally, the
@@ -921,9 +843,7 @@ opinions are more than two, represent only a minority."_ This, Malatesta
argued, _"comes down to a pure majority system, to pure parliamentarianism"_
and so non-anarchist in nature. [**Op. Cit.**, p. 100]
-
-
- As long as a Platformist federation is based on _"secretariats"_ and
+As long as a Platformist federation is based on _"secretariats"_ and
_"executive committees"_ directing the activity and development of the
organisation, this critique is valid. In such a system, as these bodies
control the organisation and members are expected to follow their decisions
@@ -941,40 +861,33 @@ to be the logical conclusion of the structure suggested by the Platform. _"The
spirit,"_ argued Malatesta, _"the tendency remains authoritarian and the
educational effect would remain anti-anarchist."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 98]
-
-
- Malatesta, in contrast, argued that an anarchist organisation must be based
-on the _"[f]ull autonomy, full independence and therefore the full
-responsibility of individuals and groups"_ with all organisational work done
-_"freely, in such a way that the thought and initiative of individuals is not
-obstructed."_ The individual members of such an organisation _"express any
-opinion and use any tactic which is not in contradiction with accepted
-principles and which does not harm the activities of others."_ Moreover, the
-administrative bodies such organisations nominate would _"have no executive
-powers, have no directive powers"_ leaving it up to the groups and their
-federal meetings to decide their own fates. The congresses of such
-organisations would be _"free from any kind of authoritarianism, because they
-do not lay down the law; they do not impose their own resolutions on others .
-. . and do not become binding and enforceable except on those who accept
-them."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 101, p. 102 and p. 101] Such an organisation does
-not exclude collective decisions and self-assumed obligations, rather it is
-based upon them.
-
-
-
- Most groups inspired by the Platform, however, seem to reject this aspect of
+Malatesta, in contrast, argued that an anarchist organisation must be based on
+the _"[f]ull autonomy, full independence and therefore the full responsibility
+of individuals and groups"_ with all organisational work done _"freely, in
+such a way that the thought and initiative of individuals is not obstructed."_
+The individual members of such an organisation _"express any opinion and use
+any tactic which is not in contradiction with accepted principles and which
+does not harm the activities of others."_ Moreover, the administrative bodies
+such organisations nominate would _"have no executive powers, have no
+directive powers"_ leaving it up to the groups and their federal meetings to
+decide their own fates. The congresses of such organisations would be _"free
+from any kind of authoritarianism, because they do not lay down the law; they
+do not impose their own resolutions on others . . . and do not become binding
+and enforceable except on those who accept them."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 101, p.
+102 and p. 101] Such an organisation does not exclude collective decisions and
+self-assumed obligations, rather it is based upon them.
+
+Most groups inspired by the Platform, however, seem to reject this aspect of
its organisational suggestions. Instead of "secretariats" and "executive
committees" they have regular conferences and meetings to reach collective
decisions on issues and practice unity that way. Thus the **really** important
issue is of _"theoretical and tactical unity"_ and _"collective
-responsibility,"_ rather than ithe structure suggested by the Platform.
-Indeed, this issue was the main topic in Makhno's letter to Malatesta, for
-example, and so we would be justified in saying that this is the key issue
-dividing "Platformists" from other anarchists.
-
+responsibility,"_ rather than the structure suggested by the Platform. Indeed,
+this issue was the main topic in Makhno's letter to Malatesta, for example,
+and so we would be justified in saying that this is the key issue dividing
+"Platformists" from other anarchists.
-
- So in what way did Malatesta disagree with this concept? As we mentioned in
+So in what way did Malatesta disagree with this concept? As we mentioned in
the [last section](secJ3.html#secj33), the Platform defined the idea of
"Collective Responsibility" as _"the entire Union will be responsible for the
political and revolutionary activity of each member; in the same way, each
@@ -994,9 +907,7 @@ hand, can an individual accept responsibility for the actions of a
collectivity before knowing what it will do and if he cannot prevent it doing
what he disapproves of?"_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 99]
-
-
- In other words, the term _"collective responsibility"_ (if taken literally)
+In other words, the term _"collective responsibility"_ (if taken literally)
implies a highly inefficient and somewhat authoritarian mode of organisation.
Before any action could be undertaken, the organisation would have to be
consulted and this would crush individual, group and local initiative. The
@@ -1009,9 +920,7 @@ before they have even heard what those might be."_ [Malatesta, **Op. Cit.**,
they disagree with a tactic or position and could not bring themselves to
further it by their actions.
-
-
- This structure also suggests that the Platform's commitment to federalism is
+This structure also suggests that the Platform's commitment to federalism is
in words only. As most anarchists critical of the Platform argued, while its
authors affirm federalist principles they, in fact, _"outline a perfectly
centralised organisation with an Executive Committee that has responsibility
@@ -1020,9 +929,7 @@ organisations, which in turn will direct the professional organisations of the
workers."_ [_"The Reply by Several Russian Anarchists"_, **Op. Cit.**, pp.
35-6]
-
-
- Thus it is likely that "Collective Responsibility" taken to its logical
+Thus it is likely that "Collective Responsibility" taken to its logical
conclusion would actually **hinder** anarchist work by being too bureaucratic
and slow. However, let us assume that by applying collective responsibility as
well as tactical and theoretical unity, anarchist resources and time will be
@@ -1042,9 +949,7 @@ implied by the text, as we will discuss). That is why anarchists have
traditionally supported federalism and free agreement within their
organisations, to take into account the real needs of localities.
-
-
- If we do not take the Platform's definition of "Collective Responsibility"
+If we do not take the Platform's definition of "Collective Responsibility"
literally or to its logical extreme (as Makhno's comments suggest) then the
differences between Platformists and non-Platformists may not be that far. As
Malatesta pointed out in his reply to Makhno's letter:
@@ -1054,17 +959,15 @@ with others for a common purpose must feel the need to co-ordinate his [or
her] actions with those of his [or her] fellow members and do nothing that
harms the work of others . . . and respect the agreements that have been made
. . . [Moreover] I maintain that those who do not feel and do not practice
-that duty should be thrown out of the association.
+that duty should be thrown out of the association. _
-"Perhaps, speaking of collective responsibility, you mean precisely that
+> _"Perhaps, speaking of collective responsibility, you mean precisely that
accord and solidarity that must exist among members of an association. And if
that is so, your expression amounts . . . to an incorrect use of language, but
basically it would only be an unimportant question of wording and agreement
would soon be reached."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 107-8]
-
-
- This, indeed, seems to be the way that most Platformist organisations do
+This, indeed, seems to be the way that most Platformist organisations do
operate. They have agreed broad theoretical and tactical positions on various
subjects (such as, for example, the nature of trade unions and how anarchists
relate to them) while leaving it to local groups to act within these
@@ -1086,9 +989,7 @@ openness strengthens both the individual and the group to which she or he
belongs."_ [Aileen O'Carroll and Alan MacSimoin, _"The Platform"_, pp. 29-31,
**Red and Black Revolution**, no. 4, p. 30]
-
-
- While many anarchists are critical of Platformist groups for being too
+While many anarchists are critical of Platformist groups for being too
centralised for their liking, it is the case that the Platform has influenced
many anarchist organisations, even non-Platformist ones (this can be seen in
the "class struggle" groups discussed in the [next
@@ -1102,17 +1003,12 @@ Platformists have worked within "synthesis" organisations (as was the case in
France, for example, which resulted in much bad-feeling between Platformists
and others).
+**Constructive Anarchism** by the leading Russian anarcho-syndicalist G.P. Maximoff gathers all the relevant documents in one place. As well as Maximoff's critique of the Platform, it includes the "synthesis" reply, Malatesta's review and subsequent exchange of letters between him and Makhno. **The Anarchist Revolution** also contains Malatesta's article and the exchange of letters between him and Makhno.
+## J.3.5 Are there other kinds of anarchist federation?
- **Constructive Anarchism** by the leading Russian anarcho-syndicalist G.P. Maximoff gathers all the relevant documents in one place. As well as Maximoff's critique of the Platform, it includes the "synthesis" reply, Malatesta's review and subssequent exchange of letters between him and Makhno. **The Anarchist Revolution** also contains Malatesta's article and the exchange of letters between him and Makhno.
-
-
- ## J.3.5 Are there other kinds of anarchist federation?
-
-
-
- Yes. Another type of anarchist federation is what we term the **_"class
-struggle"**_ group. Many local anarchist groups in Britain, for example,
+Yes. Another type of anarchist federation is what we term the **_"class
+struggle"_** group. Many local anarchist groups in Britain, for example,
organise in this fashion. They use the term "class struggle" to indicate that
their anarchism is based on collective working class resistance as opposed to
reforming capitalism via lifestyle changes and the support of, say, co-
@@ -1122,10 +1018,8 @@ follow this use of the term here. And just to stress the point again, our use
of "class struggle" to describe this type of anarchist group does not imply
that "synthesis" or "Platformist" do not support the class struggle. They do!
-
-
- This kind of group is half-way between the "synthesis" and the "Platform."
-The "class struggle" group agrees with the "synthesis" in so far as it is
+This kind of group is half-way between the "synthesis" and the "Platform." The
+"class struggle" group agrees with the "synthesis" in so far as it is
important to have a diverse viewpoints within a federation and that it would
be a mistake to try to impose a common-line on different groups in different
circumstances as the Platform does. However, like the "Platform," the class
@@ -1139,9 +1033,7 @@ contains viewpoints which are dramatically opposed can lead to pointless
debates and paralysis of action due to the impossibilities of overcoming those
differences.
-
-
- Instead, the "class struggle" group agrees a common set of **_"aims and
+Instead, the "class struggle" group agrees a common set of **_"aims and
principles"_** which are the basic terms of agreement within the federation.
If an individual or group does not agree with this statement then they cannot
join. If they are members and try to change this statement and cannot get the
@@ -1157,19 +1049,15 @@ reconciled, without hindering either. In addition, the **_"aims and
principles"_** shows potential members where the anarchist group was coming
from.
+In this way the "class struggle" group solves one of the key problems with the
+"synthesis" grouping, namely that any such basic statement of political ideas
+would be hard to agree and be so watered down as to be almost useless (for
+example, a federation combining individualist and communist anarchists would
+find it impossible to agree on such things as the necessity for revolution,
+communal ownership, and so on). By clearly stating its ideas, the "class
+struggle" group ensures a common basis for activity and discussion.
-
- In this way the "class struggle" group solves one of the key problems with
-the "synthesis" grouping, namely that any such basic statement of political
-ideas would be hard to agree and be so watered down as to be almost useless
-(for example, a federation combining individualist and communist anarchists
-would find it impossible to agree on such things as the necessity for
-revolution, communal ownership, and so on). By clearly stating its ideas, the
-"class struggle" group ensures a common basis for activity and discussion.
-
-
-
- Such a federation, like all anarchist groups, would be based upon regular
+Such a federation, like all anarchist groups, would be based upon regular
assemblies locally and in frequent regional, national, etc., conferences to
continually re-evaluate policies, tactics, strategies and goals. In addition,
such meetings prevent power from collecting in the higher administration
@@ -1180,9 +1068,7 @@ review and revise them as required at a later stage but cannot take action
which would hinder their application (they do not have to apply them, if they
consider them as a big mistake).
-
-
- For example, minorities in such a federation can pursue their own policies as
+For example, minorities in such a federation can pursue their own policies as
long as they clearly state that theirs is a minority position and does not
contradict the federation's aims and principles. In this way the anarchist
federation combines united action and dissent, for no general policy will be
@@ -1192,29 +1078,23 @@ long as their actions and policies do not contradict the federation's basic
political ideas, then diversity is an essential means for ensuring that the
best tactic and ideas are be identified.
+## J.3.6 What role do these groups play in anarchist theory?
-
- ## J.3.6 What role do these groups play in anarchist theory?
-
-
-
- The aim of anarchist groups and federations is to spread libertarian ideas
+The aim of anarchist groups and federations is to spread libertarian ideas
within society and within social movements. They aim to convince people of the
validity of anarchist ideas and analysis, of the need for a libertarian
transformation of society and of themselves by working with others as equals.
Such groups are convinced that (to use Murray Bookchin's words) _"anarcho-
communism cannot remain a mere mood or tendency, wafting in the air like a
cultural ambience. It must be organised -- indeed **well-organised** \-- if it
-is effectively articulate and spread this new sensibility; it must have a
+is effectively to articulate and spread this new sensibility; it must have a
coherent theory and extensive literature; it must be capable of duelling with
the authoritarian movements that try to denature the intuitive libertarian
impulses of our time and channel social unrest into hierarchical forms of
organisation."_ [_"Looking Back at Spain,"_ pp. 53-96, Dimitrios I.
Roussopoulos (ed.), **The Radical Papers**, p. 90]
-
-
- These groups and federations play a key role in anarchist theory. This is
+These groups and federations play a key role in anarchist theory. This is
because anarchists are well aware that there are different levels of knowledge
and consciousness in society. While people learn through struggle and their
own experiences, different people develop at different speeds, that each
@@ -1229,9 +1109,7 @@ others Marxists, some social democrats/labourites, others conservatives,
others liberals, most "apolitical," some support trade unions, others are
against and so on.
-
-
- Because we are aware that we are one tendency among many, anarchists organise
+Because we are aware that we are one tendency among many, anarchists organise
as anarchists to influence social struggle. Only when anarchists ideas are
accepted by the vast majority will an anarchist society be possible. We wish,
in other words, to win the most widespread understanding and influence for
@@ -1252,45 +1130,38 @@ initiate and support all movements that tend to weaken the forces of the State
and of capitalism and to raise the mental level and material conditions of the
workers."_ [**The Anarchist Revolution**, p. 109]
-
-
- Anarchist organisation exists to help the process by which people come to
+Anarchist organisation exists to help the process by which people come to
anarchist conclusions. It aims to make explicit the feelings and thoughts that
people have (such as, wage slavery is hell, that the state exists to oppress
people and so on) by exposing as wrong common justifications for existing
society and social relationships by a process of debate and providing a vision
of something better. In other words, anarchist organisations seek to explain
and clarify what is happening in society and show why anarchism is the only
-real solution to social problems. As part of this, we also have combat wrong
-ideas such as Liberalism, Social Democracy, Leninism, right-wing popularism
-and so on, indicating why these proposed solutions are false. In addition, an
-anarchist organisation must also be a 'collective memory' for the oppressed,
-keeping alive and developing the traditions of the labour and radical
-movements as well as anarchism so that new generations of libertarians have a
-body of experience to build upon and use in their struggles.
-
-
-
- Anarchist organisations see themselves in the role of aiders, **not**
-leaders. As Voline argued, the minority which is politically aware _"should
-intervene. But, in every place and under all circumstances, . . . [they]
-should freely participate in the common work, **as true collaborators, not as
-dictators.** It is necessary that they especially create an example, and
-employ themselves . . . without dominating, subjugating, or oppressing anyone
-. . . Accordingly to the libertarian thesis, it is the labouring masses
-themselves, who, by means of the various class organisations, factory
-committees, industrial and agricultural unions, co-operatives, et cetera,
-federated . . . should apply themselves everywhere, to solving the problems of
-waging the Revolution . . . As for the 'elite' [i.e. the politically aware],
-their role, according to the libertarians, is to **help** the masses,
-enlighten them, teach them, give them necessary advice, impel them to take
-initiative, provide them with an example, and support them in their action --
-**but not to direct them governmentally.**"_ [**The Unknown Revolution**, pp.
-177-8]
-
-
-
- This role is usually called providing a **_"leadership of ideas"_**.
+real solution to social problems. As part of this, we also have to combat
+wrong ideas such as Liberalism, Social Democracy, Leninism, right-wing
+populism and so on, indicating why these proposed solutions are false. In
+addition, an anarchist organisation must also be a 'collective memory' for the
+oppressed, keeping alive and developing the traditions of the labour and
+radical movements as well as anarchism so that new generations of libertarians
+have a body of experience to build upon and use in their struggles.
+
+Anarchist organisations see themselves in the role of aiders, **not** leaders.
+As Voline argued, the minority which is politically aware _"should intervene.
+But, in every place and under all circumstances, . . . [they] should freely
+participate in the common work, **as true collaborators, not as dictators.**
+It is necessary that they especially create an example, and employ themselves
+. . . without dominating, subjugating, or oppressing anyone . . . Accordingly
+to the libertarian thesis, it is the labouring masses themselves, who, by
+means of the various class organisations, factory committees, industrial and
+agricultural unions, co-operatives, et cetera, federated . . . should apply
+themselves everywhere, to solving the problems of waging the Revolution . . .
+As for the 'elite' [i.e. the politically aware], their role, according to the
+libertarians, is to **help** the masses, enlighten them, teach them, give them
+necessary advice, impel them to take initiative, provide them with an example,
+and support them in their action -- **but not to direct them
+governmentally.**"_ [**The Unknown Revolution**, pp. 177-8]
+
+This role is usually called providing a **_"leadership of ideas"_**.
Anarchists stress the difference of this concept with authoritarian notions of
"leadership" such as Leninist ones. While both anarchist and Leninist
organisations exist to overcome the problem of "uneven development" within the
@@ -1299,9 +1170,7 @@ different (as discussed in [section H.5](secH5.html), anarchists reject the
assumptions and practice of vanguardism as incompatible with genuine
socialism).
-
-
- Anarchist groups are needed for, no matter how much people change through
+Anarchist groups are needed for, no matter how much people change through
struggle, it is not enough in itself (if it were, we would be living in an
anarchist society now!). So anarchists stress, as well as self-organisation,
self-liberation and self-education through struggle developing libertarian
@@ -1310,9 +1179,7 @@ organisations and in the mass of the population in general. These groups would
play an important role in helping to clarify the ideas of those in struggle
and undermining the internal and external barriers against these ideas.
-
-
- The first of these are what Emma Goldman termed the _"internal tyrants,"_ the
+The first of these are what Emma Goldman termed the _"internal tyrants,"_ the
_"ethical and social conventions"_ of existing, hierarchical society which
accustom people to authoritarian social relationships, injustice, lack of
freedom and so on. [**Red Emma Speaks**, pp. 164-5] External barriers are what
@@ -1326,9 +1193,7 @@ class people to resist domination and oppression, they enter that struggle
with a history behind them, a history of education in capitalist schools, of
consuming capitalist media, and so on.
-
-
- This means that while social struggle is radicalising, it also has to combat
+This means that while social struggle is radicalising, it also has to combat
years of pro-state and pro-capitalist influences. So even if an anarchist
consciousness springs from the real conditions of working class life, because
we live in a class society there are numerous counter-tendencies that
@@ -1338,19 +1203,17 @@ repression and so on). This explains the differences in political opinion
within the working class, as people develop at different speeds and are
subject to different influences and experiences. However, the numerous
internal and external barriers to the development of anarchist opinions
-created our _"internal tyrants"_ and by the process of _"manufacturing
-consent"_ can be, and are, weaken by rational discussion as well as social
+created by our _"internal tyrants"_ and by the process of _"manufacturing
+consent"_ can be, and are, weakened by rational discussion as well as social
struggle and self-activity. Indeed, until such time as we have _"learned to
defy them all [the internal tyrants], to stand firmly on [our] own ground and
to insist upon [our] own unrestricted freedom"_ we can never be free or
-successfully combat the "manufacture of consent."_ [Goldman, **Op. Cit.**, p.
+successfully combat the "manufacture of consent." [Goldman, **Op. Cit.**, p.
140] And this is where the anarchist group can play a part, for there is an
important role to be played by those who have been through this process
already, namely to aid those going through it.
-
-
- Of course the activity of an anarchist group does not occur in a vacuum. In
+Of course the activity of an anarchist group does not occur in a vacuum. In
periods of low class struggle, where there is little collective action,
anarchist ideas will seem utopian and so dismissed by most. In these
situations, only a few will become anarchists simply because the experiences
@@ -1370,9 +1233,7 @@ anarchist group, namely to provide an environment and space where those drawn
to anarchist ideas can meet and share experiences and ideas during periods of
reaction.
-
-
- The role of the anarchist group, therefore, is **not** to import a foreign
+The role of the anarchist group, therefore, is **not** to import a foreign
ideology into the working class, but rather to help develop and clarify the
ideas of those working class people who are moving towards anarchism and so
aid those undergoing that development. They would aid this development by
@@ -1390,9 +1251,7 @@ heart of every worker"_ so allowing instinct to become transformed into
_"reflected socialist thought."_ [quoted by Richard B. Saltman, **The Social
and Political Thought of Michael Bakunin**, p. 107, p. 108 and p. 141]
-
-
- To quote the UK **Anarchist Federation**, again _"the [libertarian]
+To quote the UK **Anarchist Federation**, again _"the [libertarian]
organisation is not just a propaganda group: above all it must actively work
in all the grassroots organisations of the working class such as rank and file
[trade union] groups, tenants associations, squatters and unemployed groups as
@@ -1405,9 +1264,7 @@ socialist politics derive from working class experience, rather than bourgeois
intellectuals (as Lenin and Karl Kautsky argued), and that it does not aim to
dominate popular movements but rather work within them as equals.
-
-
- So while we recognise that "advanced" sections do exist within the working
+So while we recognise that "advanced" sections do exist within the working
class and that anarchists are one such section, we also recognise that
**central** characteristic of anarchism is that its politics are derived from
the concrete experience of fighting capitalism and statism directly -- that
@@ -1419,7 +1276,7 @@ struggles then anarchist theory **must be open to change by learning from non-
anarchists.** Not to recognise this fact is to open the door to vanguardism
and dogma. Because of this fact, anarchists argue that the relationship
between anarchists and non-anarchists must be an egalitarian one, based on
-mutual interaction and the recognition that no one is infallible or have all
+mutual interaction and the recognition that no one is infallible or has all
the answers -- including anarchists! With this in mind, while we recognise the
presence of "advanced" groups within the working class (which obviously
reflects the uneven development within it), anarchists aim to minimise such
@@ -1427,10 +1284,8 @@ unevenness by the way anarchist organisations intervene in social struggle,
intervention based on involving **all** in the decision making process (as we
discuss below).
-
-
- Thus the general aim of anarchist groups is to spread ideas -- such as
-general anarchist analysis of society and current events, libertarian forms of
+Thus the general aim of anarchist groups is to spread ideas -- such as general
+anarchist analysis of society and current events, libertarian forms of
organisation, direct action and solidarity and so forth -- and win people over
to anarchism (i.e. to "make" anarchists). This involves both propaganda and
participating as equals in social struggle and popular organisation.
@@ -1444,9 +1299,7 @@ popular organisations] learn to participate directly in the life of the
organisation and to dispense with leaders and full-time functionaries."_
[**Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, p. 90 and p. 125]
-
-
- This means that anarchists reject the idea that anarchist groups and
+This means that anarchists reject the idea that anarchist groups and
federations must become the "leaders" of organisations. Rather, we desire
anarchist ideas to be commonplace in society and in popular organisations, so
that leadership by people from positions of power is replaced by the _"natural
@@ -1464,16 +1317,14 @@ is exploited, and with the right which is granted me by the card in my
possession, as do the other militants, whether they belong to the FAI or
not."_ [quoted by Abel Paz, **Durruti: The People Armed**, p. 137]
-
-
- This shows the nature of the "leadership of ideas." Rather than be elected to
+This shows the nature of the "leadership of ideas." Rather than be elected to
a position of power or responsibility, the anarchist presents their ideas at
-mass meetings and argues his or her case. This means obviously implies a two-
-way learning process, as the anarchist learns from the experiences of others
-and the others come in contact with anarchist ideas. Moreover, it is an
+mass meetings and argues his or her case. This obviously implies a two-way
+learning process, as the anarchist learns from the experiences of others and
+the others come in contact with anarchist ideas. Moreover, it is an
egalitarian relationship, based upon discussion between equals rather than
urging people to place someone into power above them. It ensures that everyone
-in the organisation participants in making, understands and agrees with the
+in the organisation participates in making, understands and agrees with the
decisions reached. This obviously helps the political development of all
involved (including, we must stress, the anarchists). As Durruti argued: _"the
man [or woman] who alienates his will, can never be free to express himself
@@ -1482,9 +1333,7 @@ feeblest orator . . . As long as a man doesn't think for himself and doesn't
assume his own responsibilities, there will be no complete liberation of human
beings."_ [quoted by Paz, **Op. Cit.**, p. 184]
-
-
- Because of our support for the "leadership of ideas", anarchists think that
+Because of our support for the "leadership of ideas", anarchists think that
all popular organisations must be open, fully self-managed and free from
authoritarianism. Only in this way can ideas and discussion play an important
role in the life of the organisation. Since anarchists _"do not believe in the
@@ -1501,9 +1350,7 @@ masses must be informed of everything . . . All the affairs of the
International must be thoroughly and openly discussed without evasions and
circumlocutions."_ [**Bakunin on Anarchism**, p. 408]
-
-
- Given this, anarchists reject the idea of turning the organs created in the
+Given this, anarchists reject the idea of turning the organs created in the
class struggle and revolutionary process into hierarchical structures. By
turning them from organs of self-management into organs for nominating
"leaders," the constructive tasks and political development of the revolution
@@ -1525,9 +1372,7 @@ revolution."_ [Murray Bookchin, **Post-Scarcity Anarchism**, p. 140] What it
does **not** do is to supplant those organs or decision-making process by
creating institutionalised, hierarchical leadership structures.
-
-
- Equally as important as **how** anarchists intervene in social struggles and
+Equally as important as **how** anarchists intervene in social struggles and
popular organisations and the organisation of those struggles and
organisations, there is the question of the nature of that intervention. We
would like to quote the following by the British libertarian socialist group
@@ -1545,9 +1390,7 @@ to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be
manipulated by others -- even by those allegedly acting on their behalf."_
[Maurice Brinton, **For Workers' Power**, p. 154]
-
-
- Part of this "meaningful action" involves encouraging people to **_"act for
+Part of this "meaningful action" involves encouraging people to **_"act for
yourselves"_** (to use Kropotkin's words). As we noted in [section
A.2.7](secA2.html#seca27), anarchism is based on **self**-liberation and self-
activity is key aspect of this. Hence Malatesta's argument:
@@ -1564,42 +1407,32 @@ are accustomed to obedience and passivity consciously aware of their real
power and capabilities. One must encourage people to do things for
themselves."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 178-9]
-
-
- This "pushing" people to "do it themselves" is another key role for any
+This "pushing" people to "do it themselves" is another key role for any
anarchist organisation. The encouragement of direct action is just as
important as anarchist propaganda and popular participation within social
struggle and popular organisations.
-
-
- As such social struggle developments, the possibility of revolution becomes
-closer and closer. While we discuss anarchists ideas on social revolution in
-[section J.7](secJ7.html), we must note here that the role of the anarchist
+As such social struggle develops, the possibility of revolution becomes closer
+and closer. While we discuss anarchists ideas on social revolution in [section
+J.7](secJ7.html), we must note here that the role of the anarchist
organisation does not change. As Bookchin argued, anarchists _"seek to
persuade the factory committees, assemblies"_ and other organisations created
by people in struggle _"to make themselves into **genuine organs of popular
self-management**, not to dominate them, manipulate them, or hitch them to an
all-knowing political party."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 140] In this way, by
-encouraging self-management in struggle, anarchist lay the foundations of a
+encouraging self-management in struggle, anarchists lay the foundations of a
self-managed society.
-
-
- ## J.3.7 Doesn't Bakunin's _"Invisible Dictatorship"_ prove that anarchists
+## J.3.7 Doesn't Bakunin's _"Invisible Dictatorship"_ prove that anarchists
are secret authoritarians?
-
-
- No. While Bakunin did use the term _"invisible dictatorship"_, it does not
+No. While Bakunin did use the term _"invisible dictatorship"_, it does not
prove that Bakunin or anarchists are secret authoritarians. The claim
otherwise, often made by Leninists and other Marxists, expresses a distinct,
even wilful, misunderstanding of Bakunin's ideas on the role revolutionaries
should play in popular movements.
-
-
- Marxists quote Bakunin's terms _"invisible dictatorship"_ and _"collective
+Marxists quote Bakunin's terms _"invisible dictatorship"_ and _"collective
dictatorship"_ out of context, using it to "prove" that anarchists are secret
authoritarians, seeking dictatorship over the masses. More widely, the
question of Bakunin and his "invisible dictatorship" finds its way into
@@ -1615,10 +1448,8 @@ section](secJ3.html#secj36). For both these reasons, this section, while
initially appearing somewhat redundant and of interest only to academics, is
of a far wider interest.
-
-
- Anarchists have two responses to claims that Bakunin (and, by implication,
-all anarchists) seek an _"invisible"_ dictatorship and so are not true
+Anarchists have two responses to claims that Bakunin (and, by implication, all
+anarchists) seek an _"invisible"_ dictatorship and so are not true
libertarians. Firstly, and this is the point we will concentrate upon in this
section, Bakunin's expression is taken out of context and when placed within
context it takes on a radically different meaning than that implied by critics
@@ -1638,9 +1469,7 @@ along with numerous other racist comments) and so on. But, of course, this
never happens to non-anarchist thinkers when Marxists write their articles and
books.
-
-
- However, to return to our main argument, that of the importance of context.
+However, to return to our main argument, that of the importance of context.
Significantly, whenever Bakunin uses the term "invisible" or "collective"
dictatorship he also explicitly states his opposition to government power and
**in particular** the idea that anarchists should seize it. For example, a
@@ -1653,9 +1482,7 @@ should find an organ. This organ must be the secret and world-wide association
of the international brethren."_ [Derek Howl, _"The legacy of Hal Draper"_,
pp. 137-49, **International Socialist**, no. 52, p. 147]
-
-
- However, in the sentence **immediately before** those quoted, Bakunin stated
+However, in the sentence **immediately before** those quoted, Bakunin stated
that _"[t]his organisation rules out any idea of dictatorship and custodial
control."_ Strange that this part of the document was not quoted! Nor is
Bakunin quoted when he wrote, in the same document, that _"[w]e are the
@@ -1670,9 +1497,7 @@ organised into a free federation of agricultural and industrial associations .
peoples."_ [**Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings**, p. 172, p. 169 and p. 172]
Selective quoting is only convincing to those ignorant of the subject.
-
-
- Similarly, when we look at the situations where Bakunin uses the terms
+Similarly, when we look at the situations where Bakunin uses the terms
_"invisible"_ or _"collective"_ dictatorship (usually in letters to comrades)
we find the same thing -- the explicit denial **in these same letters** that
Bakunin thought the revolutionary association should take governmental power.
@@ -1685,7 +1510,7 @@ more salutary and effective for not being dressed up in any official power or
extrinsic character."_ Earlier in the letter he argued that anarchists must be
_"like invisible pilots in the thick of the popular tempest. . . steer[ing] it
[the revolution] not by any open power but by the collective dictatorship of
-all the allies \-- a dictatorship without insignia, titles or official rights,
+all the allies -- a dictatorship without insignia, titles or official rights,
and all the stronger for having none of the paraphernalia of power."_
Explicitly opposing _"Committees of Public Safety and official, overt
dictatorship"_ he explains his idea of a revolution based on _"workers
@@ -1706,9 +1531,7 @@ conclusion, Bakunin used the words 'invisible' and 'collective' to denote the
underground movement exerting this influence in an organised manner."_
[**Bakunin on Anarchism**, p. 182]
-
-
- This analysis is confirmed by other passages from Bakunin's letters. In a
+This analysis is confirmed by other passages from Bakunin's letters. In a
letter to the Nihilist Sergi Nechaev (within which Bakunin indicates exactly
how far apart politically they were -- which is important as, from Marx
onwards, many of Bakunin's opponents quote Nechaev's pamphlets as if they were
@@ -1740,9 +1563,7 @@ also by **organisation among the people themselves** join together separate
popular forces into a mighty strength capable of demolishing the State."_
[**Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings**, pp. 193-4]
-
-
- The key aspect of this is the notion of _"natural"_ influence. In a letter to
+The key aspect of this is the notion of _"natural"_ influence. In a letter to
a Spanish member of the Alliance we find Bakunin arguing that it _"will
promote the Revolution only through the **natural but never official
influence** of all members of the Alliance."_ [**Bakunin on Anarchism**, p.
@@ -1754,9 +1575,7 @@ alive . . . intervene[s] . . . in the life of others . . . [so] we hardly wish
to abolish the effect of any individual's or any group of individuals' natural
influence upon the masses."_ [**The Basic Bakunin**, p. 140 and p. 141]
-
-
- Thus _"natural influence"_ simply means the effect of communicating which
+Thus _"natural influence"_ simply means the effect of communicating which
others, discussing your ideas with them and winning them over to your
position, nothing more. This is hardly authoritarian, and so Bakunin contrasts
this _"natural"_ influence with _"official"_ influence, which replaced the
@@ -1766,9 +1585,7 @@ the perfectly legitimate influence over man, into a right."_ [quoted by
Richard B. Saltman, **The Social and Political Thought of Michael Bakunin**,
p. 46]
-
-
- As an example of this difference, consider the case of a union militant (as
+As an example of this difference, consider the case of a union militant (as
will become clear, this is the sort of example Bakunin had in mind). As long
as they are part of the rank-and-file, arguing their case at union meetings or
being delegated to carry out the decisions of these assemblies then their
@@ -1778,9 +1595,7 @@ for example, rather than a shop-steward) then their influence becomes
_"official"_ and so, potentially, corrupting for both the militant and the
rank-and-file who are subject to the rule of the official.
-
-
- Indeed, this notion of _"natural"_ influence was also termed _"invisible"_ by
+Indeed, this notion of _"natural"_ influence was also termed _"invisible"_ by
Bakunin: _"It is only necessary that one worker in ten join the [International
Working-Men's] Association **earnestly** and **with full understanding of the
cause** for the nine-tenths remaining outside its organisation nevertheless to
@@ -1806,9 +1621,7 @@ International's influence will never be anything but one of opinion and the
International will never be anything but the organisation of the natural
effect of individuals on the masses."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 139-40]
-
-
- Therefore, from both the fuller context provided by the works and letters
+Therefore, from both the fuller context provided by the works and letters
selectively quoted by Marxists **and** his other writings, we find that rather
than being a secret authoritarian, Bakunin was, in fact, trying to express how
anarchists could _"naturally influence"_ the masses and their revolution:
@@ -1822,10 +1635,8 @@ direct a people's revolution? **By a force that is invisible . . . that is not
imposed on anyone . . . [and] deprived of all official rights and
significance.**"_ [**Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings**, pp. 191-2]
-
-
- Continually opposing _"official"_ power, authority and influence, Bakunin
-used the term _"invisible, collective dictatorship"_ to describe the _"natural
+Continually opposing _"official"_ power, authority and influence, Bakunin used
+the term _"invisible, collective dictatorship"_ to describe the _"natural
influence"_ of organised anarchists on mass movements. Rather than express a
desire to become a dictator, it in fact expresses the awareness that there is
an "uneven" political development within the working class, an unevenness that
@@ -1836,9 +1647,7 @@ to failure and result in dictatorship by a party -- _"triumph of the Jacobins
or the Blanquists [or the Bolsheviks, we must add] would be the death of the
Revolution."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 169]
-
-
- So rather than seek power, the anarchists would seek **influence** based on
+So rather than seek power, the anarchists would seek **influence** based on
the soundness of their ideas, what anarchists today term the _"leadership of
ideas"_ in other words. Thus the anarchist federation _"unleashes their [the
peoples] will and gives wider opportunity for their self-determination and
@@ -1851,9 +1660,7 @@ freedom in every direction, without the least interference from any sort of
domination . . . that is without any sort of government control.**"_ [**Op.
Cit.**, p. 191]
-
-
- This analysis can be seen from Bakunin's discussion on union bureaucracy and
+This analysis can be seen from Bakunin's discussion on union bureaucracy and
how anarchists should combat it. Taking the Geneva section of the IWMA,
Bakunin notes that the construction workers' section _"simply left all
decision-making to their committees . . . In this manner power gravitated to
@@ -1872,9 +1679,7 @@ general assemblies of these associations and ensure, through debate, that the
most progressive opinion prevailed. [**Bakunin on Anarchism**, p. 246, p. 247
and p. 153]
-
-
- Having shown that the role of Bakunin's revolutionary organisations is
+Having shown that the role of Bakunin's revolutionary organisations is
drastically different than that suggested by the selective quotations of
Marxists, we need to address two more issues. One, the so-called hierarchical
nature of Bakunin's organisations and, two, their secret nature. Taking the
@@ -1892,22 +1697,16 @@ to be 'nothing more or less than the expression and direct outcome of the
reciprocal commitment contracted by each of the members towards the others.'"_
[**Op. Cit.**, p. 115]
-
-
- While many anarchists would not totally agree with this set-up (although we
+While many anarchists would not totally agree with this set-up (although we
think that most supporters of the "Platform" would) all would agree that it is
**not** hierarchical. If anything, it appears quite democratic in nature.
Moreover, comments in Bakunin's letters to other Alliance members support the
argument that his revolutionary associations were more democratic in nature
than Marxists suggest. In a letter to a Spanish comrade we find him suggesting
that _"all [Alliance] groups. . . should. . . from now on accept new members
-not by majority vote, but unanimously."_ [
-
-
-
- Op. Cit.**, p. 386] In a letter to Italian members of the IWMA he argued that
-in Geneva the Alliance did not resort to _"secret plots and intrigues."_
-Rather:
+not by majority vote, but unanimously."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 386] In a letter to
+Italian members of the IWMA he argued that in Geneva the Alliance did not
+resort to _"secret plots and intrigues."_ Rather:
> _"Everything was done in broad daylight, openly, for everyone to see . . .
The Alliance had regular weekly open meetings and everyone was urged to
@@ -1919,9 +1718,7 @@ discarded._
conversational discussions in which everybody felt free to participate: not to
be talked **at**, but to exchange views."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 405-6]
-
-
- Moreover, we find Bakunin being out-voted within the Alliance, hardly what we
+Moreover, we find Bakunin being out-voted within the Alliance, hardly what we
would expect if they **were** top-down dictatorships run by him as Marxists
claim. The historian T.R. Ravindranathan indicates that after the Alliance was
founded _"Bakunin wanted the Alliance to become a branch of the International
@@ -1933,9 +1730,7 @@ the harmful effects of a rivalry between the Alliance and the International.
On the question of secrecy, he gave way to his opponents."_ [**Bakunin and the
Italians**, p. 83]
-
-
- Moreover, if Bakunin **did** seek to create a centralised, hierarchical
+Moreover, if Bakunin **did** seek to create a centralised, hierarchical
organisation, as Marxists claim, he did not do a good job. We find him
complaining that the Madrid Alliance was breaking up (_"The news of the
dissolution of the Alliance in Spain saddened Bakunin. he intensified his
@@ -1947,9 +1742,7 @@ Italian section did not. Of course, Marxists could argue that these facts show
Bakunin's cunning nature, but the more obvious explanation is that Bakunin did
not create a hierarchical organisation with himself at the top.
-
-
- The evidence suggests that the Alliance _"was not a compulsory or
+The evidence suggests that the Alliance _"was not a compulsory or
authoritarian body."_ In Spain, it _"acted independently and was prompted by
purely local situations. The copious correspondence between Bakunin and his
friends . . . was at all times motivated by the idea of offering advice,
@@ -1978,11 +1771,9 @@ However, _"the Spanish Alliance survived Bakunin, who died in 1876, yet with
few exceptions it continued to function in much the same way it had during
Bakunin's lifetime."_ [Esenwein, **Op. Cit.**, p. 43]
-
-
- Moving on to the second issue, the question of why Bakunin favoured secret
-organisation. At the time many states where despotic monarchies, with little
-or no civil rights. As he argued, _"nothing but a secret society would want to
+Moving on to the second issue, the question of why Bakunin favoured secret
+organisation. At the time many states were despotic monarchies, with little or
+no civil rights. As he argued, _"nothing but a secret society would want to
take this [arousing a revolution] on, for the interests of the government and
of the government classes would be bitterly opposed to it."_ [**Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings**, p. 188] For survival, Bakunin considered secrecy
@@ -2003,9 +1794,7 @@ in Tsarist Russia and other illiberal states shaped his ideas on how
revolutionaries should organise (and let us not forget that he had been
imprisoned in the Peter and Paul prison for his activities).
-
-
- This is not to suggest that all of Bakunin's ideas on the role and nature of
+This is not to suggest that all of Bakunin's ideas on the role and nature of
anarchist groups are accepted by anarchists today. Most anarchists would
reject Bakunin's arguments for secrecy, for example (particularly as secrecy
cannot help but generate an atmosphere of deceit and, potentially,
@@ -2019,9 +1808,7 @@ within and the role they should play in popular movements. Most of his ideas
are valid, once we place them into context, some are not. Anarchists embrace
the valid ones and voice their opposition to the others.
-
-
- In summary, any apparent contradiction between the "public" and "private"
+In summary, any apparent contradiction between the "public" and "private"
Bakunin disappears once we place his comments into context within both the
letters he wrote and his overall political theory. As Brian Morris argues,
those who argue that Bakunin was in favour of despotism only come to _"these
@@ -2033,13 +1820,9 @@ of a secret society implied a revolutionary dictatorship in the Jacobin sense,
still less a 'despotism'"_ [**Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom**, p. 144 and
p. 149]
+## J.3.8 What is anarcho-syndicalism?
-
- ## J.3.8 What is anarcho-syndicalism?
-
-
-
- Anarcho-syndicalism (as mentioned in [section A.3.2](secA3.html#seca32)) is a
+Anarcho-syndicalism (as mentioned in [section A.3.2](secA3.html#seca32)) is a
form of anarchism which applies itself (primarily) to creating industrial
unions organised in an anarchist manner, using anarchist tactics (such as
direct action) to create a free society. To quote _"The Principles of
@@ -2058,9 +1841,7 @@ social value, in opposition to the modern political labour parties, which for
constructive economic purpose do not come into consideration."_ [quoted by
Wayne Thorpe, **"The Workers Themselves"**, p. 322]
-
-
- The word _"syndicalism"_ is an English rendering of the French for
+The word _"syndicalism"_ is an English rendering of the French for
_"revolutionary trade unionism"_ (_"syndicalisme revolutionarie"_). In the
1890s many anarchists in France started to work within the trade union
movement, radicalising it from within. As the ideas of autonomy, direct
@@ -2074,9 +1855,7 @@ describe movements inspired by the example of the CGT. Thus "syndicalism,"
"revolutionary unionism" (the term "industrial unionism" used by the IWW
essentially means the same thing).
-
-
- The main difference is between revolutionary syndicalism and anarcho-
+The main difference is between revolutionary syndicalism and anarcho-
syndicalism, with anarcho-syndicalism arguing that revolutionary syndicalism
concentrates too much on the workplace and, obviously, stressing the anarchist
roots and nature of syndicalism more than the former. In addition, anarcho-
@@ -2090,16 +1869,14 @@ political parties and are not anarchists (there have been a few Marxist
syndicalists, for example) but we will ignore these in our discussion. We will
use the term syndicalism to describe what each branch has in common.
-
-
- The syndicalist union is a self-managed industrial union (see [section
+The syndicalist union is a self-managed industrial union (see [section
J.5.2](secJ5.html#secj52)) which is committed to **direct action** and refuses
links with political parties, even labour or "socialist" ones. A key idea of
syndicalism is that of union autonomy -- the idea that the workers'
organisation is capable of changing society by its own efforts, that it must
control its own fate and not be controlled by any party or other outside group
-(including anarchist federations). This is sometimes termed _**"workerism"_**
-(from the French _**"ouverierisme"_**), i.e. workers' control of the class
+(including anarchist federations). This is sometimes termed **_"workerism"_**
+(from the French **_"ouverierisme"_**), i.e. workers' control of the class
struggle and their own organisations. Rather than being a cross-class
organisation like the political party, the union is a **class** organisation
and is so uniquely capable of representing working class aspirations,
@@ -2119,9 +1896,7 @@ class socialism and culture, free of all bourgeois taints. For the
syndicalists, the workers were to be everything, the rest, nothing."_
[Geoffrey Ostergaard, **The Tradition of Workers' Control**, p. 38]
-
-
- Therefore syndicalism is _"consciously anti-parliamentary and anti-political.
+Therefore syndicalism is _"consciously anti-parliamentary and anti-political.
It focuses not only on the realities of power but also on the key problem of
achieving its disintegration. Real power in syndicalist doctrine is economic
power. The way to dissolve economic power is to make every worker powerful,
@@ -2138,9 +1913,7 @@ in its most important arena -- the factory, where ruled and ruler seem to
confront each other most directly."_ [Murray Bookchin, **The Spanish
Anarchists**, p. 121]
-
-
- This does not mean that syndicalism is "apolitical" in the sense of ignoring
+This does not mean that syndicalism is "apolitical" in the sense of ignoring
totally all political issues. This is a Marxist myth. Syndicalists follow
other anarchists by being opposed to all forms of authoritarian/capitalist
politics but do take a keen interest in "political" questions as they relate
@@ -2157,9 +1930,7 @@ political institutions, a position which is "political" in the wider sense of
course! This is obviously identical to the usual anarchist position (see
[section J.2.10](secJ2.html#secj210)).
-
-
- Which indicates an importance difference between syndicalism and trade
+Which indicates an importance difference between syndicalism and trade
unionism. Syndicalism aims at changing society rather than just working within
it. Thus syndicalism is revolutionary while trade unionism is reformist. For
syndicalists the union _"has a double aim: with tireless persistence, it must
@@ -2196,9 +1967,7 @@ full, free life, when capitalism shall have been abolished._
> _"Syndicalism is, in essence, the economic expression of Anarchism."_ [**Red
Emma Speaks**, p. 91]
-
-
- Which, in turn, explains why syndicalist unions are structured in such an
+Which, in turn, explains why syndicalist unions are structured in such an
obviously libertarian way. It reflects the importance of empowering every
worker by creating a union which is decentralised and self-managed, a union
which every member plays a key role in determining its policy and activities.
@@ -2214,9 +1983,7 @@ _"plant these germs while there is yet time and bring them to the strongest
possible development, so as to make the task of the coming social revolution
easier and to insure its permanence."_ [Rocker, **Op. Cit.**, p. 59]
-
-
- Thus, as can be seen, syndicalism differs from trade unionism in its
+Thus, as can be seen, syndicalism differs from trade unionism in its
structure, its methods and its aims. Its structure, method and aims are
distinctly anarchist. Little wonder leading syndicalist theorist Fernand
Pelloutier argued that the trade union, _"governing itself along anarchic
@@ -2230,26 +1997,22 @@ community struggles. It is a myth that anarcho-syndicalism ignores community
struggles and organisation, as can be seen from the history of the Spanish CNT
for example (see [section J.5.1](secJ5.html#secj51)).
-
-
- It must be stressed that a syndicalist union is open to all workers
-regardless of their political opinions (or lack of them). The union exists to
-defend workers' interests as workers and is organised in an anarchist manner
-to ensure that their interests are fully expressed. This means that an
-syndicalist organisation is different from an organisation of syndicalists.
-What makes the union syndicalist is its structure, aims and methods. Obviously
-things can change (that is true of any organisation which has a democratic
-structure) but that is a test revolutionary and anarcho-syndicalists welcome
-and do not shirk from. As the union is self-managed from below up, its
-militancy and political content is determined by its membership. As Pouget put
-it, the union _"offers employers a degree of resistance in geometric
-proportion with the resistance put up by its members."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 71]
-That is why syndicalists ensure that power rests in the members of the union.
-
-
-
- Syndicalists have two main approaches to building revolutionary unions --
-_**"dual unionism"_** and _**"boring from within."_** The former approach
+It must be stressed that a syndicalist union is open to all workers regardless
+of their political opinions (or lack of them). The union exists to defend
+workers' interests as workers and is organised in an anarchist manner to
+ensure that their interests are fully expressed. This means that a syndicalist
+organisation is different from an organisation of syndicalists. What makes the
+union syndicalist is its structure, aims and methods. Obviously things can
+change (that is true of any organisation which has a democratic structure) but
+that is a test revolutionary and anarcho-syndicalists welcome and do not shirk
+from. As the union is self-managed from below up, its militancy and political
+content is determined by its membership. As Pouget put it, the union _"offers
+employers a degree of resistance in geometric proportion with the resistance
+put up by its members."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 71] That is why syndicalists ensure
+that power rests in the members of the union.
+
+Syndicalists have two main approaches to building revolutionary unions --
+**_"dual unionism"_** and **_"boring from within."_** The former approach
involves creating new, syndicalist, unions, in opposition to the existing
trade unions. This approach was historically and is currently the favoured way
of building syndicalist unions (American, Italian, Spanish, Swedish and
@@ -2267,9 +2030,7 @@ carders" (i.e. members of both the trade union and the syndicalist one). See
[section J.5.3](secJ5.html#secj53) for more on anarchist perspectives on
existing trades unions.
-
-
- Syndicalists no matter what tactics they prefer, favour autonomous workplace
+Syndicalists no matter what tactics they prefer, favour autonomous workplace
organisations, controlled from below. Both tend to favour syndicalists forming
networks of militants to spread anarchist/syndicalist ideas within the
workplace. Indeed, such a network (usually called _"Industrial Networks"_ \--
@@ -2279,9 +2040,7 @@ encourage syndicalist tactics and rank and file organisation during struggles
and so create the potential for building syndicalist unions as libertarian
ideas spread and are seen to work.
-
-
- Syndicalists think that such an organisation is essential for the successful
+Syndicalists think that such an organisation is essential for the successful
creation of an anarchist society as it builds the new world in the shell of
the old, making a sizeable majority of the population aware of anarchism and
the benefits of anarchist forms of organisation and struggle. Moreover, they
@@ -2304,9 +2063,7 @@ wish to carry out a revolution, to risk our skin, to put Pierre the socialist
in the place of Paul the radical"_ [quoted by Jeremy Jennings, **Syndicalism
in France**, p. 17]).
-
-
- This does not mean that syndicalists do not support organisations
+This does not mean that syndicalists do not support organisations
spontaneously created by workers' in struggle (such as workers' councils,
factory committees and so on). Far from it. Syndicalists have played important
roles in these kinds of organisation (as can be seen from the Russian
@@ -2326,9 +2083,7 @@ union as such. All the syndicalist union can do is provide a practical example
of how to organise in a libertarian way within capitalism and statism and
support spontaneously created organisations.
-
-
- It should be noted that while the term "syndicalism" dates from the 1890s in
+It should be noted that while the term "syndicalism" dates from the 1890s in
France, the ideas associated with these names have a longer history. Anarcho-
syndicalist ideas have developed independently in many different countries and
times. Indeed, anyone familiar with Bakunin's work will quickly see that much
@@ -2344,22 +2099,18 @@ p. 51 and p. 79] See [section H.2.8](secH2.html#sech28) for a discussion of
why Marxist claims that syndicalism and anarchism are unrelated are obviously
false.
-
-
- (We must stress that we are **not** arguing that Bakunin "invented"
+(We must stress that we are **not** arguing that Bakunin "invented"
syndicalism. Far from it. Rather, we are arguing that Bakunin expressed ideas
already developed in working class circles and became, if you like, the
"spokesperson" for these libertarian tendencies in the labour movement as well
as helping to clarifying these ideas in many ways. As Emma Goldman argued, the
_"feature which distinguishes Syndicalism from most philosophies is that it
represents the revolutionary philosophy of labour conceived and born in the
-actual struggle and experience of workers themselves \-- not in universities,
+actual struggle and experience of workers themselves -- not in universities,
colleges, libraries, or in the brain of some scientists."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp.
88-9] This applies equally to Bakunin and the first International).
-
-
- Given this, we must also point out here that while syndicalism has anarchist
+Given this, we must also point out here that while syndicalism has anarchist
roots, not all syndicalists are anarchists. A few Marxists have been
syndicalists, particularly in the USA where the followers of Daniel De Leon
supported Industrial Unionism and helped form the **Industrial Workers of the
@@ -2373,27 +2124,21 @@ syndicalists disagree, arguing that centralisation kills the spirit of revolt
and weakens a unions real strength and that political parties are both
ineffective when compared to militant unionism and a constant source of
corruption. [Rocker, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 55-60] So not all syndicalists are
-anarchists, leading those anarchists who are syndicalists often use the term
-"anarcho-syndicalism" to indicate that they are both anarchists and
-syndicalists as well as to stress the libertarian roots and syndicalism. In
+anarchists, leading those anarchists who are syndicalists to often use the
+term "anarcho-syndicalism" to indicate that they are both anarchists and
+syndicalists as well as to stress the libertarian roots of syndicalism. In
addition, not all anarchists are syndicalists. We discuss the reasons for this
in the [next section](secJ3.html#secj39).
-
-
- For more information on anarcho-syndicalist ideas, Rudolf Rocker's **Anarcho-
+For more information on anarcho-syndicalist ideas, Rudolf Rocker's **Anarcho-
Syndicalism** is still the classic introduction to the subject. The collection
of articles by British syndicalist Tom Brown entitled **Syndicalism** is also
worth reading. Daniel Guerin's **No Gods, No Masters** contains articles by
leading French syndicalist thinkers.
+## J.3.9 Why are many anarchists not anarcho-syndicalists?
-
- ## J.3.9 Why are many anarchists not anarcho-syndicalists?
-
-
-
- Before discussing why many anarchists are not anarcho-syndicalists, we must
+Before discussing why many anarchists are not anarcho-syndicalists, we must
clarify a few points first. Let us be clear, non-syndicalist anarchists
usually support the ideas of workplace organisation and struggle, of direct
action, of solidarity and so on. Thus most non-syndicalist anarchists do not
@@ -2407,9 +2152,7 @@ term "non-syndicalist anarchist" we are not suggesting that these anarchists
reject all aspects of anarcho-syndicalism. Rather, they are critical of
certain aspects of anarcho-syndicalist ideas while supporting the rest.
-
-
- In the past, a few communist-anarchists **did** oppose the struggle for
+In the past, a few communist-anarchists **did** oppose the struggle for
improvements within capitalism as "reformist." However, these were few and far
between and with the rise of anarcho-syndicalism in the 1890s, the vast
majority of communist-anarchists recognised that only by encouraging the
@@ -2421,9 +2164,7 @@ during the 1880s, particularly in France and Italy. Thus communist-anarchists
agree with syndicalists on the importance of struggling for and winning
reforms and improvements within capitalism by direct action and solidarity.
-
-
- Similarly, anarchists like Malatesta also recognised the importance of mass
+Similarly, anarchists like Malatesta also recognised the importance of mass
organisations like unions. As he argued, _"to encourage popular organisations
of all kinds is the logical consequence of our basic ideas . . . An
authoritarian party, which aims at capturing power to impose its ideas, has an
@@ -2439,17 +2180,13 @@ organisations must be autonomous, self-governing, be libertarian in nature
**and** be independent of all parties and organisations (including anarchist
ones). The similarity with anarcho-syndicalist ideas is striking.
-
-
- So why, if this is the case, are many anarchists not anarcho-syndicalists?
+So why, if this is the case, are many anarchists not anarcho-syndicalists?
There are two main reasons for this. First, there is the question of whether
unions are, by their nature, revolutionary organisations. Second, whether
syndicalist unions are sufficient to create anarchy by themselves. We will
discuss each in turn.
-
-
- As can be seen from any country, the vast majority of unions are deeply
+As can be seen from any country, the vast majority of unions are deeply
reformist and bureaucratic in nature. They are centralised, with power resting
at the top in the hands of officials. This suggests that in themselves unions
are not revolutionary. As Malatesta argued, this is to be expected for _"all
@@ -2462,9 +2199,7 @@ manage to improve their conditions, and often end up by creating new
privileged classes and serving to support and consolidate the system one would
want to destroy."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 113-4]
-
-
- If we look at the **role** of the union within capitalist society we see that
+If we look at the **role** of the union within capitalist society we see that
in order for it to work, it must offer a reason for the boss to recognise and
negotiate with it. This means that the union must be able to offer the boss
something in return for any reforms it gets, namely labour discipline. In
@@ -2483,9 +2218,7 @@ workers organisation becomes what it must perforce be in a capitalist society
simply for hedging round and limiting the bosses' power."_ [Errico Malatesta,
**The Anarchist Revolution**, p. 29]
-
-
- Anarcho-syndicalists are aware of this problem. That is why their unions are
+Anarcho-syndicalists are aware of this problem. That is why their unions are
decentralised, self-managed and organised from the bottom up in a federal
manner. As Durruti argued:
@@ -2499,9 +2232,7 @@ militant should prolong his job in committees, beyond the time allotted to
him. No permanent and indispensable people."_ [quoted by Abel Paz, **Durruti:
The People Armed**, p. 183]
-
-
- However, structure is rarely enough in itself to undermine the bureaucratic
+However, structure is rarely enough in itself to undermine the bureaucratic
tendencies created by the role of unions in the capitalist economy. While such
libertarian structures can slow down the tendency towards bureaucracy, non-
syndicalist anarchists argue that they cannot stop it. They point to the
@@ -2511,7 +2242,7 @@ a chance to develop fully). Even the Spanish CNT (by far the most successful
anarcho-syndicalist union) suffered from the problem of reformism, causing the
anarchists in the union to organise the FAI in 1927 to combat it (which it
did, very successfully). According to Jose Peirats, the _"participation of the
-anarchist group in the mass movement CNT helped to ensure that CNT's
+anarchist group in the mass movement CNT helped to ensure the CNT's
revolutionary nature."_ This indicates the validity of Malatesta's arguments
concerning the need for anarchists to remain distinct of the unions
organisationally while working within them -- just as Peirat's comment that
@@ -2520,9 +2251,7 @@ of a wider vision"_ indicates the validity of Malatesta's warnings against
anarchists taking positions of responsibility in unions! [**Anarchists in the
Spanish Revolution**, p. 241 and pp. 239-40]
-
-
- Moreover, even the structure of syndicalist unions can cause problems: _"In
+Moreover, even the structure of syndicalist unions can cause problems: _"In
modelling themselves structurally on the bourgeois economy, the syndicalist
unions tended to become the organisational counterparts of the very
centralised apparatus they professed to oppose. By pleading the need to deal
@@ -2531,9 +2260,7 @@ leaders in syndicalist unions often had little difficulty in shifting
organisational control from the bottom to the top."_ [Murray Bookchin, **The
Spanish Anarchists**, p. 123]
-
-
- In addition, as the syndicalist unions grow in size and influence their
+In addition, as the syndicalist unions grow in size and influence their
initial radicalism is usually watered-down. This is because, _"since the
unions must remain open to all those who desire to win from the masters better
conditions of life, whatever their opinions may be . . ., they are naturally
@@ -2548,9 +2275,7 @@ reformism simply because the majority of their members will be non-
revolutionary if the union grows in size in non-revolutionary times (as can be
seen from the development of the Swedish syndicalist union the SAC).
-
-
- So, if the union's militant strategy succeeds in winning reforms, more and
+So, if the union's militant strategy succeeds in winning reforms, more and
more workers will join it. This influx of non-libertarians must, in a self-
managed organisation, exert a de-radicalising influence on the unions politics
and activities in non-revolutionary times. The syndicalist would argue that
@@ -2574,9 +2299,7 @@ forced syndicalists to adapt themselves to the exigencies of the moment."_
Anarchism"_, pp. 25-41, **Revolutionary Syndicalism**, Marcel van der Linden
and Wayne Thorpe (eds.), p. 25]
-
-
- As can be seen from the history of many syndicalist unions (and, obviously,
+As can be seen from the history of many syndicalist unions (and, obviously,
mainstream unions too) this seems to be the case -- the libertarian tendencies
are outweighed by the de-radicalising ones. This can also be seen from the
issue of collective bargaining:
@@ -2594,18 +2317,14 @@ the early decades of the century it became clear that to maintain or gain a
mass membership, syndicalist unions had to accept collective bargaining."_
[Marcel van der Linden and Wayne Thorpe, **Op. Cit.**, p. 19]
-
-
- Thus, for most anarchists, _"the Trade Unions are, by their very nature
+Thus, for most anarchists, _"the Trade Unions are, by their very nature
reformist and never revolutionary. The revolutionary spirit must be
introduced, developed and maintained by the constant actions of
revolutionaries who work from within their ranks as well as from outside, but
it cannot be the normal, natural definition of the Trade Unions function."_
[Malatesta, **Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, p. 117]
-
-
- This does not mean that anarchists should not work within labour
+This does not mean that anarchists should not work within labour
organisations. Nor does it mean rejecting anarcho-syndicalist unions as an
anarchist tactic. Far from it. Rather it is a case of recognising these
organisations for what they are, reformist organisations which are not an end
@@ -2627,9 +2346,7 @@ the anarchist and working class movement, non-syndicalist anarchists stress
the importance of anarchists organising as anarchists to influence the working
class movement.
-
-
- All this does not mean that purely anarchist organisations or individual
+All this does not mean that purely anarchist organisations or individual
anarchists cannot become reformist. Of course they can (just look at the
Spanish FAI which along with the CNT co-operated with the state during the
Spanish Revolution). However, unlike syndicalist unions, the anarchist
@@ -2637,9 +2354,7 @@ organisation is not pushed towards reformism due to its role within society.
That is an important difference -- the institutional factors are not present
for the anarchist federation as they are for the syndicalist union federation.
-
-
- The second reason why many anarchists are not anarcho-syndicalists is the
+The second reason why many anarchists are not anarcho-syndicalists is the
question of whether syndicalist unions are sufficient in themselves to create
anarchy. Pierre Monatte, a French syndicalist, argued that _"Syndicalism, as
the [CGT's] Congress of Amiens proclaimed in 1906, is sufficient unto itself"_
@@ -2647,9 +2362,7 @@ as _"the working class, having at last attained majority, means to be self-
sufficient and to rely on no-one else for its emancipation."_ [**The Anarchist
Reader**, p. 219]
-
-
- This idea of self-sufficiency means that the anarchist and the syndicalist
+This idea of self-sufficiency means that the anarchist and the syndicalist
movement must be fused into one, with syndicalism taking the role of both
anarchist group and labour union. Thus a key difference between anarcho-
syndicalists and other anarchists is over the question of the need for a
@@ -2661,9 +2374,7 @@ point of social struggle and anarchist activism. However, an anarcho-
syndicalist may support a specific anarchist federation to work within the
union and outside.
-
-
- So anarchists critical of anarcho-syndicalism are also active in the labour
+So anarchists critical of anarcho-syndicalism are also active in the labour
movement, working with the rank and file while keeping their own identity as
anarchists and organising as anarchists. Thus Malatesta: _"In the past I
deplored that the comrades isolated themselves from the working-class
@@ -2677,30 +2388,25 @@ trade union movement ends, either in rendering the later unable to carry out
its specific task or by weakening, distorting, or extinguishing the anarchist
spirit."_ [Malatesta, **Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, p. 123]
-
-
- Most anarchists agree with Malatesta when he argued that _"anarchists must
-not want the Trade Unions to be anarchist, but they must act within their
-ranks in favour of anarchist aims, as individuals, as groups and as
-federations of groups. . . [I]n the situation as it is, and recognising that
-the social development of one's workmates is what it is, the anarchist groups
-should not expect the workers' organisation to act as if they were anarchist,
-but should make every effort to induce them to approximate as much as possible
-to the anarchist method."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 124-5] Given that it appears to
-be the case that labour unions **are** by nature reformist, they cannot be
-expected to be enough in themselves when creating a free society. Hence the
-need for anarchists to organise **as anarchists** as well as alongside their
-fellow workers as workers in order to spread anarchist ideas on tactics and
-aims. This activity within existing unions does not necessarily mean
-attempting to "reform" the union in a libertarian manner (although some
-anarchists would support this approach). Rather it means working with the rank
-and file of the unions and trying to create autonomous workplace
-organisations, independent of the trade union bureaucracy and organised in a
-libertarian way.
-
-
-
- This involves creating anarchist organisations separate from but which (in
+Most anarchists agree with Malatesta when he argued that _"anarchists must not
+want the Trade Unions to be anarchist, but they must act within their ranks in
+favour of anarchist aims, as individuals, as groups and as federations of
+groups. . . [I]n the situation as it is, and recognising that the social
+development of one's workmates is what it is, the anarchist groups should not
+expect the workers' organisation to act as if they were anarchist, but should
+make every effort to induce them to approximate as much as possible to the
+anarchist method."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 124-5] Given that it appears to be the
+case that labour unions **are** by nature reformist, they cannot be expected
+to be enough in themselves when creating a free society. Hence the need for
+anarchists to organise **as anarchists** as well as alongside their fellow
+workers as workers in order to spread anarchist ideas on tactics and aims.
+This activity within existing unions does not necessarily mean attempting to
+"reform" the union in a libertarian manner (although some anarchists would
+support this approach). Rather it means working with the rank and file of the
+unions and trying to create autonomous workplace organisations, independent of
+the trade union bureaucracy and organised in a libertarian way.
+
+This involves creating anarchist organisations separate from but which (in
part) work within the labour movement for anarchist ends. Let us not forget
that the syndicalist organisation is the union, it organises all workers
regardless of their politics. A "union" which just let anarchists join would
@@ -2715,11 +2421,9 @@ to spread their anarchist ideals and aims, and this implies anarchist
organisations separate from the labour movement, even if that movement is
based on syndicalist unions.
-
-
- As Bakunin argued, the anarchist organisation _"is the necessary complement
-to the International [i.e. the union federation]. But the International and
-the Alliance [the anarchist federation], while having the same ultimate aims,
+As Bakunin argued, the anarchist organisation _"is the necessary complement to
+the International [i.e. the union federation]. But the International and the
+Alliance [the anarchist federation], while having the same ultimate aims,
perform different functions. The International endeavours to unify the working
masses . . . regardless of nationality or religious and political beliefs,
into one compact body: the Alliance, on the other hand, tries to give these
@@ -2735,9 +2439,7 @@ indicated in [section J.3.6](secJ3.html#secj36), anarchists desire to
influence popular organisations by the strength of our ideas within the rank
and file and **not** by imposing our ideas on them.
-
-
- In addition to these major points of disagreement, there are minor ones as
+In addition to these major points of disagreement, there are minor ones as
well. For example, many anarchists dislike the emphasis syndicalists place on
the workplace and see _"in syndicalism a shift in focus from the commune to
the trade union, from all of the oppressed to the industrial proletariat
@@ -2758,12 +2460,10 @@ and this meant _"insurrection."_ [Malatesta, **The Anarchist Reader**, pp.
see the _"expropriatory general strike,"_ in the words of French syndicalist
Pierre Besnard, as _"clearly **insurrectional.**"_ [quoted by Vernon Richards,
**Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, p. 288] We mention this purely to
-counter Leninist claims that syndicalists subscribe to the same ones they did
+counter Leninist claims that syndicalists subscribe to the same ideas they did
in the 1890s.
-
-
- Despite our criticisms we should recognise that the difference between
+Despite our criticisms we should recognise that the difference between
anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists are slight and (often) just a case of
emphasis. Most anarchists support anarcho-syndicalist unions where they exist
and often take a key role in creating and organising them. Similarly, many
@@ -2778,9 +2478,7 @@ missing element is an organisation winning support for anarchist ideas and
tactics both within revolutionary unions and everywhere else working class
people come together.
-
-
- For a further information on the anarchist criticism of syndicalism, we can
+For a further information on the anarchist criticism of syndicalism, we can
suggest no better source than the writings of Errico Malatesta. The books
**Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas** and **The Anarchist Revolution**
contain Malatesta's viewpoints on anarchism, syndicalism and how anarchists
@@ -2788,3 +2486,7 @@ should work within the labour movement. **The Anarchist Reader** contains the
famous debate between the syndicalist Pierre Monatte and Malatesta at the
International Anarchist conference in Amsterdam in 1907.
+[‹ J.2 What is direct action?](/afaq/secJ2.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/secJcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [J.4 What trends in society aid
+anarchist activity? ›](/afaq/secJ4.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secJ4.md b/markdown/secJ4.md
index 22d4dc7d255ccbeef48d94f9a58c68f7a51844a8..9bb99dbabe8daa25c85c83a2399ff49c068f89cb 100644
--- a/markdown/secJ4.md
+++ b/markdown/secJ4.md
@@ -15,16 +15,16 @@ anarchists for they lead to the reduction of government. In practice such a
conclusion is deeply suspect simply because these developments are being
pursued to increase the power and influence of capital as well as to increase
wage-labour to, and exploitation by, the economic master class and to
-undermine working class power and autonomy. As such, there are as anti-
+undermine working class power and autonomy. As such, they are as anti-
libertarian as the status quo (as Proudhon stressed, anarchism is _"the denial
-of Government and of Property."_ [**General Idea of the Revolution**, p.
-100]). Similarly, increases in self-employment can be seen, in the abstract,
-as reducing wage slavery. However, if, in practice, this increase is due to
-corporations encouraging "independent" contractors in order to cut wages and
-worsen working conditions, increase job insecurity and undermine paying for
-health and other employee packages then it is hardly a positive sign.
-Obviously increases in self-employment would be different if it were the
-result of an increase in the number of co-operatives, for example.
+of Government and of Property."_ [**Property is Theft!**, p. 559]). Similarly,
+increases in self-employment can be seen, in the abstract, as reducing wage
+slavery. However, if, in practice, this increase is due to corporations
+encouraging "independent" contractors in order to cut wages and worsen working
+conditions, increase job insecurity and undermine paying for health and other
+employee packages then it is hardly a positive sign. Obviously increases in
+self-employment would be different if it were the result of an increase in the
+number of co-operatives, for example.
Thus few anarchists celebrate many apparently "libertarian" developments as
they are not the product of social movements and activism, but are the product
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ credit, co-operatives, modern schools and so on) and so will not do so here.
However, it is important to stress here that such "traditional" openings are
not being downplayed -- indeed, much of what we discuss here can only become
fully libertarian in combination with these more "traditional" forms of
-_**"anarchy in action."_**
+**_"anarchy in action."_**
For a lengthy discussion of anarchistic trends in society, we recommend Colin
Ward's classic book **Anarchy in Action**. Ward covers many areas in which
@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ are considering their own interests, thinking for themselves and saying "no"
and this, by its very nature, is an important, indeed, the most important,
tendency towards anarchism. It suggests that people are rejecting the old
ideas which hold the system up, acting upon this rejection and creating new
-ways of doing thinks.
+ways of doing things.
_"Our social institutions,"_ argued Alexander Berkman, _"are founded on
certain ideas; as long as the latter are generally believed, the institutions
@@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ struggle, such as a strike, occupation, boycott, and so on, the ordinary life
of people, in which they act under the constant direction of the bosses or
state, ceases, and they have to think, act and co-ordinate their actions for
themselves. This reinforces the expression towards autonomy that the initial
-refusal that lead to the struggle indicates. Secondly, in the process of
+refusal that led to the struggle indicates. Secondly, in the process of
struggle those involved learn the importance of solidarity, of working with
others in a similar situation, in order to win. This means the building of
links of support, of common interests, of organisation. The practical need for
@@ -130,11 +130,11 @@ Therefore the real issue in social struggle is that it is an attempt by people
to wrestle at least part of the power over their own lives away from the
managers, state officials and so on who currently have it and exercise it
themselves. This is, by its very nature, anarchistic and libertarian. Thus we
-find politicians and, of course, managers and property owners, often
-denouncing strikes and other forms of direct action. This is logical. As
-direct action challenges the real power-holders in society and because, if
-carried to its logical conclusion, it would remove them, social struggle and
-direct action can be considered in essence a revolutionary process.
+find politicians, managers and property owners denouncing strikes and other
+forms of direct action. This is logical. As direct action challenges the real
+power-holders in society and because, if carried to its logical conclusion, it
+would remove them, social struggle and direct action can be considered in
+essence a revolutionary process.
Moreover, the very act of using direct action suggests a transformation within
the people using it. _"Direct action's very powers to fertilise,"_ argued
@@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ and being little more than apologetics for an evil social system that treated
human beings as things. The same can be said for the argument that social
struggles within capitalism do more harm than good. It betrays a slave
mentality unfitting for human beings (although fitting for those who desire to
-live of the backs of workers or desire to serve those who do).
+live off the backs of workers or desire to serve those who do).
Moreover, this kind of argument ignores a few key points.
@@ -292,7 +292,7 @@ union rights and so on).
So social struggle has been proven time and time again to gain successful
reforms. For example, before the 8 hour day movement of 1886 in America most
-companies argued they could not introduce that reform without doing bust.
+companies argued they could not introduce that reform without going bust.
However, after displaying a militant mood and conducting an extensive strike
campaign, hundreds of thousands of workers discovered that their bosses had
been lying and they got shorter hours. Indeed, the history of the labour
@@ -327,8 +327,8 @@ society) created. The transforming and empowering effect of social struggle is
expressed well by the Nick DiGaetano, a one-time Wobbly who had joined during
the 1912 Lawrence strike and then became a UAW-CIO shop floor militant:
-> _ "the workers of my generation from the early days up to now [1958] had
-what you might call a labour insurrection in changing from a plain, humble,
+> _"the workers of my generation from the early days up to now [1958] had what
+you might call a labour insurrection in changing from a plain, humble,
submissive creature into a man. The union made a man out of him . . . I am not
talking about the benefits . . . I am talking about the working conditions and
how they affected the men in the plant . . . Before they were submissive.
@@ -522,7 +522,7 @@ carry hidden costs that offset some of the gains in money."_ This stagnation
is, of course, being denied by the right. Yet, as Krugman memorably puts it:
_"Modern economists debate whether American median income has risen or fallen
since the early 1970s. What's really telling is the fact that we're even
-having this debate."_ So while the average values may have went up, because of
+having this debate."_ So while the average values may have gone up, because of
_"rising inequality, good performance in overall numbers like GDP hasn't
translated into gains for ordinary workers."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 55, pp. 126-7,
p. 124 and p. 201]
@@ -532,7 +532,7 @@ believe they are either in the wealthiest 1% or will be there _"soon"_! [Glyn,
**Op. Cit.**, p. 179] In fact, as we discussed in [section
B.7.2](secB7.html#sec72), social mobility has **fallen** under neo-liberalism
-- perhaps unsurprisingly as it is easier to climb a hill than a mountain.
-This is just as important as the explosion in inequality as the free-market
+This is just as important as the explosion in inequality as the “free-market”
right argue that dynamic social mobility makes up for wealth and income
inequality. As Krugman notes, Americans _"may believe that anyone can succeed
through hard work and determination, but the facts say otherwise."_ In
@@ -628,7 +628,7 @@ to forestall union organisers, tend to echo this effect."_ He argues that _"if
there's a single reason blue-collar workers did so much better in the fifties
than they had in the twenties, it was the rise of unions"_ and that unions
_"were once an important factor limiting income inequality, both because of
-their direct effect in raising their members wages and because the union
+their direct effect in raising their members’ wages and because the union
pattern of wage settlements . . . was . . . reflected in the labour market as
a whole."_ With the smashing of the unions came rising inequality, with the
_"sharpest increases in wage inequality in the Western world have taken place
@@ -660,18 +660,18 @@ capitalism.
Of course, no one can **know** that struggle will make things better. It is a
guess; no one can predict the future. Not all struggles are successful and
many can be very difficult. If the _"military is a role model for the business
-world"_ (in the words of an ex-CEO of Hill & Knowlton Public Relations), and
-it is, then **any** struggle against it and other concentrations of power may,
-and often is, difficult and dangerous at times. [quoted by John Stauber and
-Sheldon Rampton in **Toxic Sludge Is Good For You!**, p. 47] But, as Zapata
-once said, _"better to die on your feet than live on your knees!"_ All we can
-say is that social struggle can and does improve things and, in terms of its
-successes and transforming effect on those involved, well worth the potential
-difficulties it can create. Moreover, without struggle there is little chance
-of creating a free society, dependent as it is on individuals who refuse to
-bow to authority and have the ability and desire to govern themselves. In
-addition, social struggle is always essential, not only to **win**
-improvements, but to **keep** them as well. In order to fully secure
+world"_ (in the words of an ex-CEO of Hill & Knowlton Public Relations),
+and it is, then **any** struggle against it and other concentrations of power
+may, and often is, difficult and dangerous at times. [quoted by John Stauber
+and Sheldon Rampton in **Toxic Sludge Is Good For You!**, p. 47] But, as
+Zapata once said, _"better to die on your feet than live on your knees!"_ All
+we can say is that social struggle can and does improve things and, in terms
+of its successes and transforming effect on those involved, well worth the
+potential difficulties it can create. Moreover, without struggle there is
+little chance of creating a free society, dependent as it is on individuals
+who refuse to bow to authority and have the ability and desire to govern
+themselves. In addition, social struggle is always essential, not only to
+**win** improvements, but to **keep** them as well. In order to fully secure
improvements you have to abolish capitalism and the state. Not to do so means
that any reforms can and will be taken away (and if social struggle does not
exist, they will be taken away sooner rather than later). Ultimately, most
@@ -724,7 +724,7 @@ by Ruth Kinna, _"Fields of Vision: Kropotkin and Revolutionary Change"_, pp.
And, needless to say, while three decades of successful capitalist class war
goes without mention in polite circles, documenting its results gets you
denounced as advocating "class war"! It is more than pass the time when
-working class people should make that a reality -- particularly given the
+working class people _should_ wage a class war -- particularly given the
results of not doing so.
## J.4.3 Are the new social movements a positive development for anarchists?
@@ -779,7 +779,7 @@ the decisions that affect them. Hence decentralisation implies self-
management. So, anarchists argue, the peace movement implies anarchism because
world peace is impossible without both decentralisation and direct democracy
(_"a federated people would be a people organised for peace; what would they
-do with armies?"_ [Proudhon, **Du Principe Fdratif**, pp. 320-1]). As Benello
+do with armies?"_ [Proudhon, **Property is Theft!**, p. 719]). As Benello
correctly argued, the _"anarchist perspective has an unparalleled relevance
today because prevailing nuclear policies can be considered as an ultimate
stage in the divergence between the interests of governments and their peoples
@@ -829,18 +829,18 @@ The social justice movement is composed of people seeking fair and
compassionate solutions to problems such as poverty, unemployment, economic
exploitation, discrimination, poor housing, lack of health insurance, wealth
and income inequalities, and the like. In the aftermath of decades of
-especially single-minded pursuit of this priority by neo-liberal
-administrations, the United States, for example, is reaping the grim harvest:
-wages stagnate, personal debt soars, homelessness stalks the streets; social
-welfare budgets are slashed to the bone while poverty, unemployment, and
-underemployment grow; sweatshops mushrooming in the large cities; millions of
-Americans without any health insurance while others face rocketing costs;
-obscene wealth inequalities and falling social mobility; and so on. Britain
-under the neo-liberal policies of Thatcher, Major and Blair experienced a
-social deterioration similar to that in the US.
+especially single-minded pursuit of enriching the few by impoverishing the
+many by neo-liberal administrations, the United States, for example, is
+reaping the grim harvest: wages stagnate, personal debt soars, homelessness
+stalks the streets; social welfare budgets are slashed to the bone while
+poverty, unemployment, and underemployment grow; sweatshops mushrooming in the
+large cities; millions of Americans without any health insurance while others
+face rocketing costs; obscene wealth inequalities and falling social mobility;
+and so on. Britain under the neo-liberal policies of Thatcher, Major and Blair
+experienced a social deterioration similar to that in the US.
It is not difficult to show that the major problems concerning the social
-justice movement can all be traced back to the hierarchy and domination. For,
+justice movement can all be traced back to hierarchy and domination. For,
given the purpose of hierarchy, the highest priority of the elites who control
the state is necessarily to maintain their own power and privileges,
regardless of the suffering involved for subordinate classes.
@@ -883,7 +883,7 @@ extreme poverty makes military service one of the few legal options open for
many individuals to improve their social situation. These considerations
illustrate further links between the peace and social justice movements -- and
between those movements and anarchism, which is the conceptual "glue" that can
-potentially unite all the new social movement in a single anti-authoritarian
+potentially unite all the new social movements in a single anti-authoritarian
coalition.
## J.4.4 What is the _"economic structural crisis"_?
@@ -899,8 +899,8 @@ major industrialised countries have risen sharply since 1973, especially after
cent of the labour force) and by another 50 per cent since then (from 5.3 per
cent of the labour force in 1980 to 8.0 per cent in 1994)."_ Job insecurity
has increased with, for example, the USA, having the worse job insecurity
-since the depression of the 1930s. [Takis Fotopoulos, **Towards and Inclusive
-Democracy**, p. 35 and p. 141] In addition, the world economy have become far
+since the depression of the 1930s. [Takis Fotopoulos, **Towards an Inclusive
+Democracy**, p. 35 and p. 141] In addition, the world economy has become far
less stable with regular financial crises sweeping the world of de-regulated
capitalism every few years or so.
@@ -921,15 +921,15 @@ has performed steadily less well. The 1970s were worse than the 1960s, the
[_"The Economics of Global Turbulence"_, **New Left Review**, no. 229, p. 236]
This is ironic because during the crisis of Keynesianism in the 1970s the
right argued that too much equality and democracy harmed the economy, and so
-us all worse-of in the long run (due to lower growth, sluggish investment and
-so on). However, after decades of pro-capitalist governments, rising
-inequality, increased freedom for capital and its owners and managers, the
-weakening of trade unions and so on, economic growth has become worse!
+made us all worse-off in the long run (due to lower growth, sluggish
+investment and so on). However, after decades of pro-capitalist governments,
+rising inequality, increased freedom for capital and its owners and managers,
+the weakening of trade unions and so on, economic growth has become worse!
If we look at the USA in the 1990s (usually presented as an economy that "got
it right") we find that the _"cyclical upturn of the 1990s has, in terms of
the main macro-economic indicators of growth -- output, investment,
-productivity, and real compensation \-- has been even less dynamic than its
+productivity, and real compensation -- has been even less dynamic than its
relatively weak predecessors of the 1980s and the 1970s (not to mention those
of the 1950s and 1960s)."_ [Brenner, **Op. Cit.**, p. 5] Of course, the
economy is presented as a success -- inequality is growing, the rich are
@@ -938,7 +938,7 @@ for the rich and finance capital, it can be considered a "Golden Age" and so
is presented as such by the media. As economist Paul Krugman summarises, in
America while the bulk of the population are working longer and harder to make
ends meet _"the really big gains went to the really, really rich."_ In fact,
-_only the top 1 percent has done better since the 1970s than it did in the
+_“only the top 1 percent has done better since the 1970s than it did in the
generation after World War II. Once you get way up the scale, however, the
gains have been spectacular -- the top tenth of a percent saw its income rise
fivefold, and the top .01 percent of American is seven times richer than they
@@ -1009,17 +1009,16 @@ economic distress reach the elite.
Crisis (particularly financial crisis) has become increasingly visible,
reflecting the underlying weakness of the global economy (rising inequality,
lack of investment in producing real goods in favour of speculation in
-finance, etc.). This underlying weakness has been hidden by the speculator
-performance of the world's stock markets, which, ironically enough, has helped
-create that weakness to begin with! As one expert on Wall Street argues,
-_"Bond markets . . . hate economic strength . . . Stocks generally behave
-badly just as the real economy is at its strongest . . . Stocks thrive on a
-cool economy, and wither in a hot one."_ In other words, real economic
-weakness is reflected in financial strength. Unsurprisingly, then, _"[w]hat
-might be called the rentier share of the corporate surplus -- dividends plus
-interest as a percentage of pre-tax profits and interest -- has risen sharply,
-from 20-30% in the 1950s to 60% in the 1990s."_ [Doug Henwood, **Wall
-Street**, p. 124 and p. 73]
+finance, etc.). This underlying weakness has been hidden by large rises in the
+world's stock markets, which, ironically enough, has helped create that
+weakness to begin with! As one expert on Wall Street argues, _"Bond markets .
+. . hate economic strength . . . Stocks generally behave badly just as the
+real economy is at its strongest . . . Stocks thrive on a cool economy, and
+wither in a hot one."_ In other words, real economic weakness is reflected in
+financial strength. Unsurprisingly, then, _"[w]hat might be called the rentier
+share of the corporate surplus -- dividends plus interest as a percentage of
+pre-tax profits and interest -- has risen sharply, from 20-30% in the 1950s to
+60% in the 1990s."_ [Doug Henwood, **Wall Street**, p. 124 and p. 73]
This helps explain the stagnation which has afflicted the economies of the
west. The rich have been placing more of their ever-expanding wealth in
@@ -1173,7 +1172,7 @@ This stagnation has became even more obvious by the development of deep crisis
in many countries at the end of the 2000s. This caused central banks to
intervene in order to try and revive the real economies that have suffered
under their rentier inspired policies since the 1970s. Such action may just
-ensure continued stagnation and reflated bubbles rather than a real-up turn.
+ensure continued stagnation and reflated bubbles rather than a real up-turn.
One thing is true, however, and that is the working class will pay the price
of any "solution" -- unless they organise and get rid of capitalism and the
state. Ultimately, capitalism need profits to survive and such profits came
@@ -1184,7 +1183,7 @@ of working class people.
## J.4.5 Why is this _"economic structural crisis"_ important to social
struggle?
-The _**"economic structural crisis"_** we out-lined in the [last
+The **_"economic structural crisis"_** we out-lined in the [last
section](secJ4.html#secj44) has certain implications for anarchists and social
struggle. Essentially, as C. George Benello argued, _"[i]f economic conditions
worsen . . . then we are likely to find an openness to alternatives which have
@@ -1195,9 +1194,9 @@ the Ground Up**, p. 149]
In the face of economic stagnation and depression, attempts to generate more
profits (i.e., increase exploitation) by increasing the authority of the boss
-grow. In addition, more people find it harder to make ends meet, running up
-debts to survive, face homelessness if they are made unemployed, and so on.
-This makes exploitation ever more visible and tend to push oppressed strata
+grow. In addition, more people find it harder to make ends meet, run up debts
+to survive, face homelessness if they are made unemployed, and so on. This
+makes exploitation ever more visible and tends to push oppressed strata
together in movements that seek to mitigate, and even remove, their
oppression. As the capitalist era has worn on, these strata have become
increasingly able to rebel and gain substantial political and economic
@@ -1223,7 +1222,7 @@ movement, rank-and-file labour militancy, etc.) with non-authoritarian
liberation movements in the Third World and new movements in formerly
Stalinist countries. However, this is only likely to happen if anarchists take
the lead in promoting alternatives and working with the mass of the
-population. Ways in which anarchist can do this are discussed in some detail
+population. Ways in which anarchists can do this are discussed in some detail
in [section J.5](secJ5.html).
Thus the _"economic structural crisis"_ can aid social struggle by placing the
@@ -1254,7 +1253,7 @@ potential to get their message across, even if the overall environment may
make success seem difficult at times!
As well as encouraging workplace organisation due to the intensification of
-exploitation and authority provoked by the economic stagnant/depression, the
+exploitation and authority provoked by the economic stagnation/depression, the
"economic structural crisis" can encourage other forms of libertarian
alternatives. For example, the _"economic structural crisis"_ has resulted in
the erosion of the welfare state (at least for the working class, for the
@@ -1273,7 +1272,7 @@ services to the weakest sections of our society -- which possibility comes
about depends on what we do in the here and now. See [section
J.5.15](secJ5.html#secj515) for an anarchist analysis of the welfare state).
-**Food Not Bombs!** (FNB) is an excellent example of practical libertarian alternatives being generated by the economic crisis we are facing. FNB is a community-based group which helps the homeless through the direct action of its members. It also involves the homeless in helping themselves. It serves free food in public places to expose the plight of the homeless, the callousness of the system and our capacity to solve social problems through our own actions without government or capitalism. The constant harassment of FNB by the police, middle classes and the government illustrates their callousness to the plight of the poor and the failure of their institutions to build a society which cares for people more than money and property (and the police and prisons to protect them). The fact is that in the US many working and unemployed people have no **feeling** that they are entitled to basic human needs such as medicine, clothes, shelter, and food. FNB encourages poor people to make these demands, provides a space in which these demands can be voiced, and helps to breakdown the wall between hungry and not-hungry. The repression directed towards FNB by local police forces and governments also demonstrates the effectiveness of their activity and the possibility that it may radicalise those who get involved with the organisation. Charity is obviously one thing, mutual aid is something else. FNB is a politicised movement from below, based on solidarity, **not** charity as, in Kropotkin's words, charity _"bears a character of inspiration from above, and, accordingly, implies a certain superiority of the giver upon the receiver."_ [**Mutual Aid**, p. 222]
+**Food Not Bombs!** (FNB) is an excellent example of practical libertarian alternatives being generated by the economic crisis we are facing. FNB is a community-based group which helps the homeless through the direct action of its members. It also involves the homeless in helping themselves. It serves free food in public places to expose the plight of the homeless, the callousness of the system and our capacity to solve social problems through our own actions without government or capitalism. The constant harassment of FNB by the police, middle classes and the government illustrates their callousness to the plight of the poor and the failure of their institutions to build a society which cares for people more than money and property (and the police and prisons to protect them). The fact is that in the US many working and unemployed people have no **feeling** that they are entitled to basic human needs such as medicine, clothes, shelter, and food. FNB encourages poor people to make these demands, provides a space in which these demands can be voiced, and helps to breakdown the wall between hungry and not-hungry. The repression directed towards FNB by local police forces and governments also demonstrates the effectiveness of their activity and the possibility that it may radicalise those who get involved with the organisation. Charity is obviously one thing, mutual aid is something else. FNB is a politicised movement from below, based on solidarity, **not** charity as, in Kropotkin's words, charity _"bears a character of inspiration from above, and, accordingly, implies a certain superiority of the giver upon the receiver."_ [**Mutual Aid**, p. 222]
The last example of how economic stagnation can generate libertarian
tendencies can be seen from the fact that, _"[h]istorically, at times of
@@ -1338,7 +1337,7 @@ ideals."_ [Lindenfield, **Op. Cit.**, p. 28] And such a community would be a
great aid in any strike or other social struggle which is going on!
The general economic crisis which we are facing has implications for social
-struggle and anarchist activism. It could be the basic of libertarian
+struggle and anarchist activism. It could be the basis of libertarian
alternatives in our workplaces and communities, alternatives based on direct
action, solidarity and self-management. These alternatives could include
workplace and community unionism, co-operatives, mutual banks and other forms
@@ -1393,17 +1392,17 @@ as well as increased state support for the power of the boss over the worker
and the landlord over the tenant.
If you look at what the Right has done and is doing, rather than what it is
-saying, you quickly see the ridiculous of claims of right-wing
+saying, you quickly see the ridiculousness of claims of right-wing
"libertarianism" (as well as who is really in charge). Obstructing pollution
and health regulations; defunding product safety laws; opening national parks
to logging and mining, or closing them entirely; reducing taxes for the rich;
eliminating the capital gains tax; allowing companies to fire striking
workers; making it easier for big telecommunications companies to dominate the
-media; limiting companies' liability for unsafe products \-- the objective
-here is obviously to help big business and the wealthy do what they want
-without government interference, helping the rich get richer and increasing
-"freedom" for private power combined with a state whose sole role is to
-protect that "liberty."
+media; limiting companies' liability for unsafe products -- the objective here
+is obviously to help big business and the wealthy do what they want without
+government interference, helping the rich get richer and increasing "freedom"
+for private power combined with a state whose sole role is to protect that
+"liberty."
Such right-wing tendencies do not have anarchistic elements. The "anti-
government" propaganda of big business is hardly anarchistic. What anarchists
@@ -1470,18 +1469,18 @@ The very existence of the Internet provides anarchists with a powerful
argument that decentralised structures can function effectively in a highly
complex world. For the net has no centralised headquarters and is not subject
to regulation by any centralised regulatory agency, yet it still manages to
-function effectively. Moreover, the net is also an effective way of anarchists
-and other radicals to communicate their ideas to others, share knowledge, work
-on common projects and co-ordinate activities and social struggle. By using
-the Internet, radicals can make their ideas accessible to people who otherwise
-would not come across anarchist ideas. In addition, and far more important
-than anarchists putting their ideas across, the fact is that the net allows
-everyone with access to express themselves freely, to communicate with others
-and get access (by visiting webpages and joining mailing lists and newsgroups)
-and give access (by creating webpages and joining in with on-line arguments)
-to new ideas and viewpoints. This is very anarchistic as it allows people to
-express themselves and start to consider new ideas, ideas which may change how
-they think and act.
+function effectively. Moreover, the net is also an effective way for
+anarchists and other radicals to communicate their ideas to others, share
+knowledge, work on common projects and co-ordinate activities and social
+struggle. By using the Internet, radicals can make their ideas accessible to
+people who otherwise would not come across anarchist ideas. In addition, and
+far more important than anarchists putting their ideas across, the fact is
+that the net allows everyone with access to express themselves freely, to
+communicate with others and get access (by visiting webpages and joining
+mailing lists and newsgroups) and give access (by creating webpages and
+joining in with on-line arguments) to new ideas and viewpoints. This is very
+anarchistic as it allows people to express themselves and start to consider
+new ideas, ideas which may change how they think and act.
Obviously we are aware that the vast majority of people in the world do not
have access to telephones, never mind computers, but computer access is
@@ -1545,14 +1544,14 @@ companies or individuals, so hindering the industry as a whole.
Encouragingly, this socialistic "gift economy" is still at the heart of
computer/software development and the Internet. For example, the **Free
Software Foundation** has developed the **General Public Licence** (GPL). GPL,
-also know as _**"copyleft"_**, uses copyright to ensure that software remains
+also known as **_"copyleft"_**, uses copyright to ensure that software remains
free. Copyleft ensures that a piece of software is made available to everyone
to use and modify as they desire. The only restriction is that any used or
modified copyleft material must remain under copyleft, ensuring that others
have the same rights as you did when you used the original code. It creates a
commons which anyone may add to, but no one may subtract from. Placing
software under GPL means that every contributor is assured that she, and all
-other uses, will be able to run, modify and redistribute the code
+other users, will be able to run, modify and redistribute the code
indefinitely. Unlike commercial software, copyleft code ensures an increasing
knowledge base from which individuals can draw from and, equally as important,
contribute to. In this way everyone benefits as code can be improved by
@@ -1585,11 +1584,11 @@ since its creation in 1948, a private appendage of the military industrial
complex). In other words, activism and activists' power and influence has been
fuelled by the advent of the information revolution. Through computer and
communication networks, especially via the Internet, grassroots campaigns have
-flourished, and the most importantly, government elites have taken notice.
+flourished, and most importantly, government elites have taken notice.
Ronfeldt specialises in issues of national security, especially in the areas
of Latin American and the impact of new informational technologies. Ronfeldt
-and another colleague coined the term _**"netwar"_** in a Rand document
+and another colleague coined the term **_"netwar"_** in a Rand document
entitled _"Cyberwar is Coming!"_. Ronfeldt's work became a source of
discussion on the Internet in mid-March 1995 when Pacific News Service
correspondent Joel Simon wrote an article about Ronfeldt's opinions on the
@@ -1597,13 +1596,13 @@ influence of netwars on the political situation in Mexico after the Zapatista
uprising. According to Simon, Ronfeldt holds that the work of social activists
on the Internet has had a large influence -- helping to co-ordinate the large
demonstrations in Mexico City in support of the Zapatistas and the
-proliferation of EZLN communiqus across the world via computer networks. These
-actions, Ronfeldt argues, have allowed a network of groups that oppose the
-Mexican Government to muster an international response, often within hours of
-actions by it. In effect, this has forced the Mexican government to maintain
-the facade of negotiations with the EZLN and has on many occasions, actually
-stopped the army from just going in to Chiapas and brutally massacring the
-Zapatistas.
+proliferation of EZLN communiqués across the world via computer networks.
+These actions, Ronfeldt argues, have allowed a network of groups that oppose
+the Mexican Government to muster an international response, often within hours
+of actions by it. In effect, this has forced the Mexican government to
+maintain the facade of negotiations with the EZLN and has on many occasions,
+actually stopped the army from just going in to Chiapas and brutally
+massacring the Zapatistas.
Given that Ronfeldt was an employee of the Rand Corporation his comments
indicate that the U.S. government and its military and intelligence wings are
@@ -1643,3 +1642,8 @@ copyleft are good examples of anarchistic trends within society, using
communications technology as a means of co-ordinating activity across the
world in a libertarian fashion for libertarian goals.
+[‹ J.3 What kinds of organisation do anarchists build?](/afaq/secJ3.html "Go
+to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secJcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [J.5 What
+alternative social organisations do anarchists create? ›](/afaq/secJ5.html "Go
+to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secJ5.md b/markdown/secJ5.md
index c86cb54d3719802ef6b426f94e44a0b9ec69a15a..5dc9342c884ce2aec1bf6cd41a1e4058baf2f0c6 100644
--- a/markdown/secJ5.md
+++ b/markdown/secJ5.md
@@ -11,18 +11,18 @@ responsibilities of freedom:
> _"If we put into practice the principles of libertarian communism within our
organisations, the more advanced and prepared we will be on that day when we
come to adopt it completely."_ [C.N.T. member, quoted by Graham Kelsey,
-**Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Communism and the State**,p. 79]
+**Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Communism and the State**, p. 79]
This idea (to quote the IWW) of _"building a new world in the shell of the
old"_ is a long standing one in anarchism. Proudhon during the 1848 revolution
_"propose[d] that a provisional committee be set up"_ in Paris and _"liaise
with similar committees"_ elsewhere in France. This would be _"a body
-representative of the proletariat . . ., a state within the state, in
-opposition to the bourgeois representatives."_ He proclaimed to working class
-people that _"a new society be founded in the heart of the old society"_ for
-_"the government can do nothing for you. But you can do everything for
-yourselves."_ [_"Aux Pariotes"_, **La Reprsantant du Peuple**, No. 33] This
-was echoed by Bakunin (see [section H.2.8](secH2.html#sech28)) while for
+representative of the proletariat . . .,** imperium in imperio **[a state
+within the state], in opposition to the bourgeois representatives."_ He
+proclaimed to working class people that _"a new society be founded in the
+heart of the old society"_ for _"the government can do nothing for you. But
+you can do everything for yourselves."_ [**Property is Theft!**, pp. 321-2]
+This was echoed by Bakunin (see [section H.2.8](secH2.html#sech28)) while for
revolutionary syndicalists the aim was _"to constitute within the bourgeois
State a veritable socialist (economic and anarchic) State."_ [Fernand
Pelloutier, quoted by Jeremy Jennings, **Syndicalism in France**, p. 22] By so
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ tendencies within capitalist society which will ultimately replace it.
Therefore it is wrong to think that libertarians are indifferent to making
life more bearable, even more enjoyable, under capitalism. A free society will
-not just appear from nowhere, it will be created be individuals and
+not just appear from nowhere, it will be created by individuals and
communities with a long history of social struggle and organisation. For as
Wilheim Reich so correctly pointed out:
@@ -58,14 +58,14 @@ practical bridge between now and the future free society.
Anarchists consider the building of alternatives as a key aspect of their
activity under capitalism. This is because they, like all forms of direct
-action, are _**"schools of anarchy"**_ and also because they make the
+action, are **_"schools of anarchy"_** and also because they make the
transition to a free society easier. _"Through the organisations set up for
the defence of their interests,"_ in Malatesta's words, _"the workers develop
an awareness of the oppression they suffer and the antagonism that divides
them from the bosses and as a result begin to aspire to a better life, become
accustomed to collective struggle and solidarity and win those improvements
that are possible within the capitalist and state regime."_ [**The Anarchist
-Revolution**, p. 95] By creating viable examples of _**"anarchy in action"_**
+Revolution**, p. 95] By creating viable examples of **_"anarchy in action"_**
we can show that our ideas are practical and convince people that they are not
utopian. Therefore this section of the FAQ will indicate the alternatives
anarchists support and **why** we support them.
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ anarchists support and **why** we support them.
The approach anarchists take to this activity could be termed **_"social
unionism"_** \-- the collective action of groups to change certain aspects
(and, ultimately, all aspects) of their lives. This takes many different forms
-in many different areas (some of which, not all, are discussed here) \-- but
+in many different areas (some of which, not all, are discussed here) -- but
they share the same basic aspects of collective direct action, self-
organisation, self-management, solidarity and mutual aid. These are a means
_"of raising the morale of the workers, accustom them to free initiative and
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ imagining, desiring and putting into practice an anarchist life."_ [Malatesta,
**Op. Cit.**, p. 28] Kropotkin summed up the anarchist perspective well when
he argued that working class people had _"to form their own organisations for
a direct struggle against capitalism"_ and to _"take possession of the
-necessaries for production, and to control production."_ [**Memiors of a
+necessaries for production, and to control production."_ [**Memoirs of a
Revolutionist**, p. 359] As historian J. Romero Maura correctly summarised,
the _"anarchist revolution, when it came, would be essentially brought about
by the working class. Revolutionaries needed to gather great strength and must
@@ -98,10 +98,9 @@ Like freedom, self-help should be saved from the clutches of the right who
have no real claim to that expression. Indeed, anarchism was created from and
based itself upon working class self-help -- for what other interpretation can
be gathered from Proudhon's 1848 statement that _"the proletariat must
-emancipate itself"_? [quoted by George Woodcock, **Pierre-Joseph Proudhon**,
-p. 125] So Anarchists have great faith in the abilities of working class
-people to work out for themselves what their problems are and act to solve
-them.
+emancipate itself"_? [**Property is Theft!**, p. 306] So Anarchists have great
+faith in the abilities of working class people to work out for themselves what
+their problems are and act to solve them.
Anarchist support and promotion of alternatives is a **key** aspect of this
process of self-liberation, and so a key aspect of anarchism. While strikes,
@@ -154,11 +153,11 @@ capitalism and the state must be fought, not ignored. In addition, due to
their small size, they are rarely viable experiments in communal living and
nearly always fail after a short time (for a good summary of Kropotkin's
attitude to such communities, which can be taken as typical, see Graham
-Purchase's **Evolution & Revolution** [pp. 122-125]). Dropping out will not
-stop capitalism and the state and while such communities may try to ignore the
-system, they will find that the system will not ignore them -- they will come
-under competitive and ecological pressures from capitalism whether they like
-it or not assuming they avoid direct political interference.
+Purchase's **Evolution & Revolution** [pp. 122-125]). Dropping out will
+not stop capitalism and the state and while such communities may try to ignore
+the system, they will find that the system will not ignore them -- they will
+come under competitive and ecological pressures from capitalism whether they
+like it or not assuming they avoid direct political interference.
So the alternatives we discuss here are attempts to create anarchist
alternatives within capitalism and which aim to **change** it (either by
@@ -175,14 +174,14 @@ society in order to transform it.
Basically, a community union is the creation of interested members of a
community who decide to form an organisation to fight against injustice and
-improvements locally. It is a forum by which inhabitants can raise issues that
-affect themselves and others and provide a means of solving these problems. As
-such, it is a means of directly involving local people in the life of their
-own communities and collectively solving the problems facing them as both
-individuals and as part of a wider society. In this way, local people take
-part in deciding what effects them and their community and create a self-
-managed "dual power" to the local and national state. They also, by taking
-part in self-managed community assemblies, develop their ability to
+for improvements locally. It is a forum by which inhabitants can raise issues
+that affect themselves and others and provide a means of solving these
+problems. As such, it is a means of directly involving local people in the
+life of their own communities and collectively solving the problems facing
+them as both individuals and as part of a wider society. In this way, local
+people take part in deciding what affects them and their community and create
+a self-managed "dual power" to the local and national state. They also, by
+taking part in self-managed community assemblies, develop their ability to
participate and manage their own affairs, so showing that the state is
unnecessary and harmful to their interests. Politics, therefore, is not
separated into a specialised activity that only certain people do (i.e.
@@ -192,7 +191,7 @@ in the hands of all.
As would be imagined, like the participatory communities that would exist in
an anarchist society (see [section I.5](secI5.html)), the community union
would be based upon a mass assembly of its members. Here would be discussed
-the issues that effect the membership and how to solve them. Thus issues like
+the issues that affect the membership and how to solve them. Thus issues like
rent increases, school closures, rising cost of living, taxation, cuts and
state-imposed "reforms" to the nature and quality of public services,
utilities and resources, repressive laws and so on could be debated and action
@@ -221,12 +220,12 @@ Such community unions have been formed in many different countries in recent
years to fight against numerous attacks on the working class. In the late
1980s and early 1990s groups were created in neighbourhoods across Britain to
organise non-payment of the Conservative government's Community Charge
-(popularly known as the poll tax, this tax was independent on income and was
+(popularly known as the poll tax, this tax was independent of income and was
based on the electoral register). Federations of these groups were created to
-co-ordinate the struggle and pull resources and, in the end, ensured that the
+co-ordinate the struggle and pool resources and, in the end, ensured that the
government withdrew the hated tax and helped push Thatcher out of government.
-In Ireland, similar groups were formed to defeat the privatisation of the
-water industry by a similar non-payment campaign in the mid-1990s.
+In Ireland, groups were formed to defeat the privatisation of the water
+industry by a similar non-payment campaign in the mid-1990s.
However, few of these groups have been taken as part of a wider strategy to
empower the local community but the few that have indicate the potential of
@@ -297,7 +296,7 @@ movement took them up _"from necessity."_ [Marina Sitrin (ed.),
The idea of community organising has long existed within anarchism. Kropotkin
pointed to the directly democratic assemblies of Paris during the French
-Revolution> These were _"constituted as so many mediums of popular
+Revolution These were _"constituted as so many mediums of popular
administration, it remained of the people, and this is what made the
revolutionary power of these organisations."_ This ensured that the local
revolutionary councils _"which sprang from the popular movement was not
@@ -312,7 +311,7 @@ Paris was not to be a governed State, but a people governing itself directly
-- when possible -- without intermediaries, without masters"_ and so _"the
principles of anarchism . . . had their origin, not in theoretic speculations,
but in the **deeds** of the Great French Revolution."_ This _"laid the
-foundations of a new, free, social organisation"_and Kropotkin predicted that
+foundations of a new, free, social organisation" _and Kropotkin predicted that
_"the libertarians would no doubt do the same to-day."_ [**Great French
Revolution**, vol. 1, p. 201, p. 203, pp. 210-1, p. 210, p. 204 and p. 206]
@@ -360,9 +359,9 @@ of demands for the movement. By July, 45,000 people were taking part in the
rent strike and this rose to over 100,000 by August. As well as refusing to
pay rent, families were placed back into their homes from which they had been
evicted. The movement spread to a number of the outlying towns which set up
-their own Economic Defence Commissions. The local groups co-ordinated actions
-their actions out of CNT union halls or local libertarian community centres.
-The movement faced increased state repression but in many parts of Barcelona
+their own Economic Defence Commissions. The local groups co-ordinated their
+actions out of CNT union halls or local libertarian community centres. The
+movement faced increased state repression but in many parts of Barcelona
landlords had been forced to come to terms with their tenants, agreeing to
reduced rents rather than facing the prospect of having no income for an
extended period or the landlord simply agreed to forget the unpaid rents from
@@ -370,15 +369,15 @@ the period of the rent strike. [Nick Rider, _"The Practice of Direct Action:
the Barcelona rent strike of 1931"_, **For Anarchism**, David Goodway (ed.),
pp. 79-105] As Abel Paz summarised:
-> _ "Unemployed workers did not receive or ask for state aid . . . The
-workers' first response to the economic crisis was the rent, gas, and
-electricity strike in mid-1933, which the CNT and FAI's Economic Defence
-Committee had been laying the foundations for since 1931. Likewise, house,
-street, and neighbourhood groups began to turn out en masse to stop evictions
-and other coercive acts ordered by the landlords (always with police support).
-The people were constantly mobilised. Women and youngsters were particularly
+> _"Unemployed workers did not receive or ask for state aid . . . The workers'
+first response to the economic crisis was the rent, gas, and electricity
+strike in mid-1933, which the CNT and FAI's Economic Defence Committee had
+been laying the foundations for since 1931. Likewise, house, street, and
+neighbourhood groups began to turn out en masse to stop evictions and other
+coercive acts ordered by the landlords (always with police support). The
+people were constantly mobilised. Women and youngsters were particularly
active; it was they who challenged the police and stopped the endless
-evictions."_ [**Durrutu in the Spanish Revolution**, p. 308]
+evictions."_ [**Durruti in the Spanish Revolution**, p. 308]
In Gijon, the CNT _"reinforced its populist image by . . . its direct consumer
campaigns. Some of these were organised through the federation's Anti-
@@ -405,7 +404,7 @@ pursue the same extra-legal channels of activism that they had developed under
the monarchy."_ [Pamela Beth Radcliff, **From mobilization to civil war**, pp.
287-288 and p. 289]
-In these ways, grassroots movements from below were created, with direct
+> In these ways, grassroots movements from below were created, with direct
democracy and participation becoming an inherent part of a local political
culture of resistance, with people deciding things for themselves directly and
without hierarchy. Such developments are the embryonic structures of a world
@@ -448,22 +447,18 @@ industrial federations._
> _"The **union and the free municipality** will assume the collective or
common ownership of everything which is under private ownership at present
[but collectively used] and will regulate production and consumption (in a
-word, the economy) in each locality._
+word, the economy) in each locality. _
-
-
- _"The very bringing together of the two terms (communism and libertarian) is
+> _"The very bringing together of the two terms (communism and libertarian) is
indicative in itself of the fusion of two ideas: one of them is collectivist,
tending to bring about harmony in the whole through the contributions and co-
operation of individuals, without undermining their independence in any way;
while the other is individualist, seeking to reassure the individual that his
independence will be respected."_ [**Libertarian Communism**, pp. 6-7]
-
-
- The combination of community unionism, along with industrial unionism (see
+The combination of community unionism, along with industrial unionism (see
[next section](secJ5.html#secj52)), will be the key to creating an anarchist
-society, Community unionism, by creating the free commune within the state,
+society. Community unionism, by creating the free commune within the state,
allows us to become accustomed to managing our own affairs and seeing that an
injury to one is an injury to all. In this way a social power is created in
opposition to the state. The town council may still be in the hands of
@@ -471,13 +466,9 @@ politicians, but neither they nor the central government would be able to move
without worrying about what the people's reaction might be, as expressed and
organised in their community assemblies and federations.
+## J.5.2 Why do anarchists support industrial unionism?
-
- ## J.5.2 Why do anarchists support industrial unionism?
-
-
-
- Simply because it is effective in resisting capitalist exploitation and
+Simply because it is effective in resisting capitalist exploitation and
winning reforms, ending capitalist oppression and expresses our ideas on how
industry will be organised in an anarchist society. For workers _"have the
most enormous power in their hands, and, if they once become thoroughly
@@ -488,9 +479,7 @@ there."_ [Max Stirner, **The Ego and Its Own**, p. 116] Industrial unionism is
simply libertarian workplace organisation and is the best way of organising
and exercising this power.
-
-
- Before discussing why anarchists support industrial unionism, we must point
+Before discussing why anarchists support industrial unionism, we must point
out that the type of unionism anarchists support has very little in common
with that associated with reformist unions like the TUC in Britain or the AFL-
CIO in the USA (see [next section](secJ5.html#secj53)). In such unions, as
@@ -506,9 +495,7 @@ anarchists oppose such forms of unionism as being counter to the interests of
their members. The long history of union officials betraying their members is
proof enough of this.
-
-
- Anarchists propose a different kind of workplace organisation, one that is
+Anarchists propose a different kind of workplace organisation, one that is
organised in a different manner than the mainstream unions. We will call this
new kind of organisation **_"industrial unionism"_** (although perhaps
industrial syndicalism, or just syndicalism, might be a better name for it).
@@ -519,9 +506,7 @@ they are called, all class struggle anarchists support the same organisational
structure we are going to outline. It is purely for convenience that we term
this industrial unionism.
-
-
- An industrial union is a union which organises all workers in a given
+An industrial union is a union which organises all workers in a given
workplace and so regardless of their actual trade everyone would be in the one
union. On a building site, for example, brick-layers, plumbers, carpenters and
so on would all be a member of the Building Workers Union. Each trade may have
@@ -531,9 +516,7 @@ be an assembly of all workers employed in a workplace. As they all have the
same employer, the same exploiter, it is logical for them to have the same
union.
-
-
- It is organised by the guiding principle that workers should directly control
+It is organised by the guiding principle that workers should directly control
their own organisations and struggles. It is based upon workplace assemblies
because workers have _"tremendous power"_ as the _"creator of all wealth"_ but
_"the strength of the worker is not in the union meeting-hall; it is in the
@@ -547,9 +530,7 @@ potentialities."_ [Berkman, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 205-6] This confederation is
usually organised on two directions, between different workplaces in the same
industry as well as between different workplaces in the same locality.
-
-
- So industrial unionism is different from ordinary trade unionism (usually
+So industrial unionism is different from ordinary trade unionism (usually
called business unionism by anarchists and syndicalists as it treats the
union's job purely as the seller of its members' labour power). It is based on
unions managed directly by the rank and file membership rather than by elected
@@ -563,9 +544,7 @@ managing its own affairs. No union officials have the power to declare strikes
automatically "official" simply because the branch decided it in a mass
meeting.
-
-
- Power in such an organisation would be decentralised into the hands of the
+Power in such an organisation would be decentralised into the hands of the
membership, as expressed in local workplace assemblies. To co-ordinate strikes
and other forms of action, these autonomous branches are part of a federal
structure. The mass meeting in the workplace mandates delegates to express the
@@ -588,9 +567,7 @@ overlap: labour councils would support an industry wide strike or action while
industrial unions would support action conducted by its member unions called
by labour councils.
-
-
- However, industrial unionism should **not** be confused with a closed shop
+However, industrial unionism should **not** be confused with a closed shop
situation where workers are forced to join a union when they become a wage
slave in a workplace. While anarchists do desire to see all workers unite in
one organisation, it is vitally important that workers can leave a union and
@@ -607,17 +584,15 @@ membership, and so avoids any leadership or bureaucracy."_ [**Anarchism:
Arguments for and against**, p. 56] Without voluntary membership even the most
libertarian union may become bureaucratic and unresponsive to the needs of its
members and the class struggle (also see Tom Wetzel's excellent article _"The
-Origins of the Union Shop"_, [**Ideas & Action** no. 11]). Needless to say, if
-the union membership refuses to work with non-union members then that is a
-different situation. Then this is an issue of free association (as free
+Origins of the Union Shop"_, [**Ideas & Action** no. 11]). Needless to
+say, if the union membership refuses to work with non-union members then that
+is a different situation. Then this is an issue of free association (as free
association clearly implies the right **not** to associate). This issue rarely
arises and most syndicalist unions operate in workplaces with other unions
-(the excepts arise, as happened frequently in Spanish labour history with the
-Marxist UGT, when the other union scabs when workers are on strike).
-
+(the exceptions arise, as happened frequently in Spanish labour history with
+the Marxist UGT, when the other union scabs when workers are on strike).
-
- In industrial unionism, the membership, assembled in their place of work, are
+In industrial unionism, the membership, assembled in their place of work, are
the ones to decide when to strike, when to pay strike pay, what tactics to
use, what demands to make, what issues to fight over and whether an action is
"official" or "unofficial". In this way the rank and file is in control of
@@ -651,9 +626,7 @@ the less power he has._
> _"The factory Syndicate has full autonomy over its own affairs."_
[**Syndicalism**, pp. 35-36]
-
-
- Such federalism exists to co-ordinate struggle, to ensure that solidarity
+Such federalism exists to co-ordinate struggle, to ensure that solidarity
becomes more than a word written on banners. We are sure that many radicals
will argue that such decentralised, confederal organisations would produce
confusion and disunity. However, anarchists maintain that the statist,
@@ -686,9 +659,7 @@ kills the spirit and the vital initiative of its members and sets up that
domination by mediocrity which is the characteristic of all bureaucracies."_
[**Anarcho-Syndicalism**, p. 61]
-
-
- Centralised unions ensure that it is the highest level of union officialdom
+Centralised unions ensure that it is the highest level of union officialdom
which decides when workers are allowed to strike. Instead of those affected
acting, _"the dispute must be reported to the district office of the union
(and in some cases to an area office) then to head office, then back again . .
@@ -703,41 +674,36 @@ autonomy of the unions, but to the lack of it."_ [Earl C. Ford and William Z.
Foster, **Syndicalism**, p. 38] So the industrial union _"is based on the
principles of Federalism, on free combination from below upwards, putting the
right of self-determination . . . above everything else"_ and so rejects
-centralism as an _"artifical organisation from above downwards which turns
+centralism as an _"artificial organisation from above downwards which turns
over the affairs of everybody in a lump to a small minority"_ and is _"always
attended by barren official routine"_ as well as _"lifeless discipline and
bureaucratic ossification."_ [Rocker, **Op. Cit.**, p. 60]
-
-
- This implies that as well as being decentralised and organised from the
-bottom up, the industrial union differs from the normal trade union by having
-no full-time officials. All union business is conducted by elected fellow
-workers who do their union activities after work or, if it has to be done
-during work hours, they get the wages they lost while on union business. In
-this way no bureaucracy of well paid officials is created and all union
-militants remain in direct contact with their fellow workers. Given that it is
-**their** wages, working conditions and so on that are effected by their union
-activity they have a real interest in making the union an effective
-organisation and ensuring that it reflects the interests of the rank and file.
-In addition, all part-time union "officials" are elected, mandated and
-recallable delegates. If the fellow worker who is elected to the local labour
-council or other union committee is not reflecting the opinions of those who
-mandated him or her then the union assembly can countermand their decision,
-recall them and replace them with someone who **will** reflect these
-decisions. In short, _"the Syndicalist stands firmly by these things -- mass
-meetings, delegates not bosses, the right of recall . . . Syndicalism is
-organised from the bottom upwards . . . all power comes from below and is
-controlled from below. This is a revolutionary principle."_ [Brown, **Op.
-Cit.**, p. 85]
-
-
-
- As can be seen, industrial unionism reflects anarchist ideas of organisation
+This implies that as well as being decentralised and organised from the bottom
+up, the industrial union differs from the normal trade union by having no
+full-time officials. All union business is conducted by elected fellow workers
+who do their union activities after work or, if it has to be done during work
+hours, they get the wages they lost while on union business. In this way no
+bureaucracy of well paid officials is created and all union militants remain
+in direct contact with their fellow workers. Given that it is **their** wages,
+working conditions and so on that are affected by their union activity they
+have a real interest in making the union an effective organisation and
+ensuring that it reflects the interests of the rank and file. In addition, all
+part-time union "officials" are elected, mandated and recallable delegates. If
+the fellow worker who is elected to the local labour council or other union
+committee is not reflecting the opinions of those who mandated him or her then
+the union assembly can countermand their decision, recall them and replace
+them with someone who **will** reflect these decisions. In short, _"the
+Syndicalist stands firmly by these things -- mass meetings, delegates not
+bosses, the right of recall . . . Syndicalism is organised from the bottom
+upwards . . . all power comes from below and is controlled from below. This is
+a revolutionary principle."_ [Brown, **Op. Cit.**, p. 85]
+
+As can be seen, industrial unionism reflects anarchist ideas of organisation
-- it is organised from the bottom up, it is decentralised and based upon
federation and it is directly managed by its members in mass assemblies. It is
anarchism applied to industry and the needs of the class struggle. By
-supporting such forms of organisations, anarchists are not only seeing
+supporting such forms of organisation, anarchists are not only seeing
_"anarchy in action"_, they are forming effective tools which can win the
class war. By organising in this manner, workers are building the framework of
a co-operative society within capitalism:
@@ -754,9 +720,7 @@ they will be capable of taking the socio-economic organism into their own
hands and remaking it according to Socialist principles."_ [Rocker, **Op.
Cit.**, pp. 56-7]
-
-
- So _"[a]t the same time that syndicalism exerts this unrelenting pressure on
+So _"[a]t the same time that syndicalism exerts this unrelenting pressure on
capitalism, it tries to build the new social order within the old. The unions
and the 'labour councils' are not merely means of struggle and instruments of
social revolution; they are also the very structure around which to build a
@@ -767,24 +731,20 @@ p. 121] The industrial union is seen as prefiguring the future society, a
society which (like the union) is decentralised and self-managed in all
aspects.
-
-
- Given the fact that workers wages have been stagnating (or, at best, falling
+Given the fact that workers wages have been stagnating (or, at best, falling
behind productivity increases) across the world as the trade unions have been
weakened and marginalised (partly because of their own tactics, structure and
politics) it is clear that there exists a great need for working people to
organise to defend themselves. The centralised, top-down trade unions we are
accustomed to have proved themselves incapable of effective struggle (and,
-indeed, the number of times they have sabotaged such struggle are countless
-\-- a result not of "bad" leaders but of the way these unions organise and
-their role within capitalism). Hence anarchists support industrial unionism as
-an effective alternative to the malaise of official trade unionism. How
+indeed, the number of times they have sabotaged such struggle are countless --
+a result not of "bad" leaders but of the way these unions organise and their
+role within capitalism). Hence anarchists support industrial unionism as an
+effective alternative to the malaise of official trade unionism. How
anarchists aim to encourage such new forms of workplace organisation and
-struggle will be discussed in the [section J.5.4](secJ5.html#secj54).
-
+struggle will be discussed in [section J.5.4](secJ5.html#secj54).
-
- One last point. We noted that many anarchists, particularly communist-
+One last point. We noted that many anarchists, particularly communist-
anarchists, consider unions, even anarchosyndicalist ones, as having a strong
reformist tendency (as discussed in [section J.3.9](secJ3.html#secj39)).
However, all anarchists recognise the importance of autonomous class struggle
@@ -794,18 +754,16 @@ of industrial unionism to workplace struggles. They would agree with the need
to organise all workers into a mass assembly and to have elected, recallable
administration committees to carry out the strikers wishes. This means that
while such anarchists do not call their practical ideas "anarcho-syndicalism"
-nor the workplace assemblies they desire to create "unions," there are
+nor the workplace assemblies they desire to create "unions," they are
**extremely** similar in nature and so we can discuss both using the term
"industrial unionism". The key difference is that many (if not most) anarcho-
communists consider that permanent workplace organisations that aim to
organise **all** workers would become reformist. Because of this they also see
-the need for anarchist to organise **as anarchists** in order to spread the
+the need for anarchists to organise **as anarchists** in order to spread the
anarchist message within them and keep their revolutionary aspects at the
forefront.
-
-
- Spontaneously created organisations of workers in struggle play an important
+Spontaneously created organisations of workers in struggle play an important
role in both communist-anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist theory. Since both
advocate that it is the workers, using their own organisations who will
control their own struggles (and, eventually, their own revolution) in their
@@ -821,20 +779,13 @@ expropriations of capitalist and state power. So while there are slight
differences in terminology and practice, all anarchists would support the
ideas of industrial organisation and struggle we have outlined above.
+## J.5.3 What attitude do anarchists take to existing unions?
+As noted in the [last section](secJ5.html#secj52), anarchists desire to create
+organisations in the workplace radically different from the existing unions.
+The question now arises, what attitude do anarchists take to trade unions?
- ## J.5.3 What attitude do anarchists take to existing unions?
-
-
-
- As noted in the [last section](secJ5.html#secj52), anarchists desire to
-create organisations in the workplace radically different from the existing
-unions. The question now arises, what attitude do anarchists take to trade
-unions?
-
-
-
- Before answering that question, we must stress that anarchists, no matter how
+Before answering that question, we must stress that anarchists, no matter how
hostile to trade unions as bureaucratic, reformist institutions, **are** in
favour of working class struggle. This means that when trade union members or
other workers are on strike anarchists will support them (unless the strike is
@@ -845,16 +796,12 @@ criticisms of trade unions do not for an instant think we do not support
industrial struggles -- we do, we are just very critical of the unions that
are sometimes involved.
+So, what do anarchists think of the trade unions?
-
- So, what do anarchists think of the trade unions?
-
-
-
- For the most part, one could call the typical anarchist opinion toward them
-as one of "hostile support." It is hostile insofar as anarchists are well
-aware of how bureaucratic these unions are and how they continually betray
-their members. Given that they are usually little more than "business"
+For the most part, one could call the typical anarchist opinion toward them as
+one of "hostile support." It is hostile insofar as anarchists are well aware
+of how bureaucratic these unions are and how they continually betray their
+members. Given that they are usually little more than "business"
organisations, trying to sell their members labour-power for the best deal
possible, it is unsurprising that they are bureaucratic and that the interests
of the bureaucracy are at odds with those of its membership. However, our
@@ -866,9 +813,7 @@ she has different interests from their boss (_"If the interests of labour and
capital are the same, why the union?"_ [Alexander Berkman, **What is
Anarchism?**, p. 76]).
-
-
- There is no way to explain the survival of unions other than the fact that
+There is no way to explain the survival of unions other than the fact that
there are different class interests and workers have understood that to
promote their own interests they have to organise collectively. No amount of
conservatism, bureaucracy or backwardness within the unions can obliterate
@@ -882,68 +827,47 @@ decisions of the boss must be in workers' interests!). That kind of nonsense
is best left to the apologists of capitalism (see [section
F.3.2](secF3.html#secf32)).
-
-
- It is no surprise, then, the _"extreme opposition to the existing political
-and economic power"_ to unions as they _"not only suspected every labour
-organisation of aiming to improve the condition of its members within the
-limits of the wage system, but they also looked upon the trade union as the
-deeply enemy of wage-slavery -- and they were right. Every labour organisation
-of sincere character must needs wage war upon the existing economic
-conditions, since the continuation of the same is synonymous with the
-exploitation and enslavement of labour."_ [Max Baginski, _"Aim and Tactics of
-the Trade-Union Movement"_, pp. 297-306, **Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma
-Goldman's Mother Earth**, Peter Glassgold (ed.), pp. 302-3] Thus anarchist
-viewpoints on this issue reflect the contradictory nature of trade unions --
-on the one hand they are products of workers' struggle, but on the other they
-are bureaucratic, unresponsive, centralised and their full-time officials have
-no real interest in fighting against wage labour as it would put them out of a
-job. Indeed, the very nature of trade unionism ensures that the interests of
-the union (i.e. the full-time officials) come into conflict with the people
-they claim to represent.
-
-
-
- This can best be seen from the disgraceful activities of the TGWU with
-respect to the Liverpool dockers in Britain. The union officials (and the TUC
-itself) refused to support their members after they had been sacked in 1995
-for refusing to cross a picket line. The dockers organised their own struggle,
-contacting dockers' unions across the world and organised global solidarity
-actions. Moreover, a network of support groups sprung up across Britain to
-gather funds for their struggle (and, we are proud to note, anarchists have
-played their role in supporting the strikers). Many trade unionists could tell
-similar stories of betrayal by "their" union.
-
-
-
- This occurs because trade unions, in order to get recognition from a company,
+It is no surprise, then, that _"the existing political and economic power . .
+. not only suspected every labour organisation of aiming to improve the
+condition of its members within the limits of the wage system, but they also
+looked upon the trade union as the deadly enemy of wage-slavery -- and they
+were right. Every labour organisation of sincere character must needs wage war
+upon the existing economic conditions, since the continuation of the same is
+synonymous with the exploitation and enslavement of labour."_ [Max Baginski,
+_"Aim and Tactics of the Trade-Union Movement"_, pp. 297-306, **Anarchy! An
+Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth**, Peter Glassgold (ed.), pp. 302-3]
+Thus anarchist viewpoints on this issue reflect the contradictory nature of
+trade unions -- on the one hand they are products of workers' struggle, but on
+the other they are bureaucratic, unresponsive, centralised and their full-time
+officials have no real interest in fighting against wage labour as it would
+put them out of a job. Indeed, the very nature of trade unionism ensures that
+the interests of the union (i.e. the full-time officials) come into conflict
+with the people they claim to represent.
+
+This occurs because trade unions, in order to get recognition from a company,
must be able to promise industrial peace. They need to enforce the contracts
-they sign with the bosses, even if this goes against the will of its members.
-Thus trade unions become a third force in industry, somewhere between
+they sign with the bosses, even if this goes against the will of their
+members. Thus trade unions become a third force in industry, somewhere between
management and the workers and pursuing its own interests. This need to
enforce contracts soon ensures that the union becomes top-down and centralised
--- otherwise its members would violate the unions agreements. They have to be
-able to control their members -- which usually means stopping them fighting
+-- otherwise their members would violate the union's agreements. They have to
+be able to control their members -- which usually means stopping them fighting
the boss -- if they are to have anything to bargain with at the negotiation
table. This may sound odd, but the point is that the union official has to
sell the employer labour discipline and freedom from unofficial strikes as
-part of its side of the bargain otherwise the employer will ignore them.
-
-
-
- The nature of trade unionism, then, is to take power away from out of local
-members and centralise it into the hands of officials at the top of the
-organisation. Thus union officials sell out their members because of the role
-trade unions play within society, not because they are nasty individuals
-(although some are). They behave as they do because they have too much power
-and, being full-time and highly paid, are unaccountable, in any real way, to
-their members. Power -- and wealth -- corrupts, no matter who you are (see
-_Chapter XI_ of Alexander Berkman's **What is Anarchism?** for an excellent
-introduction to anarchist viewpoints on trade unions).
-
-
-
- While, in normal times, most workers will not really question the nature of
+part of their side of the bargain otherwise the employer will ignore them.
+
+The nature of trade unionism, then, is to take power away from the membership
+and centralise it into the hands of officials at the top of the organisation.
+Thus union officials sell out their members because of the role trade unions
+play within society, not because they are nasty individuals (although some
+are). They behave as they do because they have too much power and, being full-
+time and highly paid, are unaccountable, in any real way, to their members.
+Power -- and wealth -- corrupts, no matter who you are (see _Chapter XI_ of
+Alexander Berkman's **What is Anarchism?** for an excellent introduction to
+anarchist viewpoints on trade unions).
+
+While, in normal times, most workers will not really question the nature of
the trade union bureaucracy, this changes when workers face some threat. Then
they are brought face to face with the fact that the trade union has interests
separate from theirs. Hence we see trade unions agreeing to wage cuts,
@@ -951,21 +875,16 @@ redundancies and so on -- after all, the full-time trade union official's job
is not on the line! But, of course, while such a policy is in the short term
interests of the officials, in the longer term it goes against their interests
-- who wants to join a union which rolls over and presents no effective
-resistance to employers? Little wonder Michael Moore had a chapter entitled
-_"Why are Union Leaders So F#!@ing Stupid?"_ in his book **Downsize This!**
-\-- essential reading on how moronic trade union bureaucrats can actually be.
-Sadly trade union bureaucracy seems to afflict all who enter it with short-
-sightedness -- although the chickens do, finally, come home to roost, as the
-bureaucrats of the AFL, TUC and other trade unions are finding out in this era
-of global capital and falling membership. So while the activities of trade
-union leaders may seem crazy and short-sighted, these activities are forced
-upon them by their position and role within society -- which explains why they
-are so commonplace and why even radical leaders end up doing exactly the same
-thing in time.
-
-
-
- However, few anarchists would call upon members of a trade union to tear-up
+resistance to employers? Sadly trade union bureaucracy seems to afflict all
+who enter it with short-sightedness -- although the chickens do, finally, come
+home to roost, as the bureaucrats of the AFL, TUC and other trade unions are
+finding out in this era of global capital and falling membership. So while the
+activities of trade union leaders may seem crazy and short-sighted, these
+activities are forced upon them by their position and role within society --
+which explains why they are so commonplace and why even radical leaders end up
+doing exactly the same thing in time.
+
+However, few anarchists would call upon members of a trade union to tear-up
their membership cards. While some anarchists have nothing but contempt (and
rightly so) for trade unions (and so do not work within them -- but will
support trade union members in struggle), the majority of anarchists take a
@@ -983,10 +902,8 @@ were "two-carders" which meant they were also in the local AFL branch in their
place of work and turned to the IWW when the AFL hierarchy refused to back
strikes or other forms of direct action.
-
-
- Anarchist activity within trade unions reflects our ideas on hierarchy and
-its corrupting effects. We reject the response of left-wing social democrats,
+Anarchist activity within trade unions reflects our ideas on hierarchy and its
+corrupting effects. We reject the response of left-wing social democrats,
Stalinists and mainstream Trotskyists to the problem of trade union betrayal,
which is to try and elect 'better' officials. They see the problem primarily
in terms of the individuals who hold the posts so ignoring the fact that
@@ -994,13 +911,11 @@ individuals are shaped by the environment they live in and the role they play
in society. Thus even the most left-wing and progressive individual will
become a bureaucrat if they are placed within a bureaucracy.
-
-
- We must note that the problem of corruption does not spring from the high-
+We must note that the problem of corruption does not spring from the high-
wages officials are paid (although this is a factor), but from the power they
have over their members (which partly expresses itself in high pay). Any claim
that electing "radical" full-time officials who refuse to take the high wages
-associated with the position will be better is false. The hierarchical nature
+associated with the position will be better, is false. The hierarchical nature
of the trade union structure has to be changed, not side-effects of it. As the
left has no problem with hierarchy as such, this explains why they support
this form of "reform." They do not actually want to undercut whatever
@@ -1017,9 +932,7 @@ as such is bad, not individual leaders. Anarchists encourage rank and file
self-activity, **not** endless calls for trade union bureaucrats to act for us
(as is unfortunately far too common on the left).
-
-
- Instead of "reform" from above (which is doomed to failure), anarchists work
+Instead of "reform" from above (which is doomed to failure), anarchists work
at the bottom and attempt to empower the rank and file of the trade unions. It
is self-evident that the more power, initiative and control that lies on the
shop floor, the less the bureaucracy has. Thus anarchists work within and
@@ -1043,9 +956,7 @@ anarchists and remember that the workers' organisation is not the end but just
one of the means, however important, of preparing the way for the achievement
of anarchism."_ [**The Anarchist Revolution**, pp. 26-7]
-
-
- As part of this activity anarchists promote the ideas of Industrial Unionism
+As part of this activity anarchists promote the ideas of Industrial Unionism
we highlighted in the [last section](secJ5.html#secj52) \-- namely direct
workers control of struggle via workplace assemblies and recallable committees
-- during times of struggle. However, anarchists are aware that economic
@@ -1059,9 +970,7 @@ Only this process of self-activity and political discussion between equals
liberation and the creation of new, more libertarian, forms of workplace
organisation.
-
-
- The result of such activity may be a new form of workplace organisation
+The result of such activity may be a new form of workplace organisation
(either workplace assemblies or an anarcho-syndicalist union) or a reformed,
more democratic version of the existing trade union (although few anarchists
believe that the current trade unions can be reformed). Either way, the aim is
@@ -1069,25 +978,19 @@ to get as many members of the current labour movement to become anarchists as
possible or, at the very least, take a more libertarian and radical approach
to their unions and workplace struggle.
+## J.5.4 What are industrial networks?
-
- ## J.5.4 What are industrial networks?
-
-
-
- Industrial networks are the means by which revolutionary industrial unions
-and other forms of libertarian workplace organisation can be created. The idea
-of Industrial Networks originated with the British section of the anarcho-
+Industrial networks are the means by which revolutionary industrial unions and
+other forms of libertarian workplace organisation can be created. The idea of
+Industrial Networks originated with the British section of the anarcho-
syndicalist **International Workers Association** in the late 1980s. It was
developed as a means of promoting libertarian ideas within the workplace, so
creating the basis on which a workplace movement based upon the ideas of
industrial unionism (see [section J.5.2](secJ5.html#secj52)) could grow and
expand.
-
-
- The idea is very simple. An Industrial Network is a federation of militants
-in a given industry who support the ideas of anarchism and/or anarcho-
+The idea is very simple. An Industrial Network is a federation of militants in
+a given industry who support the ideas of anarchism and/or anarcho-
syndicalism, namely direct action, solidarity and organisation from the bottom
up (the difference between purely anarchist networks and anarcho-syndicalist
ones will be highlighted later). It would _"initially be a political grouping
@@ -1095,9 +998,7 @@ in the economic sphere, aiming to build a less reactive but positive
organisation within the industry. The long term aim . . . is, obviously, the
creation of an anarcho-syndicalist union."_ [**Winning the Class War**, p. 18]
-
-
- The Industrial Network would be an organisation of groups of libertarians
+The Industrial Network would be an organisation of groups of libertarians
within a workplace united on an industrial basis. They would pull their
resources together to fund a regular bulletin and other forms of propaganda
which they would distribute within their workplaces. These bulletins and
@@ -1108,31 +1009,27 @@ resistance as well as general anarchist ideas and analysis. In this way
anarchist ideas and tactics would be able to get a wider hearing and
anarchists can have an input **as anarchists** into workplace struggles.
-
-
- Traditionally, many syndicalists and anarcho-syndicalists advocated the
-**_One Big Union_** strategy, the aim of which was to organise all workers
-into one organisation representing the whole working class. Today, however,
-most anarcho-syndicalists, like other revolutionary anarchists, advocate
-workers assemblies for decision making during struggles which are open to all
-workers (union members or not) as they recognise that they face dual unionism
-(which means there are more than one union within a given workplace or
-country). This was the case, historically, in all countries with a large
-syndicalist union movement there were also socialist unions. Therefore most
-anarcho-syndicalists do not expect to ever get a majority of the working class
-into a revolutionary union before a revolutionary situation develops. In
-addition, revolutionary unions do not simply appear, they develop from
-previous struggles and require a lot of work and experience of which the
-Industrial Networks are but one aspect. The most significant revolutionary
-unions (such as the IWW, USI and CNT) were originally formed by unions and
-union militants with substantial experience of struggle behind them, some of
-whom were part of existing trade union bodies.
-
-
-
- Thus industrial networks are intended to deal with the actual situation that
+Traditionally, many syndicalists and anarcho-syndicalists advocated the **_One
+Big Union_** strategy, the aim of which was to organise all workers into one
+organisation representing the whole working class. Today, however, most
+anarcho-syndicalists, like other revolutionary anarchists, advocate workers
+assemblies for decision making during struggles which are open to all workers
+(union members or not) as they recognise that they face dual unionism (which
+means there are more than one union within a given workplace or country). This
+was the case historically, in all countries with a large syndicalist union
+movement there were also socialist unions. Therefore most anarcho-syndicalists
+do not expect to ever get a majority of the working class into a revolutionary
+union before a revolutionary situation develops. In addition, revolutionary
+unions do not simply appear, they develop from previous struggles and require
+a lot of work and experience of which the Industrial Networks are but one
+aspect. The most significant revolutionary unions (such as the IWW, USI and
+CNT) were originally formed by unions and union militants with substantial
+experience of struggle behind them, some of whom were part of existing trade
+union bodies.
+
+Thus industrial networks are intended to deal with the actual situation that
confronts us, and provide a strategy for moving from our present reality
-toward out ultimate goals. The role of the anarchist group or syndicalist
+toward our ultimate goals. The role of the anarchist group or syndicalist
union would be to call workplace assemblies and their federation into
councils, argue for direct workers control of struggle by these mass
assemblies, promote direct action and solidarity, put across anarchist ideas
@@ -1152,13 +1049,11 @@ is a recognition of where we are now -- with anarchist ideas very much in the
minority. Calling for workers assemblies is not an anarchist tactic per se, we
must add, but a working class one developed and used plenty of times by
workers in struggle (indeed, it was how the current trade unions were
-created). It also puts the onus on the reformists unions by appealing directly
+created). It also puts the onus on the reformist unions by appealing directly
to their members as workers and exposing their bureaucrat organisations and
reformist politics by creating an effective alternative to them.
-
-
- A few anarchists reject the idea of Industrial Networks and instead support
+A few anarchists reject the idea of Industrial Networks and instead support
the idea of **_"rank and file"_** groups which aim to put pressure on the
current trade unions to become more militant and democratic. Some even think
that such groups can be used to reform the trade-unions into libertarian,
@@ -1174,9 +1069,7 @@ need for the leadership to be more accountable, etc., [and so] they not only
problem -- the social democratic nature of reformist trade unions."_ [**Op.
Cit.**, p. 11]
-
-
- Supporters of the "rank and file" approach fear that the Industrial Networks
+Supporters of the "rank and file" approach fear that the Industrial Networks
will isolate anarchists from the mass of trade union members by creating tiny
"pure" syndicalist groups. Such a claim is rejected by supporters of
Industrial Networks who argue that rather than being isolated from the
@@ -1197,16 +1090,12 @@ militants had found a voice independent of the trade unions and so they become
less useful to us anyway. Our aim is not to support social democracy, but to
show it up as irrelevant to the working class."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 19]
-
-
- Whatever the merits and disadvantages of both approaches are, it seems likely
+Whatever the merits and disadvantages of both approaches are, it seems likely
that the activity of both will overlap in practice with Industrial Networks
operating within trade union branches and "rank and file" groups providing
alternative structures for struggle.
-
-
- As noted above, there is a slight difference between anarcho-syndicalist
+As noted above, there is a slight difference between anarcho-syndicalist
supporters of Industrial Networks and communist-anarchist ones. This is to do
with how they see the function and aim of these networks. In the short run,
both agree that such networks should agitate in their industry and call mass
@@ -1222,9 +1111,7 @@ communists would support such a development, some do not). In the long term,
they both aim for social revolution and workers' self-management of
production.
-
-
- These anarchists, therefore, see the need for workplace-based branches of an
+These anarchists, therefore, see the need for workplace-based branches of an
anarchist group along with the need for networks of militant 'rank and file'
workers, but reject the idea of something that is one but pretends to be the
other. They argue that, far from avoiding the problems of classical anarcho-
@@ -1233,21 +1120,15 @@ namely that of how the organisation remains anarchist but is open to non-
anarchists. However, the similarities between the two positions are greater
than the differences and so can be summarised together, as we have done here.
+## J.5.5 What forms of co-operative credit do anarchists support?
-
- ## J.5.5 What forms of co-operative credit do anarchists support?
-
-
-
- Anarchists tend to support must forms of co-operation, including those
+Anarchists tend to support most forms of co-operation, including those
associated with credit and money. This co-operative banking takes many forms,
such as credit unions, LETS schemes and so on. In this section we discuss two
-main forms of co-operative credit, _**mutualism**_ and _**LETS_**.
-
-
+main forms of co-operative credit, **_mutualism_** and **_LETS_**.
- Mutualism is the name for the ideas associated with Proudhon and his **Bank
-of the People**. Essentially, it is a confederation of credit unions in which
+Mutualism is the name for the ideas associated with Proudhon and his **Bank of
+the People**. Essentially, it is a confederation of credit unions in which
working class people pool their funds and savings so allowing credit to be
supplied at cost (no interest), so increasing the options available to them.
LETS stands for **Local Exchange Trading Schemes** and is a similar idea in
@@ -1256,9 +1137,7 @@ Dobson on LETS). From its start in Canada, LETS has spread across the world
and there are now hundreds of schemes involving hundreds of thousands of
people.
-
-
- Both schemes revolve around creating an alternative form of currency and
+Both schemes revolve around creating an alternative form of currency and
credit within capitalism in order to allow working class people to work
outwith the capitalist money system by creating a new circulating medium. In
this way, it is hoped, workers would be able to improve their living and
@@ -1270,9 +1149,7 @@ cheap rates, the end of wage slavery could occur as workers would work for
themselves by either purchasing the necessary tools required for their work or
by buying the capitalists out.
-
-
- Mutual credit, in short, is a form of credit co-operation, in which
+Mutual credit, in short, is a form of credit co-operation, in which
individuals pull their resources together in order to benefit themselves as
individuals and as part of a community. It has the following key aspects:
@@ -1289,9 +1166,7 @@ trade.
> \-- **Labour-Notes**: They use their own type of money as a means of aiding
"honest exchange."
-
-
- It is hoped, by organising credit, working class people will be able to work
+It is hoped, by organising credit, working class people will be able to work
for themselves and slowly but surely replace capitalism with a co-operative
system based upon self-management. While LETS schemes do not have such grand
schemes, historically mutualism aimed at working within and transforming
@@ -1299,22 +1174,20 @@ capitalism to socialism. At the very least, LETS schemes reduce the power and
influence of banks and finance capital within society as mutualism ensures
that working people have a viable alternative to such parasites.
-
-
- These ideas have had a long history within the socialist movement,
-originating in Britain in the early 19th century when Robert Owen and other
-Socialists raised the idea of labour notes and labour-exchanges as both a
-means of improving working class conditions within capitalism and of reforming
-capitalism into a society of confederated, self-governing communities. Such
-_"Equitable Labour Exchanges"_ were _"founded at London and Birmingham in
-1832"_ with _"Labour notes and the exchange of small products."_ [E. P.
-Thompson, **The Making of the English Working Class**, p. 870] Apparently
-independently of these attempts in Britain at what would later be called
-mutualism, Proudhon arrived at the same ideas decades later in France: _"The
-People's Bank quite simply embodies the financial and economic aspects of the
-principle of modern democracy, that is, the sovereignty of the People, and of
-the republican motto, 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.'"_ [**Selected Writings
-of P-J Proudhon**, p. 75] Similarly, in the USA (partly as a result of Joshua
+These ideas have a long history within the socialist movement, originating in
+Britain in the early 19th century when Robert Owen and other Socialists raised
+the idea of labour notes and labour-exchanges as both a means of improving
+working class conditions within capitalism and of reforming capitalism into a
+society of confederated, self-governing communities. Such _"Equitable Labour
+Exchanges"_ were _"founded at London and Birmingham in 1832"_ with _"Labour
+notes and the exchange of small products."_ [E. P. Thompson, **The Making of
+the English Working Class**, p. 870] Apparently independently of these
+attempts in Britain at what would later be called mutualism, Proudhon arrived
+at the same ideas decades later in France: _"The People's Bank quite simply
+embodies the financial and economic aspects of the principle of modern
+democracy, that is, the sovereignty of the People, and of the republican
+motto, 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.'"_ [**Selected Writings of P-J
+Proudhon**, p. 75] Similarly, in the USA (partly as a result of Joshua
Warren's activities, who got the idea from Robert Owen) there was extensive
discussion on labour notes, exchanges and free credit as a means of protecting
workers from the evils of capitalism and ensuring their independence and
@@ -1322,9 +1195,7 @@ freedom from wage slavery. When Proudhon's works appeared in North America,
the basic arguments were well known and they were quickly adopted by radicals
there.
-
-
- Therefore the idea that mutual banking using labour money as a means to
+Therefore the idea that mutual banking using labour money as a means to
improve working class living conditions, even, perhaps, to achieve industrial
democracy, self-management and the end of capitalism has a long history in
Socialist thought. Unfortunately this aspect of socialism became less
@@ -1337,34 +1208,26 @@ has had the last laugh on Marxism with working class people yet again creating
anew the ideas of mutualism (as can be seen by the growth of LETS and other
schemes of community money).
+## J.5.6 Why are mutual credit schemes important?
-
- ## J.5.6 Why are mutual credit schemes important?
-
-
-
- Mutual credit schemes are important because they are a way to improve working
+Mutual credit schemes are important because they are a way to improve working
class life under capitalism and ensure that what money we do have is used to
benefit ourselves rather than the elite. By organising credit, we retain
control over it and so rather than being used to invest in capitalist schemes
it can be used for socialist alternatives.
-
-
- For example, rather than allow the poorest to be at the mercy of loan sharks
-a community, by organising credit, can ensure its members receive cheap
-credit. Rather than give capitalist banks bundles of cash to invest in
-capitalist firms seeking to extract profits from a locality, it can be used to
-fund a co-operative instead. Rather than invest pension schemes into the stock
-market and so help undermine workers pay and living standards by increasing
-rentier power, it can be used to invest in schemes to improve the community
-and its economy. In short, rather than bolster capitalist power and so
-control, mutual credit aims to undermine the power of capitalist banks and
-finance by placing as much money as much possible in working class hands.
-
-
-
- This point is important, as the banking system is often considered "neutral"
+For example, rather than allow the poorest to be at the mercy of loan sharks a
+community, by organising credit, can ensure its members receive cheap credit.
+Rather than give capitalist banks bundles of cash to invest in capitalist
+firms seeking to extract profits from a locality, it can be used to fund a co-
+operative instead. Rather than invest pension schemes into the stock market
+and so help undermine workers pay and living standards by increasing rentier
+power, it can be used to invest in schemes to improve the community and its
+economy. In short, rather than bolster capitalist power and so control, mutual
+credit aims to undermine the power of capitalist banks and finance by placing
+as much money as much possible in working class hands.
+
+This point is important, as the banking system is often considered "neutral"
(particularly in capitalist economics). However, as Malatesta correctly
argued, it would be _"a mistake to believe . . . that the banks are, or are in
the main, a means to facilitate exchange; they are a means to speculate on
@@ -1385,9 +1248,7 @@ alone, working class control of credit and money is an important part of the
class struggle as having access to alternative sources of credit can increase
working class options and power.
-
-
- As we discussed in [section B.3.2](secB3.html#secb32), credit is also an
+As we discussed in [section B.3.2](secB3.html#secb32), credit is also an
important form of social control -- people who have to pay their mortgage or
visa bill are more pliable, less likely to strike or make other forms of
political trouble. Credit also expands the consumption of the masses in the
@@ -1397,9 +1258,7 @@ _"rich need a place to earn interest on their surplus funds, and the rest of
the population makes a juicy lending target."_ [Doug Henwood, **Wall Street**,
p. 65]
-
-
- Little wonder that the state (and the capitalists who run it) is so concerned
+Little wonder that the state (and the capitalists who run it) is so concerned
to keep control of money in its own hands or the hands of its agents. With an
increase in mutual credit, interest rates would drop, wealth would stay more
in working class communities, and the social power of working people would
@@ -1413,16 +1272,14 @@ change. In this way working people are controlling more and more of the money
supply and using it in ways that will stop capital from using it to oppress
and exploit them.
-
-
- An example of why this can be important can be seen from the existing
-workers' pension fund system which is invested in the stock market in the hope
-that workers will receive an adequate pension in their old age. However, the
-only people actually winning are bankers and big companies. Unsurprisingly,
-the managers of these pension fund companies are investing in those firms with
-the highest returns, which are usually those who are downsizing or extracting
-most surplus value from their workforce (which in turn forces other companies
-to follow the same strategies to get access to the available funds in order to
+An example of why this can be important can be seen from the existing workers'
+pension fund system which is invested in the stock market in the hope that
+workers will receive an adequate pension in their old age. However, the only
+people actually winning are bankers and big companies. Unsurprisingly, the
+managers of these pension fund companies are investing in those firms with the
+highest returns, which are usually those who are downsizing or extracting most
+surplus value from their workforce (which in turn forces other companies to
+follow the same strategies to get access to the available funds in order to
survive). Basically, if your money is used to downsize your fellow workers or
increase the power of capital, then you are not only helping to make things
harder for others like you, you are also helping making things worse for
@@ -1435,23 +1292,19 @@ that they are fortunate enough to retire when the stock market is doing well
rather than during one of its regular periods of financial instability, of
course).
-
-
- This highlights one of the tricks the capitalists are using against us,
-namely to get us to buy into the system through our fear of old age. Whether
-it is going into lifelong debt to buy a home or putting our money in the stock
+This highlights one of the tricks the capitalists are using against us, namely
+to get us to buy into the system through our fear of old age. Whether it is
+going into lifelong debt to buy a home or putting our money in the stock
market, we are being encouraged to buy into the system which exploits us and
so put its interests above our own. This makes us more easily controlled. We
need to get away from living in fear and stop allowing ourselves to be
deceived into behaving like "stakeholders" in a Plutocratic system where most
shares really are held by an elite. As can be seen from the use of pension
funds to buy out firms, increase the size of transnationals and downsize the
-workforce, such "stakeholding" amounts to sacrificing both the present **and**
-the future while others benefit.
-
+workforce, such "stakeholding" amounts to sacrificing both the present and the
+future while others benefit.
-
- The real enemies are **not** working people who take part in such pension
+The real enemies are **not** working people who take part in such pension
schemes. It is the people in power, those who manage the pension schemes and
companies, who are trying to squeeze every last penny out of working people to
finance higher profits and stock prices -- which the unemployment and
@@ -1466,21 +1319,15 @@ uses). Money, representing as it does the power of capital and the authority
of the boss, is not "neutral" and control over it plays a role in the class
struggle. We ignore such issues at our own peril.
-
-
- ## J.5.7 Do most anarchists think mutual credit is sufficient to abolish
+## J.5.7 Do most anarchists think mutual credit is sufficient to abolish
capitalism?
-
-
- The short answer is no, they do not. While the Individualist and Mutualist
+The short answer is no, they do not. While the Individualist and Mutualist
Anarchists do think that mutual banking is the only sure way of abolishing
capitalism, most anarchists do not see it as an end in itself. Few think that
capitalism can be reformed away in the manner assumed by Proudhon or Tucker.
-
-
- In terms of the latter, increased access to credit does not address the
+In terms of the latter, increased access to credit does not address the
relations of production and market power which exist within the economy and so
any move for financial transformation has to be part of a broader attack on
all forms of capitalist social power in order to be both useful and effective.
@@ -1492,9 +1339,7 @@ develop as lowering unemployment results in a profits squeeze (as occurred in,
say, the 1970s). Without a transformation in the relations of production, the
net effect would be the usual capitalist business cycle.
-
-
- For the former, for mutualists like Proudhon, mutual credit **was** seen as a
+For the former, for mutualists like Proudhon, mutual credit **was** seen as a
means of transforming the relations of production (as discussed in [section
G.4.1](secG4.html#secg41), unlike Proudhon, Tucker did not oppose wage-labour
and just sought to make it non-exploitative). For Proudhon, mutual credit was
@@ -1502,25 +1347,22 @@ seen as the means by which co-operatives could be created to end wage-labour.
The organisation of labour would combine with the organisation of credit to
end capitalism as workers would fund co-operative firms and their higher
efficiency would soon drive capitalist firms out of business. Thus _"the
-Exchange Bank is the organisation of labour's greatest asset_ as it allowed
-_"the new form of society to be defined and created among the workers."_
-[Proudhon, **Correspondance**, vol. 2, pp. 307-8] _"To organise credit and
-circulation is to increase production,"_ Proudhon stressed, _"to determine the
-new shapes of industrial society."_ [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 6, p. 372] So,
-overtime, co-operative credit would produce co-operative production while
-associated labour would increase the funds available to associated credit. For
-Proudhon the _"organisation of credit and organisation of labour amount to one
-and the same"_ and by recognising this the workers _"would soon have wrested
-alienated capital back again, through their organisation and competition."_
-[**No Gods, No Masters**, vol. 1, pp. 59-60]
-
-
-
- Bakunin, while he was _"convinced that the co-operative will be the
+Exchange Bank is the organisation of labour's greatest asset”_ as it allowed
+_"the new form of society to be defined and created among the workers."_ _"To
+organise credit and circulation is to increase production,"_ Proudhon
+stressed, _"to determine the new shapes of industrial society."_ So, overtime,
+co-operative credit would produce co-operative production while associated
+labour would increase the funds available to associated credit. For Proudhon
+the _"organisation of credit and organisation of labour amount to one and the
+same"_ and by recognising this the workers _"would soon have wrested alienated
+capital back again, through their organisation and competition."_ [**Property
+is Theft!**, pp. 17-8]
+
+Bakunin, while he was _"convinced that the co-operative will be the
preponderant form of social organisation in the future"_ and could _"hardly
oppose the creation of co-operatives associations"_ now as _we find them
-necessary in many respects,"_ argued that Proudhons hope for gradual change by
-means of mutual banking and the higher efficiency of workers co-operatives
+necessary in many respects,"_ argued that Proudhon’s hope for gradual change
+by means of mutual banking and the higher efficiency of workers’ co-operatives
were unlikely to be realised. This was because such claims _"do not take into
account the vast advantage that the bourgeoisie enjoys against the proletariat
through its monopoly on wealth, science, and secular custom, as well as
@@ -1534,18 +1376,14 @@ never be able to accumulate sufficiently strong aggregations of capital
capable of waging an effective struggle against bourgeois capital."_ [**The
Political Philosophy of Bakunin**, p. 293]
+So, for most anarchists, it is only in combination with other forms of working
+class self-activity and self-management that mutualist institutions could play
+an important role in the class struggle. In other words, few anarchists think
+that mutualist credit or co-operatives are enough in themselves to end
+capitalism. Revolutionary action is also required -- such as the expropriation
+of capital by workers associations.
-
- So, for most anarchists, it is only in combination with other forms of
-working class self-activity and self-management that mutualist institutions
-could play an important role in the class struggle. In other words, few
-anarchists think that mutualist credit or co-operatives are enough in
-themselves to end capitalism. Revolutionary action is also required -- such as
-the expropriation of capital by workers associations.
-
-
-
- This does not mean anarchists reject co-operation under capitalism. By
+This does not mean anarchists reject co-operation under capitalism. By
creating a network of mutual banks to aid in creating co-operatives, union
organising drives, supporting strikes (either directly by gifts/loans or
funding consumer co-operatives which could supply food and other essentials
@@ -1562,10 +1400,8 @@ free us, are nevertheless important inasmuch they train the workers in the
practices of managing the economy and plant the precious seeds for the
organisation of the future."_ [**Bakunin on Anarchism**, p. 173]
-
-
- So while few anarchists think that mutualism would be enough in itself, it
-can play a role in the class struggle. As a compliment to direct action and
+So while few anarchists think that mutualism would be enough in itself, it can
+play a role in the class struggle. As a compliment to direct action and
workplace and community struggle and organisation, mutualism has an important
role in working class self-liberation. For example, community unions (see
[section J.5.1](secJ5.html#secj51)) could create their own mutual banks and
@@ -1575,34 +1411,26 @@ capitalism, overcoming the problems of isolation facing workplace co-
operatives (see [section J.5.11](secJ5.html#secj511)) as well as providing
solidarity for those in struggle.
-
-
- Mutual banking can be a way of building upon and strengthening the
-anarchistic social relations within capitalism. For even under capitalism and
-statism, there exists extensive mutual aid and, indeed, anarchistic and
-communistic ways of living. For example, communistic arrangements exist within
-families, between friends and lovers and within anarchist organisations.
-Mutual credit could be a means of creating a bridge between this alternative
-(gift) "economy" and capitalism. The mutualist alternative economy would help
+Mutual banking can be a way of building upon and strengthening the anarchistic
+social relations within capitalism. For even under capitalism and statism,
+there exists extensive mutual aid and, indeed, anarchistic and communistic
+ways of living. For example, communistic arrangements exist within families,
+between friends and lovers and within anarchist organisations. Mutual credit
+could be a means of creating a bridge between this alternative (gift)
+"economy" and capitalism. The mutualist alternative economy would help
strength communities and bonds of trust between individuals, and this would
increase the scope of the communistic sector as more and more people help each
other without the medium of exchange. In other words, mutualism will help the
gift economy that exists within capitalism to grow and develop.
+## J.5.8 What would a modern system of mutual banking look like?
-
- ## J.5.8 What would a modern system of mutual banking look like?
-
-
-
- One scenario for an updated system of mutual banking would be for a community
+One scenario for an updated system of mutual banking would be for a community
to begin issuing an alternative currency accepted as money by all individuals
within it. Let us call this currency-issuing association a "mutual barter
clearinghouse," or just "clearinghouse" for short.
-
-
- The clearinghouse would have a twofold mandate: first, to extend credit at
+The clearinghouse would have a twofold mandate: first, to extend credit at
cost to members; second, to manage the circulation of credit-money within the
system, charging only a small service fee (one percent or less) sufficient to
cover its costs of operation, including labour costs involved in issuing
@@ -1613,9 +1441,7 @@ while others have notes tied to the value of the state currency (thus, say, a
Scottish town would issue pounds assumed to be the same as a British pound
note).
-
-
- The clearinghouse would be organised and function as follows. People could
+The clearinghouse would be organised and function as follows. People could
join the clearinghouse by pledging a certain amount of property (including
savings) as collateral. On the basis of this pledge, an account would be
opened for the new member and credited with a sum of mutual pounds equivalent
@@ -1625,9 +1451,7 @@ certain date. The mutual pounds could then be transferred through the
clearinghouse to the accounts of other members, who have agreed to receive
mutual money in payment for all debts or work done.
-
-
- The opening of this sort of account is, of course, the same as taking out a
+The opening of this sort of account is, of course, the same as taking out a
"loan" in the sense that a commercial bank "lends" by extending credit to a
borrower in return for a signed note pledging a certain amount of property as
security. The crucial difference is that the clearinghouse does not purport to
@@ -1638,10 +1462,8 @@ telling the clearinghouse that one wants an account and then arranging with
other people who already have balances to transfer mutual money into one's
account in exchange for goods or services.
-
-
- Another form of mutual credit are LETS systems. In this a number of people
-get together to form an association. They create a unit of exchange (which is
+Another form of mutual credit are LETS systems. In this a number of people get
+together to form an association. They create a unit of exchange (which is
equal in value to a unit of the national currency usually), choose a name for
it and offer each other goods and services priced in these units. These offers
and wants are listed in a directory which is circulated periodically to
@@ -1653,9 +1475,7 @@ and periodically sends members a statement of their accounts. The accounts
administration is elected by, and accountable to, the membership and
information about balances is available to all members.
-
-
- Unlike the first system described, members do not have to present property as
+Unlike the first system described, members do not have to present property as
collateral. Members of a LETS scheme can go into "debt" without it, although
"debt" is the wrong word as members are not so much going into debt as
committing themselves to do some work within the system in the future and by
@@ -1666,9 +1486,7 @@ of units in existence exactly matches the amount of real wealth being
exchanged. The system only works if members are willing to spend. It runs on
trust and builds up trust as the system is used.
-
-
- It is likely that a fully functioning mutual banking system would incorporate
+It is likely that a fully functioning mutual banking system would incorporate
aspects of both these systems. The need for collateral may be used when
members require very large loans while the LETS system of negative credit as a
commitment to future work would be the normal function of the system. If the
@@ -1677,38 +1495,29 @@ collateral for transactions that exceed this limit. However, it is obvious
that any mutual banking system will find the best means of working in the
circumstances it finds itself.
+## J.5.9 How does mutual credit work?
-
- ## J.5.9 How does mutual credit work?
-
-
-
- Let us consider an example of how business would be transacted using mutual
+Let us consider an example of how business would be transacted using mutual
credit within capitalism. There are two possibilities, depending on whether
the mutual credit is based upon whether the creditor can provide collateral or
not. We will take the case with collateral first.
-
-
- Suppose that A, an organic farmer, pledges as collateral a certain plot of
+Suppose that A, an organic farmer, pledges as collateral a certain plot of
land that she owns and on which she wishes to build a house. The land is
-valued at, say, 40,000 in the capitalist market and by pledging the land, A is
-able to open a credit account at the clearinghouse for, say, 30,000 in mutual
-money. She does so knowing that there are many other members of the system who
-are carpenters, electricians, plumbers, hardware suppliers, and so on who are
-willing to accept mutual pounds in payment for their products or services.
-
-
-
- It is easy to see why other subscriber-members, who have also obtained mutual
+valued at, say, £40,000 in the capitalist market and by pledging the land, A
+is able to open a credit account at the clearinghouse for, say, £30,000 in
+mutual money. She does so knowing that there are many other members of the
+system who are carpenters, electricians, plumbers, hardware suppliers, and so
+on who are willing to accept mutual pounds in payment for their products or
+services.
+
+It is easy to see why other subscriber-members, who have also obtained mutual
credit and are therefore in debt to the clearinghouse, would be willing to
accept such notes in return for their goods and services. They need to collect
mutual currency to repay their debts. Why would someone who is not in debt for
mutual currency be willing to accept it as money?
-
-
- To see why, let us suppose that B, an underemployed carpenter, currently has
+To see why, let us suppose that B, an underemployed carpenter, currently has
no account at the clearinghouse but that he knows about it and the people who
operate and use it. After examining its list of members and becoming familiar
with the policies of the new organisation, he is convinced that it does not
@@ -1718,22 +1527,19 @@ house and agrees to be paid for his work in mutual money, he will then be able
to use it to buy groceries, clothes, and other goods and services from various
people in the community who already belong to the system.
-
-
- Thus B will be willing, and perhaps even eager (especially if the economy is
+Thus B will be willing, and perhaps even eager (especially if the economy is
in recession and regular money is tight) to work for A and receive payment in
-mutual credit. For he knows that if he is paid, say, 8,000 in mutual money for
-his labour on A's house, this payment constitutes, in effect, 20 percent of a
-mortgage on her land, the value of which is represented by her mutual credit.
-B also understands that A has promised to repay this mortgage by producing new
-value -- that is, by growing organic fruits and vegetables and selling them to
-other members of the system -- and that it is this promise to produce new
-wealth which gives her mutual credit its value as a medium of exchange.
-
-
-
- To put this point slightly differently, A's mutual credit can be thought of
-as a lien against goods or services which she will create in the future. As
+mutual credit. For he knows that if he is paid, say, £8,000 in mutual money
+for his labour on A's house, this payment constitutes, in effect, 20 percent
+of a mortgage on her land, the value of which is represented by her mutual
+credit. B also understands that A has promised to repay this mortgage by
+producing new value -- that is, by growing organic fruits and vegetables and
+selling them to other members of the system -- and that it is this promise to
+produce new wealth which gives her mutual credit its value as a medium of
+exchange.
+
+To put this point slightly differently, A's mutual credit can be thought of as
+a lien against goods or services which she will create in the future. As
security of this guarantee, she agrees that if she is unable for some reason
to fulfil her obligation, the land she has pledged will be sold to other
members. In this way, a value sufficient to cancel her debt (and probably then
@@ -1741,22 +1547,18 @@ some) will be returned to the system. This provision insures that the
clearinghouse is able to balance its books and gives members confidence that
mutual money is sound.
-
-
- It should be noticed that since new wealth is continually being created, the
+It should be noticed that since new wealth is continually being created, the
basis for new mutual credit is also being created at the same time. Thus,
suppose that after A's new house has been built, her daughter, C, along with a
group of friends D, E, F, . . . , decide that they want to start a co-
operative restaurant but that C and her friends do not have enough collateral
to obtain a start-up loan. A, however, is willing to co-sign a note for them,
-pledging her new house (valued at say, 80,000) as security. On this basis, C
-and her partners are able to obtain 60,000 worth of mutual credit, which they
+pledging her new house (valued at say, £80,000) as security. On this basis, C
+and her partners are able to obtain £60,000 worth of mutual credit, which they
then use to buy equipment, supplies, furniture, advertising, etc. to start
their restaurant.
-
-
- This example illustrates one way in which people without property are able to
+This example illustrates one way in which people without property are able to
obtain credit in the new system. Another way -- for those who cannot find (or
perhaps do not wish to ask) someone with property to co-sign for them -- is to
make a down payment and then use the property which is to be purchased on
@@ -1765,9 +1567,7 @@ loan. With mutual credit, however, this form of financing can be used to
purchase anything, including the means of production and other equipment
required for workers to work for themselves instead of a boss.
-
-
- Which brings us to the case of an individual without means for providing
+Which brings us to the case of an individual without means for providing
collateral -- say, for example Z, a plumber, who currently does not own the
land she uses. In such a case, Z, who still desires work done, would contact
other members of the mutual bank with the skills she requires. Those members
@@ -1777,9 +1577,7 @@ which is credited to their account and deducted from hers. She does not pay
interest on this issue of credit and the sum only represents her willingness
to do some work for other members of the bank at some future date.
-
-
- The mutual bank does not have to worry about the negative balance, as this
+The mutual bank does not have to worry about the negative balance, as this
does not create a loss within the group as the minuses which have been
incurred have already created wealth (pluses) within the system and it stays
there. It is likely, of course, that the mutual bank would agree an upper
@@ -1787,56 +1585,43 @@ limit on negative balances and require some form of collateral for credit
greater than this limit, but for most exchanges this would be unlikely to be
relevant.
-
-
- It is important to remember that mutual money has no **intrinsic** value,
+It is important to remember that mutual money has no **intrinsic** value,
since they cannot be redeemed (at the mutual bank) in gold or anything else.
All they are promises of future labour. They are a mere medium for the
-facilitation of exchange used to facilitate the increase production of goods
+facilitation of exchange used to facilitate the increased production of goods
and services (as discussed in [section G.3.6](secG3.html#sech36), it is this
increase which ensures that mutual credit is not inflationary). This also
ensures enough work for all and, ultimately, the end of exploitation as
working people can buy their own means of production and so end wage-labour by
self-employment and co-operation.
-
-
- For more information on how mutual banking is seen to work see the collection
+For more information on how mutual banking is seen to work see the collection
of Proudhon's works collected in **Proudhon's Solution to the Social
-Problem**. William B. Greene's **Mutual Baking** and Benjamin Tucker's
+Problem**. William B. Greene's **Mutual Banking** and Benjamin Tucker's
**Instead of a Book** should also be consulted.
+## J.5.10 Why do anarchists support co-operatives?
-
- ## J.5.10 Why do anarchists support co-operatives?
-
-
-
- Support for co-operatives is a common feature in anarchist writings. In fact,
+Support for co-operatives is a common feature in anarchist writings. In fact,
support for democratic workplaces is as old as use of the term anarchist to
describe our ideas. So why do anarchists support co-operatives? It is because
they are the only way to guarantee freedom in production and so _"the co-
operative system . . . carries within it the germ of the future economic
order."_ [Bakunin, **The Philosophy of Bakunin**, p. 385]
-
-
- Anarchists support all kinds of co-operatives: housing, food, consumer,
-credit and workplace ones. All forms of co-operation are useful as they
-accustom their members to work together for their common benefit as well as
-ensuring extensive experience in managing their own affairs. As such, all
-forms of co-operatives are (to some degree) useful examples of self-management
-and anarchy in action. Here we will concentrate on producer co-operatives as
-only these can **replace** the capitalist mode of production. They are
-examples of a new mode of production, one based upon associated, not wage,
-labour. As long as wage-labour exists within industry and agriculture then
-capitalism remains and no amount of other kinds of co-operatives will end it.
-If wage slavery exists, then so will exploitation and oppression and anarchy
-will remain but a hope.
-
-
-
- Co-operatives are the _"germ of the future"_ for two reasons. Firstly, co-
+Anarchists support all kinds of co-operatives: housing, food, consumer, credit
+and workplace ones. All forms of co-operation are useful as they accustom
+their members to work together for their common benefit as well as ensuring
+extensive experience in managing their own affairs. As such, all forms of co-
+operatives are (to some degree) useful examples of self-management and anarchy
+in action. Here we will concentrate on producer co-operatives as only these
+can **replace** the capitalist mode of production. They are examples of a new
+mode of production, one based upon associated, not wage, labour. As long as
+wage-labour exists within industry and agriculture then capitalism remains and
+no amount of other kinds of co-operatives will end it. If wage slavery exists,
+then so will exploitation and oppression and anarchy will remain but a hope.
+
+Co-operatives are the _"germ of the future"_ for two reasons. Firstly, co-
operatives are based on one worker, one vote. In other words those who do the
work manage the workplace within which they do it (i.e. they are based on
workers' self-management). Thus co-operatives are an example of the
@@ -1847,35 +1632,28 @@ activity. Instead of relying on others to provide work, co-operatives show
that production can be carried on without the existence of a class of masters
employing a class of order takers.
-
-
- Workplace co-operatives also present evidence of the viability of an
-anarchist economy. It is well established that co-operatives are usually more
-productive and efficient than their capitalist equivalents. This indicates
-that hierarchical workplaces are **not** required in order to produce useful
-goods and indeed can be harmful. It also indicates that the capitalist market
-does not actually allocate resources efficiently nor has any tendency to do
-so.
-
-
-
- So why should co-operatives be more efficient? Firstly, there are the
-positive effects of increased liberty. Co-operatives, by abolishing wage
-slavery, obviously increase the liberty of those who work in them. Members
-take an active part in the management of their working lives and so
-authoritarian social relations are replaced by libertarian ones.
-Unsurprisingly, this liberty also leads to an increase in productivity -- just
-as wage labour is more productive than slavery, so associated labour is more
-productive than wage slavery. As Kropotkin argued: _"the only guarantee not to
-be robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour
-. . . man really produces most when he works in freedom, when he has a certain
-choice in his occupations, when he has no overseer to impede him, and lastly,
-when he sees his work bringing profit to him and to others who work like him,
-but bringing in little to idlers."_ [**The Conquest of Bread**, p. 145]
-
-
-
- There are also the positive advantages associated with participation (i.e.
+Workplace co-operatives also present evidence of the viability of an anarchist
+economy. It is well established that co-operatives are usually more productive
+and efficient than their capitalist equivalents. This indicates that
+hierarchical workplaces are **not** required in order to produce useful goods
+and indeed can be harmful. It also indicates that the capitalist market does
+not actually allocate resources efficiently nor has any tendency to do so.
+
+So why should co-operatives be more efficient? Firstly, there are the positive
+effects of increased liberty. Co-operatives, by abolishing wage slavery,
+obviously increase the liberty of those who work in them. Members take an
+active part in the management of their working lives and so authoritarian
+social relations are replaced by libertarian ones. Unsurprisingly, this
+liberty also leads to an increase in productivity -- just as wage labour is
+more productive than slavery, so associated labour is more productive than
+wage slavery. As Kropotkin argued: _"the only guarantee not to be robbed of
+the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour . . . man
+really produces most when he works in freedom, when he has a certain choice in
+his occupations, when he has no overseer to impede him, and lastly, when he
+sees his work bringing profit to him and to others who work like him, but
+bringing in little to idlers."_ [**The Conquest of Bread**, p. 145]
+
+There are also the positive advantages associated with participation (i.e.
self-management, liberty in other words). Within a self-managed, co-operative
workplace, workers are directly involved in decision making and so these
decisions are enriched by the skills, experiences and ideas of all members of
@@ -1883,9 +1661,9 @@ the workplace. In the words of Colin Ward:
> _"You can be **in** authority, or you can be **an** authority, or you can
**have** authority. The first derives from your rank in some chain of command,
-the second derives special knowledge, and the third from special wisdom. But
-knowledge and wisdom are not distributed in order of rank, and they are no one
-person's monopoly in any undertaking. The fantastic inefficiency of any
+the second derives from special knowledge, and the third from special wisdom.
+But knowledge and wisdom are not distributed in order of rank, and they are no
+one person's monopoly in any undertaking. The fantastic inefficiency of any
hierarchical organisation -- any factory, office, university, warehouse or
hospital -- is the outcome of two almost invariable characteristics. One is
that the knowledge and wisdom of the people at the bottom of the pyramid finds
@@ -1895,28 +1673,22 @@ leadership structure, or alternatively to sabotaging the ostensible function
of the institution, because it is none of their choosing. The other is that
they would rather not be there anyway: they are there through economic
necessity rather than through identification with a common task which throws
-up its own shifting and functional leadership.
+up its own shifting and functional leadership. _
-
-
- "Perhaps the greatest crime of the industrial system is the way it
+> _"Perhaps the greatest crime of the industrial system is the way it
systematically thwarts the investing genius of the majority of its workers."_
[**Anarchy in Action**, p. 41]
-
-
- Also, as workers also own their place of work, they have an interest in
+Also, as workers also own their place of work, they have an interest in
developing the skills and abilities of their members and, obviously, this also
means that there are few conflicts within the workplace. Unlike capitalist
firms, there is no conflict between bosses and wage slaves over work loads,
conditions or the division of value created between them. All these factors
will increase the quality, quantity and efficiency of work, increase efficient
-utilisation of available resources and aids the introduction of new techniques
+utilisation of available resources and aid the introduction of new techniques
and technologies.
-
-
- Secondly, the increased efficiency of co-operatives results from the benefits
+Secondly, the increased efficiency of co-operatives results from the benefits
associated with co-operation itself. Not only does co-operation increase the
pool of knowledge and abilities available within the workplace and enriches
that source by communication and interaction, it also ensures that the
@@ -1936,9 +1708,7 @@ incentive pay, [or] bonuses cannot live with team work . . . What takes the
joy out of learning . . . [or out of] anything? Trying to be number one.'"_
[**No Contest**, p. 240]
-
-
- Thirdly, there are the benefits associated with increased equality. Studies
+Thirdly, there are the benefits associated with increased equality. Studies
prove that business performance deteriorates when pay differentials become
excessive. In a study of over 100 businesses (producing everything from
kitchen appliances to truck axles), researchers found that the greater the
@@ -1955,16 +1725,14 @@ of historical inequality and growth, and found that nations with more equal
incomes generally experience faster productive growth. [_"Is Inequality
Harmful for Growth?"_, **American Economic Review** no. 84, pp. 600-21]
Numerous other studies have also confirmed their findings (the negative
-impacts on inequality on all aspects of life are summarised by Richard
+impacts of inequality on all aspects of life are summarised by Richard
Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in **The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies
Almost Always Do Better**). Real life yet again disproves the assumptions of
capitalism: inequality harms us all, even the capitalist economy which
produces it.
-
-
- This is to be expected. Workers, seeing an increasing amount of the value
-they create being monopolised by top managers and a wealthy elite and not re-
+This is to be expected. Workers, seeing an increasing amount of the value they
+create being monopolised by top managers and a wealthy elite and not re-
invested into the company to secure their employment prospects, will hardly be
inclined to put in that extra effort or care about the quality of their work.
Bosses who use the threat of unemployment to extract more effort from their
@@ -1975,10 +1743,8 @@ term effects -- both in terms of economic crisis (as income becomes so skewed
as to create realisation problems and the limits of adaptation are reached in
the face of international competition) and social breakdown.
-
-
- As would be imagined, co-operative workplaces tend to be more egalitarian
-than capitalist ones. This is because in capitalist firms, the incomes of top
+As would be imagined, co-operative workplaces tend to be more egalitarian than
+capitalist ones. This is because in capitalist firms, the incomes of top
management must be justified (in practice) to a small number of individuals
(namely, those shareholders with sizeable stock in the firm), who are usually
quite wealthy and so not only have little to lose in granting huge salaries
@@ -2000,9 +1766,7 @@ much debate in a response to outside pressures from capitalist firms hiring
away workers) while (in the USA) the average CEO is paid well over 100 times
the average worker (up from 41 times in 1960).
-
-
- Therefore, we see that co-operatives prove the advantages of (and the inter-
+Therefore, we see that co-operatives prove the advantages of (and the inter-
relationship between) key anarchist principles such as liberty, equality,
solidarity and self-management. Their application, whether all together or in
part, has a positive impact on efficiency and work -- and, as we will discuss
@@ -2012,9 +1776,7 @@ techniques instead of encouraging them. Even by its own standards, capitalism
stands condemned -- it does not encourage the efficient use of resources and
actively places barriers in their development.
-
-
- From all this it is clear to see why co-operatives are supported by
+From all this it is clear to see why co-operatives are supported by
anarchists. We are _"convinced that the co-operative could, potentially,
replace capitalism and carries within it the seeds of economic emancipation .
. . The workers learn from this precious experience how to organise and
@@ -2026,22 +1788,18 @@ better future is possible and that production can be organised in a co-
operative fashion and that by so doing we can reap the individual and social
benefits of working together as equals.
-
-
- However, this does not mean that all aspects of the co-operative movement
-find favour with anarchists. As Bakunin pointed out, _"there are two kinds of
-co-operative: bourgeois co-operation, which tends to create a privileged
-class, a sort of new collective bourgeoisie organised into a stockholding
-society: and truly Socialist co-operation, the co-operation of the future
-which for this very reason is virtually impossible of realisation at
-present."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 385] In other words, while co-operatives are the
-germ of the future, in the present they are often limited by the capitalist
-environment they find themselves, narrow their vision to just surviving within
-the current system and so adapt to it.
-
-
-
- For most anarchists, the experience of co-operatives has proven without doubt
+However, this does not mean that all aspects of the co-operative movement find
+favour with anarchists. As Bakunin pointed out, _"there are two kinds of co-
+operative: bourgeois co-operation, which tends to create a privileged class, a
+sort of new collective bourgeoisie organised into a stockholding society: and
+truly Socialist co-operation, the co-operation of the future which for this
+very reason is virtually impossible of realisation at present."_ [**Op.
+Cit.**, p. 385] In other words, while co-operatives are the germ of the
+future, in the present they are often limited by the capitalist environment
+they find themselves in, narrow their vision to just surviving within the
+current system and so adapt to it.
+
+For most anarchists, the experience of co-operatives has proven without doubt
that, however excellent in principle and useful in practice, if they are kept
within capitalism they cannot become the dominant mode of production and free
the masses (see [section J.5.11](secJ5.html#secj511)). In order to fully
@@ -2056,22 +1814,16 @@ little more than benign enterprises that capitalism and the state can easily
tolerate with no fear of challenge."_ [**Democracy and Nature**, no. 9, p.
175]
-
-
- So while co-operatives are an important aspect of anarchist ideas and
+So while co-operatives are an important aspect of anarchist ideas and
practice, they are not the be all or end all of our activity. Without a wider
social movement which creates all (or at least most) of the future society in
the shell of the old, co-operatives will never arrest the growth of capitalism
or transcend the narrow horizons of the capitalist economy.
+## J.5.11 If workers really want self-management then why are there so few co-
+operatives?
-
- ## J.5.11 If workers really want self-management then why are there so few
-co-operatives?
-
-
-
- Supporters of capitalism suggest that producer co-operatives would spring up
+Supporters of capitalism suggest that producer co-operatives would spring up
spontaneously if workers really wanted them. To quote leading propertarian
Robert Nozick, under capitalism _"it is open to any wealthy radical or group
of workers to buy an existing factory or establish a new one, and to . . .
@@ -2087,9 +1839,7 @@ that since this is not happening, it must be because workers' self-management
is either economically inefficient or is not really attractive to workers, or
both.
-
-
- David Schweickart has decisively answered this argument by showing that the
+David Schweickart has decisively answered this argument by showing that the
reason there are not more producer co-operatives is structural:
> _"A worker-managed firm lacks an expansionary dynamic. When a capitalist
@@ -2106,9 +1856,7 @@ the absence of a large and growing co-operative movement proves nothing about
the viability of worker self-management, nor about the preferences of
workers."_ [**Against Capitalism**, p. 239]
-
-
- This means that in, say, a mutualist economy there would be more firms of a
+This means that in, say, a mutualist economy there would be more firms of a
smaller size supplying a given market compared to capitalism. So a free
economy, with the appropriate institutional framework, need not worry about
unemployment for while individual co-operatives may not expand as fast as
@@ -2117,11 +1865,9 @@ I.3.1](secI3.html#seci31) for why the neo-classical analysis of co-operatives
which Nozick implicitly invokes is false). In short, the environment within
which a specific workplace operates is just as important as its efficiency.
-
-
- This is important, as the empirical evidence is strong that self-management
+This is important, as the empirical evidence is strong that self-management
**is** more efficient than wage-slavery. As economist Geoffrey M. Hodgson
-summarises, support for _"the proposition that participatory and co-operatives
+summarises, support for _"the proposition that participatory and co-operative
firms enjoy greater productivity and longevity comes from a large amount of .
. . case study and econometric evidence"_ and _"the weight of testimony"_ is
_"in favour or [indicates] a positive correlation between participation and
@@ -2135,15 +1881,13 @@ Nozick abused economic selection arguments by simply assuming, without
evidence, that the dominant form of organisation is, _ipso facto_, more
efficient. In reality, this is not the case.
-
-
- The question now becomes one of explaining why, if co-operation is more
+The question now becomes one of explaining why, if co-operation is more
efficient than wage-slavery, does economic liberty not displace capitalism?
The awkward fact is that individual efficiency is not the key to survival as
such an argument _"ignores the important point that the selection of the
'fitter' in evolution is not simply relative to the less successful but is
dependent upon the general circumstances and environment in which selection
-takes place."_ Moreover, an organism survives because it birth rate exceeds
+takes place."_ Moreover, an organism survives because its birth rate exceeds
its death rate. If more capitalist firms secure funding from capitalist banks
then, obviously, it is more likely for them to secure dominance in the economy
simply because there are more of them rather than because they are more
@@ -2162,9 +1906,7 @@ and Alanson P. Minkler, _"Evolution and organisational choice in nineteenth-
century Britain"_, pp. 51-62, **Cambridge Journal of Economics** vol. 17, No.
1, p. 53]
-
-
- As an obvious example there are the difficulties co-operatives can face in
+As an obvious example there are the difficulties co-operatives can face in
finding access to credit facilities required by them from capitalist banks and
investors. As Tom Cahill notes, co-operatives in the nineteenth century _"had
the specific problem of . . . **giving credit**"_ while _"**competition with
@@ -2177,15 +1919,13 @@ operatives in raising money:
> _"Co-operatives in a capitalist environment are likely to have more
difficulty in raising capital. Quite apart from ideological hostility (which
may be significant), external investors will be reluctant to put their money
-into concerns over which they will have little or no control \-- which tends
-to be the case with a co-operative. Because co-operatives in a capitalist
+into concerns over which they will have little or no control -- which tends to
+be the case with a co-operative. Because co-operatives in a capitalist
environment face special difficulties, and because they lack the inherent
expansionary dynamic of a capitalist firm, it is hardy surprising that they
are far from dominant."_ [Schweickart, **Op. Cit.**, p 240]
-
-
- In addition, the _"return on capital is limited"_ in co-operatives. [Tom
+In addition, the _"return on capital is limited"_ in co-operatives. [Tom
Cahill, **Op. Cit.**, p. 247] This means that investors are less-likely to
invest in co-operatives, and so co-operatives will tend to suffer from a lack
of investment. So despite _"the potential efficiency of such [self-managed]
@@ -2197,18 +1937,16 @@ loans."_ [David I. Levine and Laura D'Andrea Tyson, _"Participation,
Productivity, and the Firm's Environment"_, pp. 183-237, **Paying for
Productivity**, Alan S. Blinder (ed.), pp. 235-6 and p. 221]
-
-
- Tom Cahill outlines the investment problem when he writes that the
-_"financial problem"_ is a major reason why co-operatives failed in the past,
-for _"basically the unusual structure and aims of co-operatives have always
-caused problems for the dominant sources of capital. In general, the finance
+Tom Cahill outlines the investment problem when he writes that the _"financial
+problem"_ is a major reason why co-operatives failed in the past, for
+_"basically the unusual structure and aims of co-operatives have always caused
+problems for the dominant sources of capital. In general, the finance
environment has been hostile to the emergence of the co-operative spirit."_ He
also notes that they were _"unable to devise structuring to **maintain a
boundary** between those who work and those who own or control . . . It is
understood that when outside investors were allowed to have power within the
co-op structure, co-ops lost their distinctive qualities."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp.
-238-239] So even **if** co-operative do attract investors, the cost of so
+238-239] So even **if** co-operatives do attract investors, the cost of so
doing may be to transform the co-operatives into capitalist firms. So while
all investors experience risk, this _"is even more acute"_ in co-operatives
_"because investors must simultaneously cede control **and** risk their entire
@@ -2223,9 +1961,7 @@ such external investment is not forthcoming, then the co-operative is
dependent on retained earnings and its members' savings which, unsurprisingly,
are often insufficient.
-
-
- All of which suggests that Nozick's assertion that _"don't say that its
+All of which suggests that Nozick's assertion that _"don't say that its
against the class interest of investors to support the growth of some
enterprise that if successful would end or diminish the investment system.
Investors are not so altruistic. They act in personal and not their class
@@ -2249,9 +1985,7 @@ words, the personal interests of investors will generally support their class
interests (unsurprisingly, as class interests are not independent of personal
interests and will tend to reflect them!).
-
-
- There are other structural problems as well. Co-operatives face the negative
+There are other structural problems as well. Co-operatives face the negative
externalities generated by the capitalist economy they operate within. For one
thing, since their pay levels are set by members' democratic vote, co-
operatives tend to be more egalitarian in their income structure. This means
@@ -2269,23 +2003,19 @@ operative system there would not be the inequalities of economic wealth
(created by capitalist firms and finance structures) which allows such
poaching to happen.
-
-
- There are cultural issues as well. As Jon Elster points out, it is a
-_"truism, but an important one, that workers' preferences are to a large
-extent shaped by their economic environment. Specifically, there is a tendency
-to adaptive preference formation, by which the actual mode of economic
-organisation comes to be perceived as superior to all others."_ [_"From Here
-to There"_, pp. 93-111, **Socialism**, Paul, Miller Jr., Paul, and Greenberg
-(eds.), p. 110] In other words, people view "what is" as given and feel no
-urge to change to "what could be." In the context of creating alternatives
-within capitalism, this can have serious effects on the spread of alternatives
-and indicates the importance of anarchists encouraging the spirit of revolt to
-break down this mental apathy.
-
-
-
- This acceptance of "what is" can be seen, to some degree, by some companies
+There are cultural issues as well. As Jon Elster points out, it is a _"truism,
+but an important one, that workers' preferences are to a large extent shaped
+by their economic environment. Specifically, there is a tendency to adaptive
+preference formation, by which the actual mode of economic organisation comes
+to be perceived as superior to all others."_ [_"From Here to There"_, pp.
+93-111, **Socialism**, Paul, Miller Jr., Paul, and Greenberg (eds.), p. 110]
+In other words, people view "what is" as given and feel no urge to change to
+"what could be." In the context of creating alternatives within capitalism,
+this can have serious effects on the spread of alternatives and indicates the
+importance of anarchists encouraging the spirit of revolt to break down this
+mental apathy.
+
+This acceptance of "what is" can be seen, to some degree, by some companies
which meet the formal conditions for co-operatives, for example ESOP owned
firms in the USA, but lack effective workers' control. ESOP (Employee Stock
Ownership Plans) enable a firm's workforce to gain the majority of a company's
@@ -2295,53 +2025,47 @@ decisions. Unlike real co-operatives (based on "one worker, one vote") these
firms are based on "one share, one vote" and so have more in common with
capitalist firms than co-operatives.
-
-
- Finally, there is the question of history, of path dependency. Path
-dependency is the term used to describe when the set of decisions one faces
-for any given circumstance is limited by the decisions made in the past, even
-though past circumstances may no longer be relevant. This is often associated
-with the economics of technological change in a society which depends
-quantitatively and/or qualitatively on its own past (the most noted example
-this is the QWERTY keyboard, which would not be in use today except that it
-happened to be chosen in the nineteenth century). Evolutionary systems are
-path dependent, with historical events pushing development in specific
-directions. Thus, if there were barriers against or encouragement for certain
-forms of organisational structure in the past then the legacy of this will
-continue to dominate due to the weight of history rather than automatically
-being replaced by new, more efficient, forms.
-
-
-
- This can be seen from co-operatives, as _"labour managed firms were
-originally at a substantial disadvantage compared to their capitalist
-counterparts"_ as the law _"imposed additional risks and costs"_ on them while
-_"early financial instruments were ill-suited to the establishment and
-continuation of worker co-operatives. The subsequent coevolution of firms and
-supporting institutions involved a path-dependent process where labour-managed
-firms were at a continual disadvantage, even after many of the earlier
-impediments were removed."_ [Hodgson, **Op. Cit.**, p. 103] _"Historically,"_
-argue Everett and Minkler _"both company and co-operative law were
-incompatible with democratic decision-making by workers."_ The law ensured
-that the _"burden was more costly"_ to labour-managed firms and these _
-"obstacles led to an environment dominated by investor-controlled firms
-(capitalist firms) in which informal constraints (behaviours and routines)
-emerged to reinforce the existing institutions. A path-dependent process
-incorporating these informal constraints continued to exclude [their]
-widespread formation."_ When the formal constraints which prevented the
-formation of co-operatives were finally removed, the _"informal constraints"_
-produced as a result of these _"continued to prevent the widespread
-formation"_ of co-operatives. So the lack of co-operatives _"can thus be
-explained quite independently of any of the usual efficiency criteria."_
-[**Op. Cit.**, p. 58 and p. 60] Nor should we forget that the early industrial
-system was influenced by the state, particularly by rewarding war related
-contracts to hierarchical firms modelled on the military and that the state
-rewarded contracts to run various state services and industries to capitalist
-firms rather than, as Proudhon urged, to workers associations.
-
-
-
- However, _"there are several good reasons why more efficient firms need not
+Finally, there is the question of history, of path dependency. Path dependency
+is the term used to describe when the set of decisions one faces for any given
+circumstance is limited by the decisions made in the past, even though past
+circumstances may no longer be relevant. This is often associated with the
+economics of technological change in a society which depends quantitatively
+and/or qualitatively on its own past (the most noted example this is the
+QWERTY keyboard, which would not be in use today except that it happened to be
+chosen in the nineteenth century). Evolutionary systems are path dependent,
+with historical events pushing development in specific directions. Thus, if
+there were barriers against or encouragement for certain forms of
+organisational structure in the past then the legacy of this will continue to
+dominate due to the weight of history rather than automatically being replaced
+by new, more efficient, forms.
+
+This can be seen from co-operatives, as _"labour managed firms were originally
+at a substantial disadvantage compared to their capitalist counterparts"_ as
+the law _"imposed additional risks and costs"_ on them while _"early financial
+instruments were ill-suited to the establishment and continuation of worker
+co-operatives. The subsequent coevolution of firms and supporting institutions
+involved a path-dependent process where labour-managed firms were at a
+continual disadvantage, even after many of the earlier impediments were
+removed."_ [Hodgson, **Op. Cit.**, p. 103] _"Historically,"_ argue Everett and
+Minkler _"both company and co-operative law were incompatible with democratic
+decision-making by workers."_ The law ensured that the _"burden was more
+costly"_ to labour-managed firms and these _"obstacles led to an environment
+dominated by investor-controlled firms (capitalist firms) in which informal
+constraints (behaviours and routines) emerged to reinforce the existing
+institutions. A path-dependent process incorporating these informal
+constraints continued to exclude [their] widespread formation."_ When the
+formal constraints which prevented the formation of co-operatives were finally
+removed, the _"informal constraints"_ produced as a result of these
+_"continued to prevent the widespread formation"_ of co-operatives. So the
+lack of co-operatives _"can thus be explained quite independently of any of
+the usual efficiency criteria."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 58 and p. 60] Nor should we
+forget that the early industrial system was influenced by the state,
+particularly by rewarding war related contracts to hierarchical firms modelled
+on the military and that the state rewarded contracts to run various state
+services and industries to capitalist firms rather than, as Proudhon urged, to
+workers associations.
+
+However, _"there are several good reasons why more efficient firms need not
always be selected in a competitive and 'evolutionary' process."_ [Hodgson,
**Op. Cit.**, p. 99] So it is not efficiency as such which explains the
domination of capitalist firms for _"empirical studies suggest that co-
@@ -2360,9 +2084,7 @@ free competition has never been the whole truth with respect to anything; with
respect to workplace organisation it is barely a half-truth."_ [**Op. Cit.**,
p. 240]
-
-
- It is illuminating, though, to consider why Nozick ignored the substantial
+It is illuminating, though, to consider why Nozick ignored the substantial
empirical evidence that participation **is** more efficient than hierarchy
and, as a result, why _"market criteria"_ does not result in the more
productive and efficient co-operative production displacing the authoritarian
@@ -2377,9 +2099,7 @@ the economic context, and while the institutional context of a capitalist
system may be more conducive for the capitalist firm, a different context may
favour the co-operative firm."_ [**Economics and Utopia**, p. 288]
-
-
- As discussed in [section I.3.5](secI3.html#seci35), Proudhon was well aware
+As discussed in [section I.3.5](secI3.html#seci35), Proudhon was well aware
that for mutualism to prosper and survive an appropriate institutional
framework was required (the _"agro-industrial federation"_ and mutual
banking). So an organisation's survival also depends on the co-evolution of
@@ -2389,9 +2109,7 @@ no great surprise to discover that they find it difficult to survive never
mind displace its (usually larger and well-established) capitalist
competitors.
-
-
- Yet in spite of these structural problems and the impact of previous state
+Yet in spite of these structural problems and the impact of previous state
interventions, co-operatives do exist under capitalism but just because they
can survive in such a harsh environment it does not automatically mean that
they shall **replace** that economy. Co-operatives face pressures to adjust to
@@ -2404,9 +2122,7 @@ making the co-operative someone's boss (which creates _"a new class of workers
who exploit and profit from the labour of their employees. And all this
fosters a bourgeois mentality."_ [Bakunin, **Bakunin on Anarchism**, p. 399]).
-
-
- Hence the pressures of working in a capitalist market may result in co-
+Hence the pressures of working in a capitalist market may result in co-
operatives pursuing activities which may result in short term gain or
survival, but are sure to result in harm in the long run. Far from co-
operatives slowly expanding within and changing a capitalist environment it is
@@ -2422,19 +2138,17 @@ wishful thinking. Just because a system is more liberatory, just and efficient
does not mean it will survive or prosper in an authoritarian economic and
social environment.
-
-
- So both theory and history suggests that isolated co-operatives will more
+So both theory and history suggests that isolated co-operatives will more
likely adapt to capitalist realities than remain completely true to their co-
operative promise. For most anarchists, therefore, co-operatives can reach
their full potential only as part of a social movement aiming to change
society. Only as part of a wider movement of community and workplace unionism,
-with mutualist banks to provide long terms financial support and commitment,
+with mutualist banks to provide long term financial support and commitment,
can co-operatives be communalised into a network of solidarity and support
that will reduce the problems of isolation and adaptation. Hence Bakunin:
> _"We want co-operation too . . . But at the same time, we know that it
-prosper, developing itself fully and freely, embracing all human industry,
+prospers, developing itself fully and freely, embracing all human industry,
only when it is based on equality, when all capital and every instrument of
labour, including the soil, belong to the people by right of collective
property . . . Once this is acknowledged we hardly oppose the creation of co-
@@ -2446,9 +2160,7 @@ collectivity rather than on bourgeois exclusivity, then society will pass from
its present situation to one of equality and justice without too many great
upheavals."_ [**The Basic Bakunin**, p. 153]
-
-
- Until then, co-operatives will exist within capitalism but not replace it by
+Until then, co-operatives will exist within capitalism but not replace it by
market forces -- only a **social** movement and collective action can fully
secure their full development. This means that while anarchists support,
create and encourage co-operatives within capitalism, we understand _"the
@@ -2460,9 +2172,7 @@ community unions and other bodies _"formed,"_ to use Bakunin's words, _"for
the organisation of toilers against the privileged world"_ in order to help
bring about a free society. [**The Political Philosophy of Bakunin**, p. 385]
-
-
- Finally, we must note an irony with Nozick's argument, namely the notion that
+Finally, we must note an irony with Nozick's argument, namely the notion that
capitalism (his _"free society"_) allows a _"voluntary"_ path to economic
liberty. The irony is two-fold. First, the creation of capitalism was the
result of state action (see [section F.8](secF8.html)). While working class
@@ -2480,14 +2190,10 @@ the advice of libertarians and expropriating their workplaces. In other words,
transforming the environment and breaking the path-dependency which stops
economic liberty from flowering to its full potential.
+## J.5.12 If self-management were more efficient then surely capitalists would
+introduce it?
-
- ## J.5.12 If self-management were more efficient then surely the market would
-force capitalists to introduce it?
-
-
-
- Some supporters of capitalism argue that if self-management really were more
+Some supporters of capitalism argue that if self-management really were more
efficient than hierarchy, then capitalists would be forced to introduce it by
the market. As propertarian Robert Nozick argued, if workers' control meant
that _"the productivity of the workers in a factory **rises** . . . then the
@@ -2498,9 +2204,7 @@ This meant that _"individual owners pursuing profits . . . will reorganise the
productive process."_ [**Anarchy, State, and Utopia**, p. 248] As this has not
happened then self-management cannot be more efficient.
-
-
- While such a notion seems plausible in theory, in practice it is flawed as
+While such a notion seems plausible in theory, in practice it is flawed as
_"there is a vast quantity of empirical evidence demonstrating that
participatory workplaces tend to be places of higher morale and greater
productivity than authoritarian workplaces."_ [David Schweickart , **Against
@@ -2514,9 +2218,7 @@ many capitalist firms, the few experiments conducted have failed to spread
even though they were extremely successful. This is due to the nature of
capitalist production and the social relationships it produces.
-
-
- As we noted in [section D.10](secD10.html), capitalist firms (particularly in
+As we noted in [section D.10](secD10.html), capitalist firms (particularly in
the west) made a point of introducing technologies and management structures
that aimed to deskill and disempower workers. In this way, it was hoped to
make the worker increasingly subject to "market discipline" (i.e. easier to
@@ -2529,9 +2231,7 @@ for a short time the technological change worked, over the longer period the
balance of forces changed, so forcing management to continually try to empower
themselves at the expense of the workforce.
-
-
- It is unsurprising that such attempts to reduce workers to order-takers fail.
+It is unsurprising that such attempts to reduce workers to order-takers fail.
Workers' experiences and help are required to ensure production actually
happens at all. When workers carry out their orders strictly and faithfully
(i.e. when they "work to rule") production stops. So most capitalists are
@@ -2548,9 +2248,7 @@ voice -- at best secondary -- in the control of conditions of the workplace."_
still have the power and still reap unpaid labour from the productive activity
of the workforce.
-
-
- David Noble provides a good summary of the problems associated with
+David Noble provides a good summary of the problems associated with
experiments in workers' self-management within capitalist firms:
> _"Participation in such programs can indeed be a liberating and exhilarating
@@ -2573,7 +2271,7 @@ and reduced, work force, with special privileges and more 'co-operative'
attitudes toward management -- thus at once undermining the adversary stance
of unions and reducing membership . . ._
-> _"Third, such programs enable management to learn from workers \-- who are
+> _"Third, such programs enable management to learn from workers -- who are
now encouraged by their co-operative spirit to share what they know -- and,
then, in Taylorist tradition, to use this knowledge against the workers. As
one former pilot reflected, 'They learned from the guys on the floor, got
@@ -2586,9 +2284,7 @@ without adequate compensation. They kept all the gains for themselves.' . . ._
union rules and grievance procedures or eliminate unions altogether."_
[**Forces of Production**, pp. 318-9]
-
-
- Capitalist introduced and supported "workers' control" is very like the
+Capitalist introduced and supported "workers' control" is very like the
situation when a worker receives stock in the company they work for. If it
goes a little way toward redressing the gap between the value produced by that
person's labour and the wage they receive for it, that in itself cannot be a
@@ -2606,9 +2302,7 @@ workers may be less inclined to take direct action, for fear that they will
damage the value of "their" company's stock, and so they may find themselves
putting up with longer, more intense work in worse conditions.
-
-
- Be that as it may, the results of such capitalist experiments in "workers'
+Be that as it may, the results of such capitalist experiments in "workers'
control" are interesting and show **why** self-management will not spread by
market forces. According to one expert: _"There is scarcely a study in the
entire literature which fails to demonstrate that satisfaction in work is
@@ -2629,9 +2323,7 @@ began questioning traditional management prerogatives inherent in the existing
hierarchical structure of the enterprise."_ [**Competitive Advantage on the
Shop Floor**, p. 282]
-
-
- This is an important result, as it indicates that the ruling sections within
+This is an important result, as it indicates that the ruling sections within
capitalist firms have a vested interest in **not** introducing such schemes,
even though they are more efficient methods of production. As can easily be
imagined, managers have a clear incentive to resist participatory schemes (as
@@ -2639,11 +2331,11 @@ David Schweickart notes, such resistance, _"often bordering on sabotage, is
well known and widely documented"_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 229]). As an example of
this David Noble discusses a scheme ran by General Electric in the late 1960s:
-> _ "After considerable conflict, GE introduced a quality of work life program
+> _"After considerable conflict, GE introduced a quality of work life program
. . . which gave workers much more control over the machines and the
production process and eliminated foremen. Before long, by all indicators, the
program was succeeding -- machine use, output and product quality went up;
-scrap rate, machine downtime, worker absenteeism and turnover when down, and
+scrap rate, machine downtime, worker absenteeism and turnover went down, and
conflict on the floor dropped off considerably. Yet, little more than a year
into the program -- following a union demand that it be extended throughout
the shop and into other GE locations -- top management abolished the program
@@ -2651,26 +2343,22 @@ out of fear of losing control over the workforce. Clearly, the company was
willing to sacrifice gains in technical and economic efficiency in order to
regain and insure management control."_ [**Progress Without People**, p. 65f]
-
-
- Simply put, managers and capitalists can see that workers' control
-experiments expose the awkward fact that they are not needed, that their role
-is not related to organising production but exploiting workers. They have no
-urge to introduce reforms which will ultimately make themselves redundant.
-Moreover, most enjoy the power that comes with their position and have no
-desire to see it ended. This also places a large barrier in the way of
-workers' control. Interestingly, this same mentality explains why capitalists
-often support fascist regimes: _"The anarchist Luigi Fabbri termed fascism a
-**preventative counter-revolution**; but in his essay he makes the important
-point that the employers, particularly in agriculture, were not so much moved
-by fear of a general revolution as by the erosion of their own authority and
-property rights which had already taken place locally: 'The bosses felt they
-were no longer bosses.'"_ [Adrian Lyttelton, _"Italian Fascism"_, pp. 81-114,
+Simply put, managers and capitalists can see that workers' control experiments
+expose the awkward fact that they are not needed, that their role is not
+related to organising production but exploiting workers. They have no urge to
+introduce reforms which will ultimately make themselves redundant. Moreover,
+most enjoy the power that comes with their position and have no desire to see
+it ended. This also places a large barrier in the way of workers' control.
+Interestingly, this same mentality explains why capitalists often support
+fascist regimes: _"The anarchist Luigi Fabbri termed fascism a **preventative
+counter-revolution**; but in his essay he makes the important point that the
+employers, particularly in agriculture, were not so much moved by fear of a
+general revolution as by the erosion of their own authority and property
+rights which had already taken place locally: ‘The bosses felt they were no
+longer bosses.'"_ [Adrian Lyttelton, _“Italian Fascism”_, pp. 81-114,
**Fascism: a Reader's Guide**, p. 91]
-
-
- However, it could be claimed that owners of stock, being concerned by the
+However, it could be claimed that owners of stock, being concerned by the
bottom-line of profits, could **force** management to introduce participation.
By this method, competitive market forces would ultimately prevail as
individual owners, pursuing profits, reorganise production and participation
@@ -2681,13 +2369,9 @@ those firms which introduce more efficient techniques will prosper and
competitive market forces will ensure that other firms will introduce the
technique.
+This has not happened for three reasons.
-
- This has not happened for three reasons.
-
-
-
- Firstly, the fact is that within "free market" capitalism **keeping** (indeed
+Firstly, the fact is that within "free market" capitalism **keeping** (indeed
strengthening) skills and power in the hands of the workers makes it harder
for a capitalist firm to maximise profits (i.e. unpaid labour). It strengthens
the power of workers, who can use that power to gain increased wages (i.e.
@@ -2710,9 +2394,7 @@ hierarchical structure of ultimate authority at its root; hence it threatens
to increase the power of workers in the struggle over the share of total
value."_ [Gintz, **Op. Cit.**, p. 264]
-
-
- A workplace which had extensive workers participation would hardly see the
+A workplace which had extensive workers participation would hardly see the
workers agreeing to reduce their skill levels, take a pay cut or increase
their pace of work simply to enhance the profits of capitalists. Simply put,
profit maximisation is not equivalent to efficiency. Getting workers to work
@@ -2727,15 +2409,11 @@ order to maximise profits for capitalists would provoke a struggle over the
intensity of work, working hours, and over the share of value added going to
workers, management and owners and so destroy the benefits of participation.
-
-
- Thus power within the workplace plays a key role in explaining why workers'
+Thus power within the workplace plays a key role in explaining why workers'
control does not spread -- it reduces the ability of bosses to extract more
unpaid labour from workers.
-
-
- The second reason is related to the first. It too is based on the power
+The second reason is related to the first. It too is based on the power
structure within the company but the power is related to control over the
surplus produced by the workers rather than the ability to control how much
surplus is produced in the first place (i.e. power over workers). Hierarchical
@@ -2757,12 +2435,10 @@ hands, **not** for efficiency or productivity (see Stephan A. Margin, _"What
do Bosses do? The Origins and Functions of Hierarchy in Capitalist
Production"_, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 178-248).
-
-
- As David Noble argues, power is the key to understanding capitalism, **not**
+As David Noble argues, power is the key to understanding capitalism, **not**
the drive for profits as such:
-> _ "In opting for control [over the increased efficiency of workers' control]
+> _"In opting for control [over the increased efficiency of workers' control]
. . . management . . . knowingly and, it must be assumed, willingly,
sacrificed profitable production. . . . [This] illustrates not only the
ultimate management priority of power over both production and profit within
@@ -2794,11 +2470,9 @@ among thousands like it in U.S. industry -- raises troublesome questions about
the adequacy of this mythology as a description of reality."_ [**Forces of
Production**, pp. 321-2]
-
-
- Hierarchical organisation (domination) is essential to ensure that profits
-are controlled by a few and can, therefore, be allocated by them in such a way
-to ensure their power and privileges. By undermining such authority, workers'
+Hierarchical organisation (domination) is essential to ensure that profits are
+controlled by a few and can, therefore, be allocated by them in such a way to
+ensure their power and privileges. By undermining such authority, workers'
control also undermines that power to maximise profits in a certain direction
even though it increases "profits" (the difference between prices and costs)
in the abstract. As workers' control starts to extend (or management sees its
@@ -2809,9 +2483,7 @@ ensure their power over both the workers and the surplus they, the workers,
produce (this is, of course, related to the issue of lack of control by
investors in co-operatives raised in the [last section](secJ5.html#secj511)).
-
-
- As such, the opposition by managers to workers' control will be reflected by
+As such, the opposition by managers to workers' control will be reflected by
those who actually own the company who obviously would not support a regime
which will not ensure the maximum return on their investment. This would be
endangered by workers' control, even though it is more efficient and
@@ -2824,12 +2496,10 @@ one, for manufacturing reasons, we must share in the fruits equitably, just
like a co-op business."_ [quoted by Noble, **Op. Cit.**, p. 295] Such a
possibility is one few owners would agree to.
-
-
- Thirdly, to survive within the "free" market means to concentrate on the
-short term. Long terms benefits, although greater, are irrelevant. A free
-market requires profits **now** and so a firm is under considerable pressure
-to maximise short-term profits by market forces. Participation requires trust,
+Thirdly, to survive within the "free" market means to concentrate on the short
+term. Long terms benefits, although greater, are irrelevant. A free market
+requires profits **now** and so a firm is under considerable pressure to
+maximise short-term profits by market forces. Participation requires trust,
investment in people and technology and a willingness to share the increased
value added that result from workers' participation with the workers who made
it possible. All these factors would eat into short term profits in order to
@@ -2843,9 +2513,7 @@ high dividends then it will see its stock fall as shareholders move to those
companies that do. Thus the market **forces** companies to act in such ways as
to maximise short term profits.
-
-
- If faced with a competitor which is not making such investments (and which is
+If faced with a competitor which is not making such investments (and which is
investing directly into deskilling technology or intensifying work loads which
lowers their costs) and so wins them market share, or a downturn in the
business cycle which shrinks their profit margins and makes it difficult for
@@ -2856,9 +2524,7 @@ and/or using the fear of unemployment to get workers to work harder and follow
orders, capitalist firms have consistently chosen (and probably preferred) the
latter option (as occurred in the 1970s).
-
-
- Thus, workers' control is unlikely to spread through capitalism because it
+Thus, workers' control is unlikely to spread through capitalism because it
entails a level of working class consciousness and power that is incompatible
with capitalist control: _"If the hierarchical division of labour is necessary
for the extraction of surplus value, then worker preferences for jobs
@@ -2869,9 +2535,7 @@ empowerment and democratic workplaces, at best reducing "co-operation" and
"participation" to marginal issues (and management will still have the power
of veto).
-
-
- The failure of moves towards democratic workplaces within capitalism are an
+The failure of moves towards democratic workplaces within capitalism are an
example of that system in conflict with itself -- pursuing its objectives by
methods which constantly defeat those same objectives. As Paul Carden argued,
the _"capitalist system can only maintain itself by trying to reduce workers
@@ -2879,17 +2543,15 @@ into mere order-takers . . . At the same time the system can only function as
long as this reduction is never achieved . . . [for] the system would soon
grind to a halt . . . [However] capitalism constantly has to **limit** this
**participation** (if it didn't the workers would soon start deciding
-themselves and would show in practice now superfluous the ruling class really
+themselves and would show in practice how superfluous the ruling class really
is)."_ [**Modern Capitalism and Revolution**, pp. 45-46] Thus "workers'
control" within a capitalist firm is a contradictory thing -- too little power
and it is meaningless, too much and workplace authority structures and
capitalist share of, and control over, value added can be harmed. Attempts to
-make oppressed, exploited and alienated workers work if they were neither
+make oppressed, exploited and alienated workers work as if they were neither
oppressed, exploited nor alienated will always fail.
-
-
- For a firm to establish committed and participatory relations internally, it
+For a firm to establish committed and participatory relations internally, it
must have external supports -- particularly with providers of finance (which
is why co-operatives benefit from credit unions and co-operating together).
The price mechanism proves self-defeating to create such supports and that is
@@ -2905,9 +2567,7 @@ and utilise their productive resources to the point where they could attain
competitive advantage in international competition."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 305]
The German state provides its industry with much of the same support.
-
-
- Therefore, "participation" within capitalist firms will have little or no
+Therefore, "participation" within capitalist firms will have little or no
tendency to spread due to the actions of market forces. In spite of such
schemes almost always being more efficient, capitalism will not select them
because they empower workers and make it hard for capitalists to generate and
@@ -2919,9 +2579,7 @@ from above). For such schemes to spread, collective action is required (such
as state intervention to create the right environment and support network or
-- from an anarchist point of view -- union and community direct action).
-
-
- Such schemes, as noted above, are just forms of self-exploitation, getting
+Such schemes, as noted above, are just forms of self-exploitation, getting
workers to help their robbers and so **not** a development anarchists seek to
encourage. We have discussed this here just to be clear that, firstly, such
forms of structural reforms are **not** self-management, as managers and
@@ -2939,14 +2597,10 @@ management of production in their own workplace."_ [Dolgoff, **Op. Cit.**, p.
structures created and organised from below by and for working class people by
their own collective action.
+## J.5.13 What are Modern Schools?
-
- ## J.5.13 What are Modern Schools?
-
-
-
- Modern schools are alternative schools, self-managed by students, teachers
-and parents which reject the authoritarian schooling methods of the modern
+Modern schools are alternative schools, self-managed by students, teachers and
+parents which reject the authoritarian schooling methods of the contemporary
"education" system. Such schools have been a feature of the anarchist movement
since the turn of the 20th century while interest in libertarian forms of
education has existed in anarchist theory from the beginning. All the major
@@ -2959,9 +2613,7 @@ ensure that the _"industrial worker, the man [sic!] of action and the
intellectual would all be rolled into one."_ [Proudhon, quoted by Steward
Edward, **The Paris Commune**, p. 274]
-
-
- Anyone involved in radical politics, constantly and consistently challenges
+Anyone involved in radical politics, constantly and consistently challenges
the role of the state's institutions and their representatives within our
lives. The role of bosses, the police, social workers, the secret service,
managers, doctors and priests are all seen as part of a hierarchy which exists
@@ -2969,9 +2621,7 @@ to keep us, the working class, subdued. It is relatively rare, though, for the
left-wing to call into question the role of teachers. Most left wing activists
and a large number of libertarians believe that education is always good.
-
-
- Those involved in libertarian education believe the contrary. They believe
+Those involved in libertarian education believe the contrary. They believe
that national education systems exist only to produce citizens who will be
blindly obedient to the dictates of the state, citizens who will uphold the
authority of government even when it runs counter to personal interest and
@@ -2985,9 +2635,7 @@ not fail to employ it to strengthen its hand and perpetuate its institutions .
their views in their political capacity."_ [quoted by Colin Ward, **Anarchy in
Action**, p. 81]
-
-
- With the growth of industrialism in the 19th century state schools triumphed,
+With the growth of industrialism in the 19th century state schools triumphed,
not through a desire to reform but as an economic necessity. Industry did not
want free thinking individuals, it wanted workers, instruments of labour, and
it wanted them punctual, obedient, passive and willing to accept their
@@ -3002,9 +2650,7 @@ positive virtue, for it made them habituated, not to say naturalised, to
labour and fatigue."_ [quoted by Juliet B. Schor, **The Overworked American**,
p. 61]
-
-
- Thus supporters of Modern Schools recognise that the role of education is an
+Thus supporters of Modern Schools recognise that the role of education is an
important one in maintaining hierarchical society -- for government and other
forms of hierarchy (such as wage labour) must always depend on the opinion of
the governed. Francisco Ferrer (the most famous libertarian educator) argued
@@ -3016,9 +2662,7 @@ retaining their monopoly. The school is an instrument of domination in the
hands of the ruling class."_ [quoted by Clifford Harper, **Anarchy: A Graphic
Guide**, p. 100]
-
-
- Little wonder, then, that Emma Goldman argued that _"modern methods of
+Little wonder, then, that Emma Goldman argued that _"modern methods of
education"_ have _"little regard for personal liberty and originality of
thought. Uniformity and imitation is [its] motto."_ The school _"is for the
child what the prison is for the convict and the barracks for the solder -- a
@@ -3040,9 +2684,7 @@ fall to the level of slavish, submissive souls. For the most part, what are
our fine gentlemen brimful of intellect and culture? Sneering slavers and
slaves themselves."_ [Max Stirner, **No Gods, No Masters**, vol. 1, p. 12]
-
-
- The Modern School Movement (also known as the Free School Movement) over the
+The Modern School Movement (also known as the Free School Movement) over the
past century has been an attempt to represent part of this concern about the
dangers of state and church schools and the need for libertarian education.
The idea of libertarian education is that knowledge and learning should be
@@ -3061,9 +2703,7 @@ child . . . a channel through which the child may attain so much of the
ordered knowledge of the world as he shows himself ready to receive and
assimilate."_ [Goldman, **Op. Cit.**, p. 146]
-
-
- The Modern School bases itself on libertarian education techniques.
+The Modern School bases itself on libertarian education techniques.
Libertarian education, very broadly, seeks to produce children who will demand
greater personal control and choice, who think for themselves and question all
forms of authority:
@@ -3077,9 +2717,7 @@ the aim of the school to show the children that there will be tyranny as long
as one person depends on another."_ [Ferrer, quoted by Harper, **Op. Cit.**,
p. 100]
-
-
- Thus the Modern School insists that the child is the centre of gravity in the
+Thus the Modern School insists that the child is the centre of gravity in the
education process -- and that education is just that, **not** indoctrination:
> _"I want to form a school of emancipation, concerned with banning from the
@@ -3089,45 +2727,37 @@ teach only simple truth. I will not ram dogma into their heads. I will not
conceal one iota of fact. I will teach not what to think but how to think."_
[Ferrer, quoted by Harper, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 99-100]
-
-
- The Modern School has no rewards or punishments, exams or mark -- the
-everyday tortures of conventional schooling. And because practical knowledge
-is more useful than theory, lessons were often held in factories, museums or
-the countryside. The school was also used by parents, and Ferrer planned a
-Popular University.
+The Modern School has no rewards or punishments, exams or mark -- the everyday
+tortures of conventional schooling. And because practical knowledge is more
+useful than theory, lessons were often held in factories, museums or the
+countryside. The school was also used by parents, and Ferrer planned a Popular
+University.
> _"Higher education, for the privileged few, should be for the general
public, as every human has a right to know; and science, which is produced by
observers and workers of all countries and ages, ought not be restricted to
class."_ [Ferrer, quoted by Harper, **Op. Cit.**, p. 100]
-
-
- Thus Modern Schools are based on encouraging self-education in a co-
-operative, egalitarian and libertarian atmosphere in which the pupil
-(regardless of age) can develop themselves and their interests to the fullest
-of their abilities. In this way Modern Schools seek to create anarchists by a
-process of education which respects the individual and gets them to develop
-their own abilities in a conducive setting.
-
-
-
- Modern Schools have been a constant aspect of the anarchist movement since
-the late 1890s. The movement was started in France by Louise Michel and
-Sebastien Faure, where Francisco Ferrer became acquainted with them. He
-founded his Modern School in Barcelona in 1901, and by 1905 there were 50
-similar schools in Spain (many of them funded by anarchist groups and trade
-unions and, from 1919 onward, by the C.N.T. -- in all cases the autonomy of
-the schools was respected). In 1909, Ferrer was falsely accused by the Spanish
-government of leading an insurrection and executed in spite of world-wide
-protest and overwhelming proof of his innocence. His execution, however,
-gained him and his educational ideas international recognition and inspired a
-Modern School progressive education movement across the globe.
-
-
-
- However, for most anarchists, Modern Schools are not enough in themselves to
+Thus Modern Schools are based on encouraging self-education in a co-operative,
+egalitarian and libertarian atmosphere in which the pupil (regardless of age)
+can develop themselves and their interests to the fullest of their abilities.
+In this way Modern Schools seek to create anarchists by a process of education
+which respects the individual and gets them to develop their own abilities in
+a conducive setting.
+
+Modern Schools have been a constant aspect of the anarchist movement since the
+late 1890s. The movement was started in France by Louise Michel and Sebastien
+Faure, where Francisco Ferrer became acquainted with them. He founded his
+Modern School in Barcelona in 1901, and by 1905 there were 50 similar schools
+in Spain (many of them funded by anarchist groups and trade unions and, from
+1919 onward, by the C.N.T. -- in all cases the autonomy of the schools was
+respected). In 1909, Ferrer was falsely accused by the Spanish government of
+leading an insurrection and executed in spite of world-wide protest and
+overwhelming proof of his innocence. His execution, however, gained him and
+his educational ideas international recognition and inspired a Modern School
+progressive education movement across the globe.
+
+However, for most anarchists, Modern Schools are not enough in themselves to
produce a libertarian society. They agree with Bakunin:
> _"For individuals to be moralised and become fully human . . . three things
@@ -3143,9 +2773,7 @@ principles, and, because society is always stronger than individuals, it would
prevail over them . . . [and] demoralise them."_ [**The Basic Bakunin**, p,
174]
-
-
- Because of this, Modern Schools must be part of a mass working class
+Because of this, Modern Schools must be part of a mass working class
revolutionary movement which aims to build as many aspects of the new world as
possible in the old one before, ultimately, replacing it. Otherwise they are
just useful as social experiments and their impact on society marginal. Thus,
@@ -3156,24 +2784,20 @@ currently find themselves . . . [while] concentrat[ing] their efforts on the
great question of their economic emancipation, the mother of all other
emancipations."_ [Bakunin, **Op. Cit.**, p. 175]
-
-
- Before finishing, we must stress that hierarchical education (like the
-media), cannot remove the effects of actual life and activity in
-shaping/changing people and their ideas, opinions and attitudes. While
-education is an essential part of maintaining the status quo and accustoming
-people to accept hierarchy, the state and wage slavery, it cannot stop
-individuals from learning from their experiences, ignoring their sense of
-right and wrong, recognising the injustices of the current system and the
-ideas that it is based upon. This means that even the best state (or private)
-education system will still produce rebels -- for the **experience** of wage
-slavery and state oppression (and, most importantly, **struggle**) is
-shattering to the **ideology** spoon-fed children during their "education" and
-reinforced by the media.
-
-
-
- For more information on Modern Schools see Paul Avrich's **The Modern School
+Before finishing, we must stress that hierarchical education (like the media),
+cannot remove the effects of actual life and activity in shaping/changing
+people and their ideas, opinions and attitudes. While education is an
+essential part of maintaining the status quo and accustoming people to accept
+hierarchy, the state and wage slavery, it cannot stop individuals from
+learning from their experiences, trusting their sense of right and wrong,
+recognising the injustices of the current system and the ideas that it is
+based upon. This means that even the best state (or private) education system
+will still produce rebels -- for the **experience** of wage slavery and state
+oppression (and, most importantly, **struggle**) is shattering to the
+**ideology** spoon-fed children during their "education" and reinforced by the
+media.
+
+For more information on Modern Schools see Paul Avrich's **The Modern School
Movement: Anarchism and education in the United States**, Emma Goldman's
essays _"Francisco Ferrer and the Modern School"_ (in **Anarchism and Other
Essays**) and _"The Social Importance of the Modern School"_ (in **Red Emma
@@ -3184,22 +2808,16 @@ anarchist voice"_ by Michael Smith (in **For Anarchism**, David Goodway
Bakunin**). For an excellent summary of the advantages and benefits of co-
operative learning, see Alfie Kohn's **No Contest**.
+## J.5.14 What is Libertarian Municipalism?
-
- ## J.5.14 What is Libertarian Municipalism?
-
-
-
- As we noted in [section J.2](secJ2.html), most anarchists reject
-participating in electoral politics. A notable exception was Murray Bookchin
-who not only proposed voting but also a non-parliamentary electoral strategy
-for anarchists. He repeated this proposal in many of his later works, such as
+As we noted in [section J.2](secJ2.html), most anarchists reject participating
+in electoral politics. A notable exception was Murray Bookchin who not only
+proposed voting but also a non-parliamentary electoral strategy for
+anarchists. He repeated this proposal in many of his later works, such as
**From Urbanisation to Cities**, and has made it -- at least in the USA -- one
of the many alternatives anarchists are involved in.
-
-
- According to Bookchin, _"the proletariat, as do all oppressed sectors of
+According to Bookchin, _"the proletariat, as do all oppressed sectors of
society, comes to life when it sheds its industrial habits in the free and
spontaneous activity of **communising,** or taking part in the political life
of the community."_ In other words, Bookchin thought that democratisation of
@@ -3218,9 +2836,7 @@ states, haunting them as a potential challenge to centralised power and
continuing to do so today, as can be seen in the conflicts between national
government and municipalities in many countries.
-
-
- Despite the libertarian potential of urban politics, "urbanisation" \-- the
+Despite the libertarian potential of urban politics, "urbanisation" -- the
growth of the modern megalopolis as a vast wasteland of suburbs, shopping
malls, industrial parks, and slums that foster political apathy and isolation
in realms of alienated production and private consumption -- is antithetical
@@ -3237,9 +2853,7 @@ neighbourhood; the town meeting still lies buried in the township; confederal
forms of municipal association still lie buried in regional networks of towns
and cities."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 16 and p. 21]
-
-
- What would anarchists do electorally at the local level? Bookchin proposed
+What would anarchists do electorally at the local level? Bookchin proposed
that libertarians stand in local elections in order to change city and town
charters to make them participatory: _"An organic politics based on such
radical participatory forms of civic association does not exclude the right of
@@ -3250,9 +2864,7 @@ should be construed as parliamentary, particularly if it is confined to the
civic level and is consciously posed against the state."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p.
21]
-
-
- In short, Libertarian Muncipalism _"depends upon libertarian leftists running
+In short, Libertarian Municipalism _"depends upon libertarian leftists running
candidates at the local level, calling for the division of municipalities into
wards, where popular assemblies can be created that bring people into full and
direct participation in political life . . . municipalities would [then]
@@ -3266,20 +2878,16 @@ councillors that advance the cause of these assemblies and other popular
institutions. These minimal steps can lead step-by-step to the formation of
confederal bodies . . . Civic banks to fund municipal enterprises and land
purchases; the fostering of new ecologically-orientated enterprises that are
-owned by the community."_ Thus Bookchin saw Libertarian Muncipalism as a
+owned by the community."_ Thus Bookchin saw Libertarian Municipalism as a
process by which the state can be undermined by using elections as the means
of creating popular assemblies. Part of this would be the _"municipalisation
of property"_ which would _"bring the economy **as a whole** into the orbit of
the public sphere, where economic policy could be formulated by the **entire**
community."_ [**From Urbanisation to Cities**, p. 266 and p. 235]
+In evaluating Bookchin's proposal, several points come to mind.
-
- In evaluating Bookchin's proposal, several points come to mind.
-
-
-
- Firstly, it is clear that Libertarian Muncipalism's arguments in favour of
+Firstly, it is clear that Libertarian Municipalism's arguments in favour of
community assemblies is important and cannot be ignored. Bookchin was right to
note that, in the past, many anarchists placed far too much stress on
workplace struggles and workers' councils as the framework of a free society.
@@ -3289,26 +2897,22 @@ do not work in industry (such as housewives, the old, and so on). And, of
course, there is far more to life than work and so any future society
organised purely around workplace organisations is reproducing capitalism's
insane glorification of economic activity, at least to some degree. So, in
-this sense, Libertarian Muncipalism has a very valid point -- a free society
+this sense, Libertarian Municipalism has a very valid point -- a free society
will be created and maintained within the community as well as in the
workplace. However, this perspective was hardly alien to such anarchist
thinkers as Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin who all placed communes at the
centre of their vision of a free society.
-
-
- Secondly, Bookchin and other Libertarian Muncipalists are correct to argue
+Secondly, Bookchin and other Libertarian Municipalists are correct to argue
that anarchists should work in their local communities. Many anarchists are
doing just that and are being very successful as well. However, most
-anarchists reject the idea of a _"confederal muncipalist movement run[ning]
+anarchists reject the idea of a _"confederal municipalist movement run[ning]
candidates for municipal councils with demands for the institution of public
assemblies"_ as viable means of _"struggle toward creating new civic
institutions out of old ones (or replacing the old ones altogether)."_
[Bookchin, **Op. Cit.**, p. 229 and p. 267]
-
-
- The most serious objection to this has to do with whether politics in most
+The most serious objection to this has to do with whether politics in most
cities has already become too centralised, bureaucratic, inhumanly scaled, and
dominated by capitalist interests to have any possibility of being taken over
by anarchists running on platforms of participatory democratisation. Merely to
@@ -3323,9 +2927,7 @@ central authorities (in the UK, for example, the Conservative government of
the 1980s successfully centralised power away from local councils to undercut
their ability to resist the imposition of its neo-liberal policies).
-
-
- The counter-argument to this is that even if there is no chance of such
+The counter-argument to this is that even if there is no chance of such
candidates being elected, their standing for elections would serve a valuable
educational function. The answer to this is: perhaps, but would it be more
valuable than direct action? Would its educational value, if any, outweigh the
@@ -3336,26 +2938,22 @@ disadvantages. Moreover, being an anarchist does not make one immune to the
corrupting effects of electioneering. History is littered with radical,
politically aware movements using elections and ending up becoming part of the
system they aimed to transform. Most anarchists doubt that Libertarian
-Muncipalism will be any different -- after all, it is the circumstances the
+Municipalism will be any different -- after all, it is the circumstances the
parties find themselves in which are decisive, not the theory they hold. Why
would libertarians be immune to this but not Marxists or Greens?
-
-
- Lastly, most anarchists question the whole process on which Libertarian
-Muncipalism bases itself on. The idea of communes is a key one of anarchism
+Lastly, most anarchists question the whole process on which Libertarian
+Municipalism bases itself on. The idea of communes is a key one of anarchism
and so strategies to create them in the here and now are important. However,
-to think that using alienated, representative institutions to abolish these
-institutions is wrong. As Italian activists who organised a neighbourhood
-assembly by non-electoral means argue _"[t]o accept power and to say that the
-others were acting in bad faith and that we would be better, would **force**
-non-anarchists towards direct democracy. We reject this logic and believe that
-organisations must come from the grassroots."_ [_"Community Organising in
-Southern Italy"_, pp. 16-19, **Black Flag** no. 210, p. 18]
-
-
-
- Thus Libertarian Municipalism reverses the process by which community
+to think that we can use alienated, representative institutions to abolish
+these institutions is wrong. As Italian activists who organised a
+neighbourhood assembly by non-electoral means argue _"[t]o accept power and to
+say that the others were acting in bad faith and that we would be better,
+would **force** non-anarchists towards direct democracy. We reject this logic
+and believe that organisations must come from the grassroots."_ [_"Community
+Organising in Southern Italy"_, pp. 16-19, **Black Flag** no. 210, p. 18]
+
+Thus Libertarian Municipalism reverses the process by which community
assemblies will be created. Instead of anarchists using elections to build
such bodies, they must work in their communities directly to create them (see
[section J.5.1](secJ5.html#secj51) for more details). Using the catalyst of
@@ -3372,12 +2970,10 @@ anarchists, therefore, think it is far more important to create the _"living
forces"_ within our communities directly than waste energy in electioneering
and the passing of laws creating or "legalising" community assemblies. In
other words, community assemblies can only be created from the bottom up, by
-non-electoral means, a process which Libertarian Muncipalism confuses with
+non-electoral means, a process which Libertarian Municipalism confuses with
electioneering.
-
-
- So, while Libertarian Muncipalism **does** raise many important issues and
+So, while Libertarian Municipalism **does** raise many important issues and
correctly stresses the importance of community activity and self-management,
its emphasis on electoral activity undercuts its liberatory promise. For most
anarchists, community assemblies can only be created from below, by direct
@@ -3385,13 +2981,9 @@ action, and (because of its electoral strategy) a Libertarian Municipalist
movement will end up being transformed into a copy of the system it aims to
abolish.
+## J.5.15 What attitude do anarchists take to the welfare state?
-
- ## J.5.15 What attitude do anarchists take to the welfare state?
-
-
-
- The period of neo-liberalism since the 1980s has seen a rollback of the state
+The period of neo-liberalism since the 1980s has seen a rollback of the state
within society by the right-wing in the name of "freedom," "individual
responsibility" and "efficiency." The position of anarchists to this process
is mixed. On the one hand, we are all in favour of reducing the size of the
@@ -3401,14 +2993,10 @@ and tends to increase the power of the capitalists over us as the state's
(direct) influence is reduced. Thus anarchists appear to be on the horns of a
dilemma -- or, at least, apparently.
-
-
- So what attitude **do** anarchists take to the welfare state and attacks on
+So what attitude **do** anarchists take to the welfare state and attacks on
it?
-
-
- First we must note that this attack on "welfare" is somewhat selective. While
+First we must note that this attack on "welfare" is somewhat selective. While
using the rhetoric of "self-reliance" and "individualism," the practitioners
of these "tough love" programmes have made sure that the major corporations
continue to get state hand-outs and aid while attacking social welfare. In
@@ -3422,9 +3010,7 @@ And, for all their talk of increasing individual choice, the right-wing remain
silent about the lack of choice and individual freedom during working hours
within capitalism.
-
-
- Secondly, most of the right-wing inspired attacks on the welfare state are
+Secondly, most of the right-wing inspired attacks on the welfare state are
inaccurate. For example, Noam Chomsky notes that the _"correlation between
welfare payments and family life is real, though it is the reverse of what is
claimed [by the right]. As support for the poor has declined, unwed birth-
@@ -3441,9 +3027,7 @@ same can be said of the hysterical attacks on "socialised medicine" and
health-care reform funded by insurance companies and parroted by right-wing
ideologues and politicians.
-
-
- Thirdly, anarchists are just as opposed to capitalism as they are the state.
+Thirdly, anarchists are just as opposed to capitalism as they are the state.
This means that privatising state functions is no more libertarian than
nationalising them. In fact, less so as such a process **reduces** the limited
public say state control implies in favour of more private tyranny and wage-
@@ -3456,9 +3040,7 @@ terms of reducing human suffering, though, most anarchists would oppose the
latter and be in favour of the former while aiming to create a third (self-
managed) alternative.
-
-
- Fourthly, we must note that while most anarchists **are** in favour of
+Fourthly, we must note that while most anarchists **are** in favour of
collective self-help and welfare, we are opposed to the state. Part of the
alternatives anarchists try and create are self-managed and community welfare
projects (see [next section](secJ5.html#secj516)). Moreover, in the past,
@@ -3476,9 +3058,7 @@ grounds that it would increase capitalist discipline over labour, thereby
undermining working class independence and self-reliance."_ [Bob Holton,
**British Syndicalism: 1900-1914**, p. 137]
-
-
- Anarchists view the welfare state much as some feminists do. While they note,
+Anarchists view the welfare state much as some feminists do. While they note,
to quote Carole Pateman, the _"patriarchal structure of the welfare state"_
they are also aware that it has _"also brought challenges to patriarchal power
and helped provide a basis for women's autonomous citizenship."_ She goes on
@@ -3489,10 +3069,8 @@ power of the state, the very state that has upheld patriarchal power."_ This
_"will not in itself do anything to challenge patriarchal power relations."_
[**The Disorder of Women**, p. 195 and p. 200]
-
-
- Thus while the welfare state does give working people more options than
-having to take **any** job or put up with **any** conditions, this relative
+Thus while the welfare state does give working people more options than having
+to take **any** job or put up with **any** conditions, this relative
independence from the market and individual capitalists has came at the price
of dependence on the state -- the very institution that protects and supports
capitalism in the first place. And has we have became painfully aware in
@@ -3503,9 +3081,7 @@ state, **not** working class people, such an outcome is hardly surprising. Not
only this, we also find that state control reproduces the same hierarchical
structures that the capitalist firm creates.
-
-
- Unsurprisingly, anarchists have no great love of such state welfare schemes
+Unsurprisingly, anarchists have no great love of such state welfare schemes
and desire their replacement by self-managed alternatives. For example, taking
municipal housing, Colin Ward writes:
@@ -3518,9 +3094,7 @@ sensible ideas which is dormant because our approach to municipal affairs is
still stuck in the groves of nineteenth-century paternalism."_ [**Anarchy in
Action**, p. 73]
-
-
- Looking at state supported education, Ward argues that the _"universal
+Looking at state supported education, Ward argues that the _"universal
education system turns out to be yet another way in which the poor subsidise
the rich."_ Which is the least of its problems, for _"it is in the **nature**
of public authorities to run coercive and hierarchical institutions whose
@@ -3528,7 +3102,7 @@ ultimate function is to perpetuate social inequality and to brainwash the
young into the acceptance of their particular slot in the organised system."_
[**Op. Cit.**, p. 83 and p. 81] The role of state education as a means of
systematically indoctrinating the working class is reflected in William
-Lazonick words:
+Lazonick's words:
> _"The Education Act of 1870 . . . [gave the] state . . . the facilities . .
. to make education compulsory for all children from the age of five to the
@@ -3542,14 +3116,12 @@ used by the working class for just the contrary purpose."_ [_"The Subjection
of Labour to Capital: The rise of the Capitalist System"_, **Radical Political
Economy** Vol. 2, p. 363]
-
-
- Lazonick, as did Pateman, indicates the contradictory nature of welfare
+Lazonick, as did Pateman, indicates the contradictory nature of welfare
provisions within capitalism. On the one hand, they are introduced to help
control the working class (and to improve long term economic development). On
the other hand, these provisions can be used by working class people as
weapons against capitalism and give themselves more options than "work or
-starve" (the fact that the attacks on welfare in the UK during the 1990s \--
+starve" (the fact that the attacks on welfare in the UK during the 1990s --
called, ironically enough, **welfare to work** \-- involves losing benefits if
you refuse a job is not a surprising development). Thus we find that welfare
acts as a kind of floor under wages. In the US, the two have followed a common
@@ -3565,9 +3137,7 @@ institutions of state power and authority offer to the public an opportunity
to play some role, however limited, in managing their own affairs."_
[**Chomsky on Anarchism**, p. 193]
-
-
- Because of this contradictory nature of welfare, we find anarchists like Noam
+Because of this contradictory nature of welfare, we find anarchists like Noam
Chomsky arguing that (using an expression popularised by South American rural
workers unions) _"we should 'expand the floor of the cage.' We know we're in a
cage. We know we're trapped. We're going to expand the floor, meaning we will
@@ -3581,18 +3151,14 @@ complexity, they're going to be of no use to people who are suffering and who
need help, or, for that matter, to themselves."_ [**Expanding the Floor of the
Cage**]
-
-
- Thus, even though we know the welfare state is a cage and part of an
-instrument of class power, we have to defend it from a worse possibility \--
+Thus, even though we know the welfare state is a cage and part of an
+instrument of class power, we have to defend it from a worse possibility --
namely, the state as "pure" defender of capitalism with working people with
few or no rights. At least the welfare state does have a contradictory nature,
the tensions of which can be used to increase our options. And one of these
options is its abolition **from below**!
-
-
- For example, with regards to municipal housing, anarchists will be the first
+For example, with regards to municipal housing, anarchists will be the first
to agree that it is paternalistic, bureaucratic and hardly a wonderful living
experience. However, in stark contrast with the right who desire to privatise
such estates, anarchists think that _"tenants control"_ is the best solution
@@ -3606,9 +3172,7 @@ municipal estate is one of those sensible ideas which is dormant because our
approach to municipal affairs is still stuck in the grooves of nineteenth
century paternalism."_ [Ward, **Op. Cit.**, p. 73]
-
-
- And it is here that we find the ultimate irony of the right-wing, "free
+And it is here that we find the ultimate irony of the right-wing, "free
market" attempts to abolish the welfare state -- neo-liberalism wants to end
welfare **from above,** by means of the state (which is the instigator of this
individualistic "reform"). It does not seek the end of dependency by self-
@@ -3631,9 +3195,7 @@ both, and at the same time encourage people to take what steps they can to run
their own lives."_ [_"Anarchists and Voting"_, pp. 176-87, **The Raven**, No.
14, p. 179]
-
-
- Ultimately, unlike the state socialist/liberal left, anarchists reject the
+Ultimately, unlike the state socialist/liberal left, anarchists reject the
idea that the cause of socialism, of a free society, can be helped by using
the state. Like the right, the left see political action in terms of the
state. All its favourite policies have been statist -- state intervention in
@@ -3645,9 +3207,7 @@ get to the core of the problem. All it does is fight the symptoms of
capitalism and statism without attacking their root causes -- the system
itself.
-
-
- Invariably, this support for the state is a move away from working class
+Invariably, this support for the state is a move away from working class
people, from trusting and empowering them to sort out their own problems.
Indeed, the left seem to forget that the state exists to defend the collective
interests of the ruling class and so could hardly be considered a neutral
@@ -3669,9 +3229,7 @@ the Conservative Government made it illegal to claim benefits while on strike,
so reducing the funds available to workers in struggle and helping bosses
force strikers back to work faster).
-
-
- Anarchists consider it far better to encourage those who suffer injustice to
+Anarchists consider it far better to encourage those who suffer injustice to
organise themselves and in that way they can change what **they** think is
actually wrong, as opposed to what politicians and "experts" claim is wrong.
If sometimes part of this struggle involves protecting aspects of the welfare
@@ -3686,41 +3244,35 @@ run hospital or school from closing, anarchists would try to raise the issue
of self-management and local community control into the struggle in the hope
of going beyond the status quo.
-
-
- In this, we follow the suggestion made by Proudhon that rather than _"fatten
+In this, we follow the suggestion made by Proudhon that rather than _"fatten
certain contractors,"_ libertarians should be aiming to create _"a new kind of
property"_ by _"granting the privilege of running"_ public utilities,
industries and services, _"under fixed conditions, to responsible companies,
-not of capitalists, but of workmen."_ Municipalities would take the initiative
-in setting up public works but actual control would rest with workers' co-
-operatives for _"it becomes necessary for the workers to form themselves into
-democratic societies, with equal conditions for all members, on pain of a
-relapse into feudalism."_ [**General Idea of the Revolution**, p. 151 and p.
-276-7] Thus, for example, rather than nationalise or privatise railways, they
-should be handed over workers' co-operatives to run. The same with welfare
-services and such like: _"the abolition of the State is the last term of a
-series, which consists of an incessant diminution, by political and
-administrative simplification the number of public functionaries and to put
-into the care of responsible workers societies the works and services confided
-to the state."_ [Proudhon, **Carnets**, vol. 3, p. 293]
-
-
-
- Not only does this mean that we can get accustomed to managing our own
-affairs collectively, it also means that we can ensure that whatever "safety-
-nets" we have do what we want and not what capital wants. In the end, what we
-create and run by ourselves will be more responsive to our needs, and the
-needs of the class struggle, than reformist aspects of the capitalist state.
-This much, we think, is obvious. And it is ironic to see elements of the
-"radical" and "revolutionary" left argue against this working class self-help
-(and so ignore the **long** tradition of such activity in working class
-movements) and instead select for the agent of their protection a state run by
-and for capitalists!
-
-
-
- There are two traditions of welfare within society, one of _"fraternal and
+not of capitalists, but of **workmen**."_ Municipalities would take the
+initiative in setting up public works but actual control would rest with
+workers' co-operatives for _"it becomes necessary for the workers to form
+themselves into democratic societies, with equal conditions for all members,
+on pain of a relapse into feudalism."_ Thus, for example, rather than
+nationalise or privatise railways, they should be handed over workers' co-
+operatives to run. The same with welfare services and such like: _"the
+abolition of the State is the last term of a series, which consists of an
+incessant diminution, by political and administrative simplification the
+number of public functionaries and to put into the care of responsible workers
+societies the works and services confided to the state."_ [**Property is
+Theft!**, p. 25]
+
+Not only does this mean that we can get accustomed to managing our own affairs
+collectively, it also means that we can ensure that whatever "safety-nets" we
+have do what we want and not what capital wants. In the end, what we create
+and run by ourselves will be more responsive to our needs, and the needs of
+the class struggle, than reformist aspects of the capitalist state. This much,
+we think, is obvious. And it is ironic to see elements of the "radical" and
+"revolutionary" left argue against this working class self-help (and so ignore
+the **long** tradition of such activity in working class movements) and
+instead select for the agent of their protection a state run by and for
+capitalists!
+
+There are two traditions of welfare within society, one of _"fraternal and
autonomous associations springing from below, the other that of authoritarian
institutions directed from above."_ [Ward, **Op. Cit.**, p. 123] While
sometimes anarchists are forced to defend the latter against the greater evil
@@ -3734,43 +3286,34 @@ appropriate circumstances can be achieved."_ [**Chomsky on Anarchism**, p.
when we highlight the historical examples of self-managed communal welfare and
self-help organisations.
-
-
- ## J.5.16 Are there any historical examples of collective self-help?
-
-
-
- Yes, in all societies we see working class people joining together to
-practice mutual aid and solidarity. This takes many forms, such as trade and
-industrial unions, credit unions and friendly societies, co-operatives and so
-on, but the natural response of working class people to the injustices of
-capitalism was to practice collective "self-help" in order to improve their
-lives and protect their friends, communities and fellow workers.
-
-
-
- There are, as Colin Ward stresses, _"in fact several quite separate
-traditions of social welfare: the product of totally different attitudes to
-social needs . . . One of these traditions is that of a service given
-grudgingly and punitively by authority, another is the expression of social
-responsibility, or of mutual aid and self-help. One is embodied in
-**institutions**, the other in **associations**."_ [**Anarchy in Action**, p.
-112] Anarchists, needless to say, favour the latter. Unfortunately, this
-_"great tradition of working class self-help and mutual aid was written off,
-not just as irrelevant, but as an actual impediment, by the political and
-professional architects of the welfare state . . . The contribution that the
-recipients had to make to all this theoretical bounty was ignored as a mere
-embarrassment -- apart, of course, for paying for it . . . The socialist ideal
-was rewritten as a world in which everyone was entitled to everything, but
-where nobody except the providers had any actual say about anything. We have
-been learning for years, in the anti-welfare backlash, what a vulnerable
-utopia that was."_ This self-managed working class self-help was the _"welfare
-road we failed to take."_ [Ward, **Social Policy: an anarchist response**, p.
-11-2 and p. 9]
-
-
-
- Anarchists would argue that self-help is the natural side effect of freedom.
+## J.5.16 Are there any historical examples of collective self-help?
+
+Yes, in all societies we see working class people joining together to practice
+mutual aid and solidarity. This takes many forms, such as trade and industrial
+unions, credit unions and friendly societies, co-operatives and so on, but the
+natural response of working class people to the injustices of capitalism was
+to practice collective "self-help" in order to improve their lives and protect
+their friends, communities and fellow workers.
+
+There are, as Colin Ward stresses, _"in fact several quite separate traditions
+of social welfare: the product of totally different attitudes to social needs
+. . . One of these traditions is that of a service given grudgingly and
+punitively by authority, another is the expression of social responsibility,
+or of mutual aid and self-help. One is embodied in **institutions**, the other
+in **associations**."_ [**Anarchy in Action**, p. 112] Anarchists, needless to
+say, favour the latter. Unfortunately, this _"great tradition of working class
+self-help and mutual aid was written off, not just as irrelevant, but as an
+actual impediment, by the political and professional architects of the welfare
+state . . . The contribution that the recipients had to make to all this
+theoretical bounty was ignored as a mere embarrassment -- apart, of course,
+for paying for it . . . The socialist ideal was rewritten as a world in which
+everyone was entitled to everything, but where nobody except the providers had
+any actual say about anything. We have been learning for years, in the anti-
+welfare backlash, what a vulnerable utopia that was."_ This self-managed
+working class self-help was the _"welfare road we failed to take."_ [Ward,
+**Social Policy: an anarchist response**, p. 11-2 and p. 9]
+
+Anarchists would argue that self-help is the natural side effect of freedom.
There is no possibility of radical social change unless people are free to
decide for themselves what their problems are, where their interests lie and
are free to organise for themselves what they want to do about them. Self-help
@@ -3794,25 +3337,23 @@ existence the values by which ordinary citizens govern their own lives in
favour of bureaucratic paternalising, leaving those values around to be picked
up by their political opponents."_ [Ward, **Talking Houses**, p. 58]
-
-
- We cannot be expected to provide an extensive list of working class
-collective self-help and social welfare activity here, all we can do is
-present an overview of collective welfare in action (for a discussion of
-working class self-help and co-operation through the centuries we can suggest
-no better source than Kropotkin's **Mutual Aid**). In the case of Britain, we
-find that the _"newly created working class built up from nothing a vast
-network of social and economic initiatives based on self-help and mutual aid.
-The list is endless: friendly societies, building societies, sick clubs,
-coffin clubs, clothing clubs, up to enormous federated enterprises like the
-trade union movement and the Co-operative movement."_ [Ward, **Social
-Policy**, pp. 10-1] The historian E.P. Thompson confirmed this picture of a
-wide network of working class self-help organisations. _"Small tradesmen,
-artisans, labourers"_ he summarised, _"all sought to insure themselves against
-sickness, unemployment, or funeral expenses through membership of . . .
-friendly societies."_ These were _"authentic evidence of independent working-
-class culture and institutions . . . out of which . . . trade unions grew, and
-in which trade union officers were trained."_ Friendly societies _"did not
+We cannot be expected to provide an extensive list of working class collective
+self-help and social welfare activity here, all we can do is present an
+overview of collective welfare in action (for a discussion of working class
+self-help and co-operation through the centuries we can suggest no better
+source than Kropotkin's **Mutual Aid**). In the case of Britain, we find that
+the _"newly created working class built up from nothing a vast network of
+social and economic initiatives based on self-help and mutual aid. The list is
+endless: friendly societies, building societies, sick clubs, coffin clubs,
+clothing clubs, up to enormous federated enterprises like the trade union
+movement and the Co-operative movement."_ [Ward, **Social Policy**, pp. 10-1]
+The historian E.P. Thompson confirmed this picture of a wide network of
+working class self-help organisations. _"Small tradesmen, artisans,
+labourers"_ he summarised, _"all sought to insure themselves against sickness,
+unemployment, or funeral expenses through membership of . . . friendly
+societies."_ These were _"authentic evidence of independent working-class
+culture and institutions . . . out of which . . . trade unions grew, and in
+which trade union officers were trained."_ Friendly societies _"did not
'proceed from' an idea: both the ideas and institutions arose from a certain
common experience . . . In the simple cellular structure of the friendly
society, with its workaday ethos of mutual aid, we see many features which
@@ -3833,9 +3374,7 @@ cultural centres, credit associations, fire, life, and health insurance,
technical education, housing, etc."_ [**The American Labour Movement: A New
Beginning**, p. 74]
-
-
- Dolgoff, like all anarchists, urged workers to _"finance the establishment of
+Dolgoff, like all anarchists, urged workers to _"finance the establishment of
independent co-operative societies of all types, which will respond adequately
to their needs"_ and that such a movement _"could constitute a realistic
alternative to the horrendous abuses of the 'establishment' at a fraction of
@@ -3851,9 +3390,7 @@ lever for change in transforming the welfare state into a genuine welfare
society, in turning community care into a caring community."_ [Ward, **Anarchy
in Action**, p. 125]
-
-
- The creation of such a co-operative, community-based, welfare system will not
+The creation of such a co-operative, community-based, welfare system will not
occur over night, nor will it be easy. But it **is** possible, as history
shows. It will, of course, have its problems, but as Colin Ward notes, _"the
standard argument against a localist and decentralised point of view, is that
@@ -3866,11 +3403,9 @@ will most likely allocate resources which reflect the interests and (lack of)
knowledge of bureaucrats and experts, **not** on where they are best used or
the needs of the users.
-
-
- Anarchists are sure that a **confederal** network of mutual aid organisations
+Anarchists are sure that a **confederal** network of mutual aid organisations
and co-operatives, based upon local input and control, can overcome problems
-of localism far better than a centralised one \-- which, due to its lack of
+of localism far better than a centralised one -- which, due to its lack of
local input and participation will more likely **encourage** parochialism and
indifference than a wider vision and solidarity. If you have no real say in
what affects you, why should you be concerned with what affects others? This
@@ -3881,14 +3416,12 @@ organisation. Unless we act and organise locally, any wider organisation and
action will be hollow. Thus **local** organisation and empowerment is
essential to create and maintain wider organisations and mutual aid.
-
-
- To take another example of the benefits of a self-managed welfare system, we
+To take another example of the benefits of a self-managed welfare system, we
find that it _"was a continual complaint of the authorities"_ in the late
eighteenth and early nineteenth century _"that friendly societies allowed
members to withdraw funds when on strike."_ [Thompson, **Op. Cit.**, p. 461f]
The same complaints were voiced in Britain about the welfare state allowing
-strikers to claim benefit will on strike. The Conservative Government of the
+strikers to claim benefit while on strike. The Conservative Government of the
1980s changed that by passing a law barring those in industrial dispute to
claim benefits -- and so removing a potential support for those in struggle.
Such a restriction would have been far harder (if not impossible) to impose on
@@ -3896,20 +3429,16 @@ a network of self-managed mutual aid co-operatives. Such institutions would
have not become the plaything of central government financial policy as the
welfare state and the taxes working class people have to pay have become.
-
-
- All this means that anarchists reject the phoney choice between private and
+All this means that anarchists reject the phoney choice between private and
state capitalism we are usually offered. We reject both privatisation **and**
nationalisation, both right and left wings (of capitalism). Neither state nor
-private health care are user-controlled \-- one is subject to the requirements
+private health care are user-controlled -- one is subject to the requirements
of politics and the other places profits before people. As we have discussed
the welfare state in the [last section](secJ5.html#secj515), it is worthwhile
to quickly discuss privatised welfare and why anarchists reject this option
even more than state welfare.
-
-
- Firstly, all forms of private healthcare/welfare have to pay dividends to
+Firstly, all forms of private healthcare/welfare have to pay dividends to
capitalists, fund advertising, reduce costs to maximise profits by
standardising the "caring" process - i.e. McDonaldisation - and so on, all of
which inflates prices and produces substandard service across the industry as
@@ -3925,9 +3454,7 @@ In the UK, attempts to introduce "market forces" into the National Health
Service has also lead to increased costs as well as inflating the size and
cost of its bureaucracy.
-
-
- Looking at Chile, hyped by those who desire to privatise Social Security, we
+Looking at Chile, hyped by those who desire to privatise Social Security, we
find similar disappointing results (well, disappointing for the working class
at least, as we will see). Seemingly, Chile's private system has achieved
impressive average returns on investment. However, once commissions are
@@ -3942,9 +3469,7 @@ compared to well under 1% for the U.S. Social Security system."_ [**Wall
Street**, p. 305] In addition, the private pension fund market is dominated by
a handful of companies.
-
-
- Even if commission costs were lowered (by regulation), the impressive returns
+Even if commission costs were lowered (by regulation), the impressive returns
on capital seen between 1982 and 1995 (when the real annual return on
investment averaged 12.7 percent) are likely not to be sustained. These
average returns coincided with boom years in Chile, complemented by
@@ -3966,16 +3491,12 @@ wonders for the Chilean stock market"_ _"projections are that as many as half
of future retirees will draw a poverty-level pension."_ [Henwood, **Op.
Cit.**, pp. 304-5]
-
-
- Suffice to say, all you really need to know about privatisation of pensions
+Suffice to say, all you really need to know about privatisation of pensions
and healthcare in Chile is that the military dictatorship which imposed it
excluded the military from its dubious benefits. Such altruism is truly
touching.
-
-
- So, anarchists reject private welfare as a con (and an even bigger one than
+So, anarchists reject private welfare as a con (and an even bigger one than
state welfare). As Colin Ward suggests, it _"is the question of how we get
back on the mutual aid road **instead of** commercial health insurance and
private pension schemes."_ [**Social Policy**, p. 17] As anarchists are both
@@ -3993,13 +3514,16 @@ just society. For, when it boils down to it, freedom cannot be given, only
taken and this process of **self**-liberation is reflected in the alternatives
we build to help win the class war.
-
-
- The struggle **against** capitalism and statism requires that we build
-**for** the future and, moreover, we should remember that _"he who has no
-confidence in the creative capacity of the masses and in their capability to
-revolt doesn't belong in the revolutionary movement. He should go to a
-monastery and get on his knees and start praying. Because he is no
-revolutionist. He is a son of a bitch."_ [Sam Dolgoff, quoted by Ulrike
-Heider, **Anarchism: left, right, and green**, p. 12]
+The struggle **against** capitalism and statism requires that we build **for**
+the future and, moreover, we should remember that _"he who has no confidence
+in the creative capacity of the masses and in their capability to revolt
+doesn't belong in the revolutionary movement. He should go to a monastery and
+get on his knees and start praying. Because he is no revolutionist. He is a
+son of a bitch."_ [Sam Dolgoff, quoted by Ulrike Heider, **Anarchism: left,
+right, and green**, p. 12]
+
+[‹ J.4 What trends in society aid anarchist activity?](/afaq/secJ4.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secJcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [J.6 What
+methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate? ›](/afaq/secJ6.html "Go to
+next page" )
diff --git a/markdown/secJ6.md b/markdown/secJ6.md
index f82a1ec1bfb654d7e2205d3e10825aba8f346c55..57619de2a76048bde8df5bc0d548ac1b7f66d75c 100644
--- a/markdown/secJ6.md
+++ b/markdown/secJ6.md
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ FAQ we will discuss anarchist approaches to child rearing bearing in mind
_"that it is through the channel of the child that the development of the
mature man [or woman] must go, and that the present ideas of . . . educating
or training . . . are such as to stifle the natural growth of the child."_
-[Emma Goldman, **Red Emma Speaks**, p. 131 and p. 130]
+[Emma Goldman, **Red Emma Speaks**, p. 132 and p. 131]
If one accepts the thesis that the authoritarian family is the breeding ground
for both individual psychological problems and political reaction, it follows
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ happens to a child when they are growing up **shapes** the person they become
and the society they live in. The key question for people interested in
freedom is whether _"the child [is] to be considered as an individuality, or
as an object to be moulded according to the whims and fancies of those about
-it?"_ [Emma Goldman, **Op. Cit.**, p. 130] Libertarian child rearing is the
+it?"_ [Emma Goldman, **Op. Cit.**, p. 131] Libertarian child rearing is the
means by which the individuality of the child is respected and developed.
This is in stark contrast to standard capitalist claim that children are the
@@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ within the psyche -- for example, destructiveness, sadism, greed, power
hunger, brutality, etc. (impulses referred to by Reich as _"secondary"_
drives). In other words, this reduces our ability to empathise with others and
so the internal ethical guidelines we all develop are blunted, making us more
-likely tp express such secondary, anti-social, drives. So, ironically, these
+likely to express such secondary, anti-social, drives. So, ironically, these
secondary drives result from the **suppression of the primary drives** and the
sensations of pleasure associated with them. These secondary drives develop
because the only emotional expressions that can get through a person's
@@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ future fate of the child depends on it. It seems to be the core of the new-
born infant's emotional development."_ [**Children of the Future**, p. 99] It
is important for the father to establish orgonotic contact as well.
-Reich amaintained that the practice of bottle feeding is harmful, particularly
+Reich maintained that the practice of bottle feeding is harmful, particularly
if it completely replaces breast feeding from the day of birth, because it
eliminates one of the most important forms of establishing physical and
emotional contact between mother and child. This lack of contact can then
@@ -329,13 +329,13 @@ he began to crawl and perform on the floor, words like **naughty** and
**dirty** began to float about the house, and a grim beginning was made in
teaching him to be clean._
-> _ "Before this, his hand had been taken away every time it touched his
+> _"Before this, his hand had been taken away every time it touched his
genitals; and he soon came to associate the genital prohibition with the
acquired disgust about faeces. Thus, years later, when he became a travelling
salesman, his story repertoire consisted of a balanced number of sex and
toilet jokes._
-> _ "Much of his training was conditioned by relatives and neighbours. Mother
+> _"Much of his training was conditioned by relatives and neighbours. Mother
and father were most anxious to be correct -- to do the proper thing -- so
that when relatives or next-door neighbours came, John had to show himself as
a well-trained child. He had to say **Thank you** when Auntie gave him a piece
@@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ Once again, the answer lies in the idea of trusting nature. The concept of
mature, but not before. This means that normal children will "steal" -- though
that is not how they regard it. They are simply trying to satisfy their
acquisitive impulses; or, if they are with friends, their desire for
-adventure. In a society so thoroughly steeping in the idea of respect for
+adventure. In a society so thoroughly steeped in the idea of respect for
property as ours, it is no doubt difficult for parents to resist societal
pressure to punish children for "stealing." The reward for such trust,
however, will be a child who grows into a healthy adolescent who respects the
@@ -507,7 +507,8 @@ original sin. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that there is
"original virtue." Wilhelm Reich found that externally imposed, compulsive
morality actually **causes** immoral behaviour by creating cruel and perverse
_"secondary drives."_ Neill put it this way: _"I find that when I smash the
-moral instruction a bad boy has received, he becomes a good boy."_ [, p. 250]
+moral instruction a bad boy has received, he becomes a good boy."_ [**Op.
+Cit.**, p. 250]
Unconscious acceptance of some form of the idea of original sin is the main
recruiting tool of organised religions, as people who believe they are born
@@ -883,7 +884,7 @@ can be seen from experience of this anarchist activist during the 1930s:
> _"One time, a companero from the Juventudes [libertarian youth organisation]
came over to me and said, 'You, who say you're so liberated. You're not so
-liberated.' (I'm telling you this so youll see the mentality of these men.)
+liberated.' (I'm telling you this so you’ll see the mentality of these men.)
'Because if I ask you to give me a kiss, you wouldn't._
> _"I just stood there staring at him, and thinking to myself, 'How do I get
@@ -900,7 +901,7 @@ him.'_
> _"He was left speechless! But I did it with a dual purpose in mind...
because I wanted to show him that that's not the way to educate companeros...
-That's what the struggle of women was like in Spain \-- even with men from our
+That's what the struggle of women was like in Spain -- even with men from our
own group -- and I'm not even talking about what it was like with other
guys."_ [quoted by Martha A. Ackelsberg, **Free Women of Spain**, pp. 116-7]
@@ -949,10 +950,10 @@ are a "diversion from the class struggle." Such an attitude is economistic
(not to mention covertly ascetic), because it is based on the premise that
economic class must be the focus of all revolutionary efforts toward social
change. No doubt transforming the economy is important, but without mass
-sexual liberation no working class revolution be complete as there will not be
-enough people around with the character structures necessary to create a
-**lasting** self-managed society and economy (i.e., people who are capable of
-accepting freedom with responsibility). Instead, the attempt to force the
+sexual liberation no working class revolution can be complete as there will
+not be enough people around with the character structures necessary to create
+a **lasting** self-managed society and economy (i.e., people who are capable
+of accepting freedom with responsibility). Instead, the attempt to force the
creation of such a system without preparing the necessary psychological soil
for its growth will lead to a reversion to some new form of hierarchy and
exploitation. Equally, society would be "free" in name only if repressive
@@ -968,18 +969,18 @@ and problems must be integrated into a multi-faceted attack on the total
system of domination. People should feel confident that anarchists are on the
side of sexual pleasure and are not revolutionary ascetics demanding self-
denial for the "sake of the revolution." Rather, it should be stressed that
-the capacity for full sexual enjoyment is the an essential part of the
-revolution. Indeed, _"incessant questioning and challenge to authority on the
-subject of sex and of the compulsive family can only complement the
-questioning and challenge to authority in other areas (for instance on the
-subject of who is to dominate the work process -- or the purpose of work
-itself). Both challenges stress the autonomy of individuals and their
-domination over important aspects of their lives. Both expose the alienated
-concepts which pass for rationality and which govern so much of our thinking
-and behaviour. The task of the conscious revolutionary is to make both
-challenges explicit, to point out their deeply subversive content, and to
-explain their inter-relation."_ [Maurice Brinton, _"The Irrational in
-Politics"_, pp. 257-92, **For Workers' Power**, p. 278]
+the capacity for full sexual enjoyment is an essential part of the revolution.
+Indeed, _"incessant questioning and challenge to authority on the subject of
+sex and of the compulsive family can only complement the questioning and
+challenge to authority in other areas (for instance on the subject of who is
+to dominate the work process -- or the purpose of work itself). Both
+challenges stress the autonomy of individuals and their domination over
+important aspects of their lives. Both expose the alienated concepts which
+pass for rationality and which govern so much of our thinking and behaviour.
+The task of the conscious revolutionary is to make both challenges explicit,
+to point out their deeply subversive content, and to explain their inter-
+relation."_ [Maurice Brinton, _"The Irrational in Politics"_, pp. 257-92,
+**For Workers' Power**, p. 278]
We noted previously that in pre-patriarchal society, which rests on a
communistic/communal social order, children have complete sexual freedom and
@@ -1006,12 +1007,12 @@ gradually solve the problems facing their private lives, they will work on
other social projects with greatly increased pleasure and concentration.
Besides engaging in direct action, anarchists can also support legal
-protection free expression and sexuality (repeal of the insane statutory rape
-laws and equal rights for gays, for example), just as they support legislation
-that protects workers' right to strike, family leave, and so forth. However,
-as Reich observed, _"under no circumstances will the new order of sexual life
-be established by the decree of a central authority."_ [**The Sexual
-Revolution**, p. 279] That was a Leninist illusion. Rather, it will be
+protection for free expression and sexuality (repeal of the insane statutory
+rape laws and equal rights for gays, for example), just as they support
+legislation that protects workers' right to strike, family leave, and so
+forth. However, as Reich observed, _"under no circumstances will the new order
+of sexual life be established by the decree of a central authority."_ [**The
+Sexual Revolution**, p. 279] That was a Leninist illusion. Rather, it will be
established from the bottom up, by the gradual process of ever more widespread
dissemination of knowledge about the adverse personal and social effects of
sexual repression, and the benefits of libertarian child-rearing and
@@ -1048,12 +1049,17 @@ As such, the issue of sexual freedom is as important as economic and social
freedom for anarchists. This can be seen when Emma Goldman recounted meeting
Kropotkin who praised a paper she was involved with but proclaimed _"it would
do more if it would not waste so much space discussing sex."_ She disagreed
-and a heated argument ensured about _"the place of the sex problem in
-anarchist propaganda."_ Finally, she remarked _"All right, dear comrade, when
-I have reached your age, the sex question may no longer be of importance to
-me. But it is now, and it is a tremendous factor for thousands, millions even,
-of young people."_ This, Goldman recalled, made Kropotkin stop short with _"an
+and a heated argument ensued about _"the place of the sex problem in anarchist
+propaganda."_ Finally, she remarked _"All right, dear comrade, when I have
+reached your age, the sex question may no longer be of importance to me. But
+it is now, and it is a tremendous factor for thousands, millions even, of
+young people."_ This, Goldman recalled, made Kropotkin stop short with _"an
amused smile lighting up his kindly face. 'Fancy, I didn't think of that,' he
replied. 'Perhaps you are right, after all.' He beamed affectionately upon me,
with a humorous twinkle in his eye."_ [**Living My Life**, vol. 1, p. 253]
+[‹ J.5 What alternative social organisations do anarchists
+create?](/afaq/secJ5.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secJcon.html "Go
+to parent page" ) [J.7 What do anarchists mean by "social revolution"?
+›](/afaq/secJ7.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secJ7.md b/markdown/secJ7.md
index 64a146ca18a1784fc37c7e5a96ac0798dbf94ab1..65da4f1c7f115e50a4b6a29fd775c137c3a129d5 100644
--- a/markdown/secJ7.md
+++ b/markdown/secJ7.md
@@ -11,10 +11,10 @@ Alexander Berkman put it:
> _"there are revolutions and revolutions. Some revolutions change only the
governmental form by putting a new set of rulers in place of the old. These
-are political revolutions, and as such they are often meet with little
-resistance. But a revolution that aims to abolish the entire system of wage
-slavery must also do away with the power of one class to oppress another. That
-is, it is not any more a mere change of rulers, of government, not a political
+are political revolutions, and as such they often meet with little resistance.
+But a revolution that aims to abolish the entire system of wage slavery must
+also do away with the power of one class to oppress another. That is, it is
+not any more a mere change of rulers, of government, not a political
revolution, but one that seeks to alter the whole character of society. That
would be a **social** revolution."_ [**What is Anarchism?**, p. 176]
@@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ anarchist because the masses are not ready for anarchy."_ [Malatesta, **Errico
Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, p. 162]
So revolution and anarchism is the product of struggle, a social process in
-which anarchist ideas spread and develop._"This does not mean,"_ argued
+which anarchist ideas spread and develop. _"This does not mean,"_ argued
Malatesta, _"that to achieve anarchy we must wait till **everyone** becomes an
anarchist. On the contrary . . . under present conditions only a small
minority, favoured by specific circumstances, can manage to conceive what
@@ -247,30 +247,29 @@ hands and imparting to it a direction salutary for the people: a serious,
international organisation of worker's organisations of all countries, capable
of replacing the departing political world of the States and the
bourgeoisie."_ [**The Political Philosophy of Bakunin**, p. 323] Thus, for
-most anarchists, the difference of evolution and revolution is one of little
-import -- anarchists should support libertarian tendencies within society as
-they support revolutionary situations when they occur.
+most anarchists, the difference between evolution and revolution is one of
+little import -- anarchists should support libertarian tendencies within
+society as they support revolutionary situations when they occur.
However, revolutionary anarchists argue that, ultimately, capitalism cannot be
reformed away nor will the state wither away under the onslaught of
libertarian institutions and attitudes. Neither mutual banking (see [section
J.5.7](secJ5.html#secj57)) nor co-operatives (see [section
J.5.11](secJ5.html#secj511)) can out-compete capitalist institutions. This
-means that these alternatives, will important, are insufficient to the task of
-creating a free society. This suggests that while libertarian tendencies
+means that these alternatives, while important, are insufficient to the task
+of creating a free society. This suggests that while libertarian tendencies
within capitalism may make life better under that system, they cannot get rid
-of it. This requires a social revolution, they argue. Such anarchists agree
-with Alexander Berkman that there _"is no record of any government or
-authority, of any group or class in power having given up its mastery
-voluntarily. In every instance it required the use of force, or at least the
-threat of it."_ [**What is Anarchism?**, p. 174] Even the end of State
-capitalism ("Communism") in Eastern Europe did not contradict this argument.
-Without the mass action of the population, the regime would have continued.
-Faced with a massive popular revolt, the Commissars realised that it was
-better to renounce (some) power than have it all taken from them (and they
-were right, as this allowed many of them to become part of the new, private
-capitalist, ruling class). Thus mass rebellion, the start of any true
-revolution, was required.
+of it. This requires a social revolution. Such anarchists agree with Alexander
+Berkman that there _"is no record of any government or authority, of any group
+or class in power having given up its mastery voluntarily. In every instance
+it required the use of force, or at least the threat of it."_ [**What is
+Anarchism?**, p. 174] Even the end of State capitalism ("Communism") in
+Eastern Europe did not contradict this argument. Without the mass action of
+the population, the regime would have continued. Faced with a massive popular
+revolt, the Commissars realised that it was better to renounce (some) power
+than have it all taken from them (and they were right, as this allowed many of
+them to become part of the new, private capitalist, ruling class). Thus mass
+rebellion, the start of any true revolution, was required.
The argument that the state is too powerful to be defeated has been proven
wrong time and time again. Every revolution has defeated a military machine
@@ -293,7 +292,7 @@ wider and wider. Revolutionary anarchists argue that anarchists must, by the
nature of our politics and our desire for freedom, support such acts of
rebellion and, ultimately, social revolution. Not to do so means ignoring
people in struggle against our common enemy and ignoring the means by which
-anarchists ideas and attitudes will grow within existing society. Thus
+anarchist ideas and attitudes will grow within existing society. Thus
Alexander Berkman was right when he wrote:
> _"That is why it is no prophecy to foresee that some day it must come to
@@ -496,7 +495,7 @@ self-management, co-operation and solidarity are not simply an act of ethical
will which overcomes the competitive and hierarchical behaviour capitalism
generates within those who live in it. Capitalism is, as Malatesta noted,
based on competition -- and this includes **within** the working class.
-However, **_co-operation**_ is stimulated within our class by our struggles to
+However, **_co-operation_** is stimulated within our class by our struggles to
survive in and resist the system. This tendency for co-operation generated by
struggle against capitalism also produces the habits required for a free
society -- by struggling to change the world (even a small part of it), people
@@ -591,9 +590,9 @@ Of course, many revolutions are marked by violence. It has two sources. First,
and most obviously, the violent resistance of those protecting their power and
wealth against those seeking liberty. Unsurprisingly, this violence is usually
downplayed in history books and the media. Second, acts of revenge resulting
-from the the domination and repression of the system the revolution seeks to
-end. Such violence is not desired nor the aim of anarchism nor of the
-revolution. As Berkman argued:
+from the domination and repression of the system the revolution seeks to end.
+Such violence is not desired nor the aim of anarchism nor of the revolution.
+As Berkman argued:
> _"We know that revolution begins with street disturbances and outbreaks; it
is the initial phase which involves force and violence. But that is merely the
@@ -636,9 +635,9 @@ violence to that required for self-defence against oppression and authority.
Therefore a social revolution **may** involve some violence. It may also mean
no violence at all. It depends on the revolution and how widely anarchist
ideas are spread. One thing is sure, for anarchists social revolution is
-**not** synonymous violence. Indeed, violence usually occurs when the ruling
-class resists the action of the oppressed -- that is, when those in authority
-act to protect their social position.
+**not** synonymous with violence. Indeed, violence usually occurs when the
+ruling class resists the action of the oppressed -- that is, when those in
+authority act to protect their social position.
The wealthy and their state will do anything in their power to prevent having
a large enough percentage of anarchists in the population to simply "ignore"
@@ -684,7 +683,7 @@ disbanding of thousands of representative, district, communal, regional,
national bodies which, without having any legislative power, serve to make
known and to co-ordinate the desires and interests of people near and far and
which act through information, advice and example. Revolution is freedom
-proved in the crucible of facts \-- and lasts so long as freedom lasts."_
+proved in the crucible of facts -- and lasts so long as freedom lasts."_
[**Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, p. 153]
This, of course, presents a somewhat wide vision of the revolutionary process.
@@ -795,7 +794,7 @@ _"expropriation of landowners and capitalists for the benefit of all."_
[Malatesta, **Op. Cit.**, p. 198] This would be done by workers occupying
their workplaces and placing them under workers' self-management. As
Voltairine de Cleyre argued in 1910 _"the weapon of the future will be the
-general strike"_ and its it not clear that _"it must be the strike which will
+general strike"_ and is it not clear that _"it must be the strike which will
**stay in** the factory, not **go out**? which will guard the machines and
allow no scab to touch them? which will organise, not to inflict deprivation
on itself, but on the enemy? which will take over industry and operate it for
@@ -880,10 +879,10 @@ crush the revolution. As the CNT newspaper put it in the 1930s, the _"first
step in the social revolution is to take control of Town Hall and proclaim the
free commune. Once this occurs, self-management spreads to all areas of life
and the people exercise their sovereign executive power through the popular
-assembly." _ This free commune _"is the basic unit of libertarian communism .
-. . and, federated, it provides the basic structure of the new society in all
+assembly." _This free commune _"is the basic unit of libertarian communism . .
+. and, federated, it provides the basic structure of the new society in all
its aspects: administrative, economic and political."_ [quoted by Abel Paz,
-**Durrutu in the Spanish Revolution**, p. 312]
+**Durruti in the Spanish Revolution**, p. 312]
Such a destruction of the state does not involve violence against individuals,
but rather the end of hierarchical organisations, positions and institutions.
@@ -892,7 +891,7 @@ officialdom, etc. It would mean the transformation of police stations,
military bases, the offices used by the bureaucracy into something more useful
(or, as in the case of prisons, their destruction). Town halls would be
occupied and used by community and industrial groups, for example. Offices of
-the mayor could be turned into crches. Police stations, if they have not been
+the mayor could be turned into crèches. Police stations, if they have not been
destroyed, could be turned into storage centres for goods (William Morris, in
his utopian novel **News from Nowhere**, imagined the Houses of Parliament
being turned into a manure storage facility). And so on. Those who used to
@@ -1035,7 +1034,7 @@ selfhood in all its social dimensions."_ [Bookchin, **Op. Cit.**, p. 104]
## J.7.5 What is the role of anarchists in a social revolution?
-All the great social revolutions have been spontaneous. Indeed, it is clich
+All the great social revolutions have been spontaneous. Indeed, it is cliché
that the revolutionaries are usually the most surprised when a revolution
breaks out. Nor do anarchists assume that a revolution will initially be
totally libertarian in nature. All we assume is that there will be libertarian
@@ -1121,13 +1120,13 @@ Cit.**, pp. 42-3] Such a centralisation of power means the suppression of
local initiatives, the replacing of self-management with bureaucracy and the
creation of a new, exploitative and oppressive class of officials and party
hacks. Only when power rests in the hands of everyone can a social revolution
-exist and a free society created. If this is not done, if the state replaces
-the self-managed associations of a free people, all that happens is the
-replacement of one class system by another. This is because the state is an
-instrument of minority rule -- it can never become an instrument of majority
-empowerment as its centralised, hierarchical and authoritarian nature excludes
-such a possibility (see [section H.3.7](secH3.html#sech37) for more discussion
-on this issue).
+exist and a free society be created. If this is not done, if the state
+replaces the self-managed associations of a free people, all that happens is
+the replacement of one class system by another. This is because the state is
+an instrument of minority rule -- it can never become an instrument of
+majority empowerment as its centralised, hierarchical and authoritarian nature
+excludes such a possibility (see [section H.3.7](secH3.html#sech37) for more
+discussion on this issue).
Therefore an important role of anarchists is to undermine hierarchical
organisation by creating self-managed ones, by keeping the management and
@@ -1148,7 +1147,7 @@ dampened, interest gradually weakens, initiative languishes, creativeness
wanes, and the revolution becomes the monopoly of a clique which presently
turns dictator."_ [**What is Anarchism?**, p. 213] The history of every
revolution proves this point, we feel, and so the role of anarchists is clear
-\-- to keep a revolution revolutionary by encouraging libertarian ideas,
+-- to keep a revolution revolutionary by encouraging libertarian ideas,
organisation, tactics and activity.
Anarchists, therefore, organise to influence social struggle in a libertarian
@@ -1264,7 +1263,7 @@ foreign intervention would face the problems of solidarity actions and revolts
on its own doorstep and not dare send its troops abroad for long, if at all.
Ultimately, the only way to support a revolution is to make your own.
-Within the revolutionary area, it is the actions of liberated people than will
+Within the revolutionary area, it is the actions of liberated people that will
defend it. Firstly, the population would be armed and so counter-
revolutionaries would face stiff opposition to their attempts to recreate
authority. Secondly, they would face liberated individuals who would reject
@@ -1392,12 +1391,12 @@ Which was precisely what the CNT did do in July 1936 when faced with the
fascist coup. Unfortunately, like the Makhnovists, the CNT militias were
betrayed by their so-called allies on the left. The anarchist troops were not
given enough arms and were left on the front to rot in inaction. The "unified"
-command by the Republican State preferred not to arm libertarian troops as
+command of the Republican State preferred not to arm libertarian troops as
they would use these arms to defend themselves and their fellow workers
-against the Republican and Communist led counter-revolution. Ultimately, the
-_"people in arms"_ won the revolution and the _"People's Army"_ which replaced
-it lost the war (see Jose Peirats' **The CNT in the Spanish Revolution**, Abel
-Paz's **Durruti in the Spanish Revolution**, Vernon Richard's **Lessons of the
+against the Communist led counter-revolution. Ultimately, the _"people in
+arms"_ won the revolution and the _"People's Army"_ which replaced it lost the
+war (see Jose Peirats' **The CNT in the Spanish Revolution**, Abel Paz's
+**Durruti in the Spanish Revolution**, Vernon Richard's **Lessons of the
Spanish Revolution** or Noam Chomsky's **Objectivity and Liberal
Scholarship**).
@@ -1428,3 +1427,8 @@ Anarchism calls upon everyone to live the kind of life they deserve as unique
individuals and desire as human beings. Individually we can make a difference,
together we can change the world.
+[‹ J.6 What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate?
+](/afaq/secJ6.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/secJcon.html "Go to
+parent page" ) [Appendix : Anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism
+›](/afaq/append1.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/secJcon.md b/markdown/secJcon.md
index 1cc4e59dce1e8dd42dcf09da6522067452e3e8af..b326896fd0d6bead37ad05cda2eb974d392c28e4 100644
--- a/markdown/secJcon.md
+++ b/markdown/secJcon.md
@@ -1,115 +1,143 @@
# Section J - What do anarchists do?
+##
+
## [Introduction](secJint.html)
+##
+
## [J.1 Are anarchists involved in social struggles?](secJ1.html)
-### [J.1.1 Why are social struggles important?](secJ1.html#secj11)
-[J.1.2 Are anarchists against reforms?](secJ1.html#secj12)
-[J.1.3 Why are anarchists against reformism?](secJ1.html#secj13)
-[J.1.4 What attitude do anarchists take to "single-issue"
+### [J.1.1 Why are social struggles important?](secJ1.html#secj11)
+ [J.1.2 Are anarchists against reforms?](secJ1.html#secj12)
+ [J.1.3 Why are anarchists against reformism?](secJ1.html#secj13)
+ [J.1.4 What attitude do anarchists take to "single-issue"
campaigns?](secJ1.html#secj14)
-[J.1.5 Why do anarchists try to generalise social
-struggles?](secJ1.html#secj15)
+ [J.1.5 Why do anarchists try to generalise social
+struggles?](secJ1.html#secj15)
## [J.2 What is direct action?](secJ2.html)
-### [J.2.1 Why do anarchists favour using direct action to change
+### [J.2.1 Why do anarchists favour using direct action to change
things?](secJ2.html#secj21)
-[J.2.2 Why do anarchists reject voting as a means for
+ [J.2.2 Why do anarchists reject voting as a means for
change?](secJ2.html#secj22)
-[J.2.3 What are the political implications of voting?](secJ2.html#secj23)
-[J.2.4 Surely voting for radical parties will be
+ [J.2.3 What are the political implications of
+voting?](secJ2.html#secj23)
+ [J.2.4 Surely voting for radical parties will be
effective?](secJ2.html#secj24)
-[J.2.5 Why do anarchists support abstentionism and what are its
+ [J.2.5 Why do anarchists support abstentionism and what are its
implications?](secJ2.html#secj25)
-[J.2.6 What are the effects of radicals using
+ [J.2.6 What are the effects of radicals using
electioneering?](secJ2.html#secj26)
-[J.2.7 Surely we should vote for reformist parties in order to expose
-them?](secJ2.html#secj27)
-[J.2.8 Will abstentionism lead to the right winning
+ [J.2.7 Surely we should vote for reformist parties in order to
+expose them?](secJ2.html#secj27)
+ [J.2.8 Will abstentionism lead to the right winning
elections?](secJ2.html#secj28)
-[J.2.9 What do anarchists do instead of voting?](secJ2.html#secj29)
-[J.2.10 Does rejecting electioneering mean that anarchists are
-apolitical?](secJ2.html#secj210)
+ [J.2.9 What do anarchists do instead of voting?](secJ2.html#secj29)
+ [J.2.10 Does rejecting electioneering mean that anarchists are
+apolitical?](secJ2.html#secj210)
## [J.3 What kinds of organisation do anarchists build?](secJ3.html)
-### [J.3.1 What are affinity groups?](secJ3.html#secj31)
-[J.3.2 What are "synthesis" federations?](secJ3.html#secj32)
-[J.3.3 What is the "Platform"?](secJ3.html#secj33)
-[J.3.4 Why do many anarchists oppose the "Platform"?](secJ3.html#secj34)
-[J.3.5 Are there other kinds of anarchist federation?](secJ3.html#secj35)
-[J.3.6 What role do these groups play in anarchist theory?
+### [J.3.1 What are affinity groups?](secJ3.html#secj31)
+ [J.3.2 What are "synthesis" federations?](secJ3.html#secj32)
+ [J.3.3 What is the "Platform"?](secJ3.html#secj33)
+ [J.3.4 Why do many anarchists oppose the
+"Platform"?](secJ3.html#secj34)
+ [J.3.5 Are there other kinds of anarchist
+federation?](secJ3.html#secj35)
+ [J.3.6 What role do these groups play in anarchist theory?
](secJ3.html#secj36)
-[J.3.7 Doesn't Bakunin's "Invisible Dictatorship" prove that anarchists are
-secret authoritarians?](secJ3.html#secj37)
-[J.3.8 What is anarcho-syndicalism?](secJ3.html#secj38)
-[J.3.9 Why are many anarchists not anarcho-syndicalists?](secJ3.html#secj39)
+ [J.3.7 Doesn't Bakunin's "Invisible Dictatorship" prove that
+anarchists are secret authoritarians?](secJ3.html#secj37)
+ [J.3.8 What is anarcho-syndicalism?](secJ3.html#secj38)
+ [J.3.9 Why are many anarchists not anarcho-
+syndicalists?](secJ3.html#secj39)
## [J.4 What trends in society aid anarchist activity?](secJ4.html)
-### [J.4.1 Why is social struggle a good sign?](secJ4.html#secj41)
-[J.4.2 Won't social struggle do more harm than good? ](secJ4.html#secj42)
-[J.4.3 Are the new social movements a positive development for
+### [J.4.1 Why is social struggle a good sign?](secJ4.html#secj41)
+ [J.4.2 Won't social struggle do more harm than good?
+](secJ4.html#secj42)
+ [J.4.3 Are the new social movements a positive development for
anarchists?](secJ4.html#secj43)
-[J.4.4 What is the "economic structural crisis"?](secJ4.html#secj44)
-[J.4.5 Why is this "economic structural crisis" important to social
+ [J.4.4 What is the "economic structural crisis"?](secJ4.html#secj44)
+ [J.4.5 Why is this "economic structural crisis" important to social
struggle?](secJ4.html#secj45)
-[J.4.6 What are implications of anti-government and anti-big business
-feelings? ](secJ4.html#secj46)
-[J.4.7 What about the communications revolution? ](secJ4.html#secj47)
+ [J.4.6 What are implications of anti-government and anti-big
+business feelings? ](secJ4.html#secj46)
+ [J.4.7 What about the communications revolution?
+](secJ4.html#secj47)
## [J.5 What alternative social organisations do anarchists
create?](secJ5.html)
-### [J.5.1 What is community unionism?](secJ5.html#secj51)
-[J.5.2 Why do anarchists support industrial unionism?](secJ5.html#secj52)
-[J.5.3 What attitude do anarchists take to existing
+### [J.5.1 What is community unionism?](secJ5.html#secj51)
+ [J.5.2 Why do anarchists support industrial
+unionism?](secJ5.html#secj52)
+ [J.5.3 What attitude do anarchists take to existing
unions?](secJ5.html#secj53)
-[J.5.4 What are industrial networks?](secJ5.html#secj54)
-[J.5.5 What forms of co-operative credit do anarchists
+ [J.5.4 What are industrial networks?](secJ5.html#secj54)
+ [J.5.5 What forms of co-operative credit do anarchists
support?](secJ5.html#secj55)
-[J.5.6 Why are mutual credit schemes important?](secJ5.html#secj56)
-[J.5.7 Do most anarchists think mutual credit is sufficient to abolish
-capitalism?](secJ5.html#secj57)
-[J.5.8 What would a modern system of mutual banking look like?
+ [J.5.6 Why are mutual credit schemes important?](secJ5.html#secj56)
+ [J.5.7 Do most anarchists think mutual credit is sufficient to
+abolish capitalism?](secJ5.html#secj57)
+ [J.5.8 What would a modern system of mutual banking look like?
](secJ5.html#secj58)
-[J.5.9 How does mutual credit work?](secJ5.html#secj59)
-[J.5.10 Why do anarchists support co-operatives?](secJ5.html#secj510)
-[J.5.11 If workers really want self-management then why are there so few co-
-operatives?](secJ5.html#secj511)
-[J.5.12 If self-management were more efficient then surely the market would
-force capitalists to introduce it?](secJ5.html#secj512)
-[J.5.13 What are Modern Schools?](secJ5.html#secj513)
-[J.5.14 What is Libertarian Municipalism?](secJ5.html#secj514)
-[J.5.15 What attitude do anarchists take to the welfare
+ [J.5.9 How does mutual credit work?](secJ5.html#secj59)
+ [J.5.10 Why do anarchists support co-
+operatives?](secJ5.html#secj510)
+ [J.5.11 If workers really want self-management then why are there so
+few co-operatives?](secJ5.html#secj511)
+ [J.5.12 If self-management were more efficient then surely
+capitalists would introduce it?](secJ5.html#secj512)
+ [J.5.13 What are Modern Schools?](secJ5.html#secj513)
+ [J.5.14 What is Libertarian Municipalism?](secJ5.html#secj514)
+ [J.5.15 What attitude do anarchists take to the welfare
state?](secJ5.html#secj515)
-[J.5.16 Are there any historical examples of collective self-
-help?](secJ5.html#secj516)
+ [J.5.16 Are there any historical examples of collective self-
+help?](secJ5.html#secj516)
## [J.6 What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate?](secJ6.html)
-### [J.6.1 What are the main obstacles to raising free
+### [J.6.1 What are the main obstacles to raising free
children?](secJ6.html#secj61)
-[J.6.2 What are some examples of libertarian child-rearing
+ [J.6.2 What are some examples of libertarian child-rearing
methods?](secJ6.html#secj62)
-[J.6.3 If children have nothing to fear, how can they be
+ [J.6.3 If children have nothing to fear, how can they be
good?](secJ6.html#secj63)
-[J.6.4 Isn't "libertarian child-rearing" just another name for spoiling the
-child?](secJ6.html#secj64)
-[J.6.5 What is the anarchist position on teenage sexual
+ [J.6.4 Isn't "libertarian child-rearing" just another name for
+spoiling the child?](secJ6.html#secj64)
+ [J.6.5 What is the anarchist position on teenage sexual
liberation?](secJ6.html#secj65)
-[J.6.6 But isn't this concern with sexual liberation just a distraction from
-revolution?](secJ6.html#secj66)
+ [J.6.6 But isn't this concern with sexual liberation just a
+distraction from revolution?](secJ6.html#secj66)
## [J.7 What do anarchists mean by social revolution?](secJ7.html)
-### [J.7.1 Why are most anarchists revolutionaries?](secJ7.html#secj71)
-[J.7.2 Is social revolution possible?](secJ7.html#secj72)
-[J.7.3 Doesn't revolution mean violence?](secJ7.html#secj73)
-[J.7.4 What would a social revolution involve?](secJ7.html#secj74)
-[J.7.5 What is the role of anarchists in a social
+### [J.7.1 Why are most anarchists
+revolutionaries?](secJ7.html#secj71)
+ [J.7.2 Is social revolution possible?](secJ7.html#secj72)
+ [J.7.3 Doesn't revolution mean violence?](secJ7.html#secj73)
+ [J.7.4 What would a social revolution involve?](secJ7.html#secj74)
+ [J.7.5 What is the role of anarchists in a social
revolution?](secJ7.html#secj75)
-[J.7.6 How could an anarchist revolution defend itself?](secJ7.html#secj76)
+ [J.7.6 How could an anarchist revolution defend
+itself?](secJ7.html#secj76)
+
+ * [J.0 Section J Introduction](/afaq/secJint.html)
+ * [J.1 Are anarchists involved in social struggles?](/afaq/secJ1.html)
+ * [J.2 What is direct action?](/afaq/secJ2.html)
+ * [J.3 What kinds of organisation do anarchists build?](/afaq/secJ3.html)
+ * [J.4 What trends in society aid anarchist activity?](/afaq/secJ4.html)
+ * [J.5 What alternative social organisations do anarchists create?](/afaq/secJ5.html)
+ * [J.6 What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate? ](/afaq/secJ6.html)
+ * [J.7 What do anarchists mean by "social revolution"?](/afaq/secJ7.html)
+
+[‹ I.8 Does revolutionary Spain show that libertarian socialism can work in
+practice?](/afaq/secI8.html "Go to previous page" ) [up](/afaq/index.html "Go
+to parent page" ) [J.0 Section J Introduction ›](/afaq/secJint.html "Go to
+next page" )
diff --git a/markdown/secJint.md b/markdown/secJint.md
index ae4d77214576ff5678140f358ceda6c6225ffe4c..45c979e4214b0642b363ca77fc3ece90951a1e67 100644
--- a/markdown/secJint.md
+++ b/markdown/secJint.md
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ _"collective experience"_ gained in _"the collective struggle of the workers
against the bosses"_ will transform how they see the world and the world
itself. [Bakunin, **The Basic Bakunin**, p. 103] Ultimately, _"[t]he true man
does not lie in the future, an object of longing, but lies, existent and real,
-in the present."_ [Stirner, **The Ego and Its Own**, p. 327]
+in the present._ [Stirner, **The Ego and Its Own**, p. 327]
Anarchism is more than just a critique of statism and capitalism or a vision
of a freer, better way of life. It is first and foremost a movement, the
@@ -38,10 +38,10 @@ unfree society for that better future and to improve things in the here and
now. Without standing up for yourself and what you believe is right, nothing
will change. Thus anarchy can be found _"wherever free thought breaks loose
from the chains of dogma; wherever the spirit of inquiry rejects the old
-formulas, wherver the human will asserts itself through independent actions;
+formulas, wherever the human will asserts itself through independent actions;
wherever honest people, rebelling against all enforced discipline, join freely
together in order to educate themselves, and to reclaim, without any master,
-their share of life, and the complete satisfaction of their needs."_ [Elise
+their share of life, and the complete satisfaction of their needs."_ [Elisée
Reclus, quoted by John P. Clark and Camille Martin (ed.), **Anarchy,
Geography, Modernity**, p. 62]
@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ forms of activity and organisation by which all the oppressed can liberate
themselves by their own hands. In other words, we do not think that those in
power will altruistically renounce that power or their privileges. Instead,
the oppressed must take the power **back** into their own hands by their own
-actions. We must free ourselves, no one else can do it for use.
+actions. We must free ourselves, no one else can do it for us.
Here we will discuss anarchist ideas on struggle, what anarchists actually
(and, almost as importantly, do not) do in the here and now and the sort of
@@ -89,8 +89,8 @@ alternatives anarchists try to build within statism and capitalism in order to
destroy them. As well as a struggle against oppression, anarchist activity is
also struggle for freedom. As well as fighting against material poverty,
anarchists combat spiritual poverty. By resisting hierarchy we emphasis the
-importance of **living** and of **life as art.** By proclaiming _**"Neither
-Master nor Slave"**_ we urge an ethical transformation, a transformation that
+importance of **living** and of **life as art.** By proclaiming **_"Neither
+Master nor Slave"_** we urge an ethical transformation, a transformation that
will help create the possibility of a truly free society. This point was
stressed by Emma Goldman after she saw the defeat of the Russian Revolution by
a combination of Leninist politics and capitalist armed intervention:
@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ and make good the dignity of the individual human being."_ [Charlotte Wilson,
**Anarchist Essays**, p. 43 and p. 51]
By direct action, self-management and self-activity we can make the words
-first heard in Paris, 1968 a living reality: _**"All power to the
+first heard in Paris, 1968 a living reality: **_"All power to the
imagination!"_** Words, we are sure, previous generations of anarchists would
have whole-heartedly agreed with. There is a power in humans, a creative
power, a power to alter _what is_ into _what should be_. Anarchists try to
@@ -141,3 +141,7 @@ discuss the forms of self-activity and self-organisation which anarchists
think will stimulate and develop the imagination of those oppressed by
hierarchy, build anarchy in action and help create a free society.
+[‹ Section J - What do anarchists do?](/afaq/secJcon.html "Go to previous
+page" ) [up](/afaq/secJcon.html "Go to parent page" ) [J.1 Are anarchists
+involved in social struggles? ›](/afaq/secJ1.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/translations.md b/markdown/translations.md
index 5adff083def593e0b4cb8c92d32d480b1df0bf81..28d7a4d9fa9baa3bfe64d84ac5e09b91b73a7f73 100644
--- a/markdown/translations.md
+++ b/markdown/translations.md
@@ -1,27 +1,31 @@
-## Non-English versions of the FAQ
+In French:
-In Hebrew:
-[
-http://www.shalif.com/anarchy/faqdama.html](http://www.shalif.com/anarchy/faqdama.html)
-[
-http://members.tripod.com/~alternativ_psy/faqdama.html](http://members.tripod.com/~alternativ_psy/faqdama.html)
+[Les FAQ anarchiste](http://anarfaq.free.fr/)
-In French:
-[Les FAQ anarchiste](http://anarfaq.free.fr/)
-[Une FAQ Anarchiste (francophone)](http://faqanar.free.fr)
+[Une FAQ Anarchiste (francophone)](http://faqanar.free.fr/)
-In Portuguese:
-[
-http://www.geocities.com/projetoperiferia2/indice.htm](http://www.geocities.com/projetoperiferia2/indice.htm)
+In Kurdish:
-In Japanese:
-[
-http://www.ne.jp/asahi/anarchy/anarchy/faq/](http://www.ne.jp/asahi/anarchy/anarchy/faq/)
+<http://afaqkurdish.wordpress.com/>
-* * *
+In Japanese:
-[](index.html)
-Click on the flag to return to _**"An Anarchist FAQ"**_ index page
+<http://www.ne.jp/asahi/anarchy/anarchy/faq/>
-* * *
+In Hebrew:
+
+<http://www.shalif.com/anarchy/faqdama.html>
+
+[http://members.tripod.com/~alternativ_psy/faqdama.html](http://members.tripod.com/%7Ealternativ_psy/faqdama.html)
+
+In Portuguese:
+
+<http://www.reocities.com/projetoperiferia2/indice.htm>
+
+Click [here](http://www.anarchistfaq.org.uk) to return to An Anarchist FAQ
+front-page
+
+[‹ An Anarchist FAQ in pdf format](/afaq/pdf.html "Go to previous page" )
+[up](/afaq/index.html "Go to parent page" ) [An Anarchist FAQ links
+›](/afaq/links.html "Go to next page" )
diff --git a/markdown/vol1intro.md b/markdown/vol1intro.md
index ee44f6f8809955ac6a5157eb35237941f418b29e..e633e6e04b1ea5be96cf93c79b694764080b5f07 100644
--- a/markdown/vol1intro.md
+++ b/markdown/vol1intro.md
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ circumstances do likewise and new struggles are fought and (hopefully) won. It
is not some fixed ideology, but rather a means of understanding an evolving
world and to change it in libertarian directions. As such, AFAQ seeks to place
specific aspects of anarchism into their historical context. For example,
-certain aspects of Proudhons ideas can only be understood by remembering that
+certain aspects of Proudhon’s ideas can only be understood by remembering that
he lived at a time when the vast majority of working people were peasants and
artisans. Many commentators (particularly Marxist ones) seem to forget this
(and that he supported co-operatives for large-scale industry). Much the same
@@ -60,8 +60,8 @@ practice. Then there is the issue of sources. We have tried to let anarchists
speak for themselves on most issues and that can take space. Some of the
evidence we use is from books and articles the general reader may not have
easy access so we have tried to present full quotes to show that our use is
-correct (the number of times Ive tracked down references only to discover they
-did not say what was suggested is, sadly, quite numerous).
+correct (the number of times I’ve tracked down references only to discover
+they did not say what was suggested is, sadly, quite numerous).
Moreover, refuting distortions and inventions about anarchism can be lengthy
simply because of the necessity of providing supporting evidence. Time and
@@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ theories. However, the American free-market right appropriated the label in
the 1970s and now it means supporters of minimal state (or private-state)
capitalism. Such is the power having ideas that bolster the wealthy! The
change in "libertarian" is such that some people talk about "libertarian
-anarchism" \-- as if you can have an "authoritarian anarchism"! That these
+anarchism" -- as if you can have an "authoritarian anarchism"! That these
people include "anarcho"-capitalists simply shows how ignorant of anarchism
they actually are and how alien the ideology is to our movement (I've seen
quite a few of them proclaim anarchism is simply a "new" form of Marxism,
@@ -150,10 +150,10 @@ recognise that freedom is more than simply the ability to change masters.
Anarchism means "no authority" (an-archy) and to support social relationships
marked by authority (hier-**_archy_**) produces a self-contradictory mess
(such as supporting forms of domination, such as wage labour, which are
-essentially identical to those produced by the state and, sometimes, admitted
-as such!). Anarchism is, fundamentally, a theory of organisation based on
-individuals associating together without restricting, and so denying and
-limiting, their freedom and individuality. This means that a consistent
+essentially identical to those produced by the state – and, sometimes,
+admitted as such!). Anarchism is, fundamentally, a theory of organisation
+based on individuals associating together without restricting, and so denying
+and limiting, their freedom and individuality. This means that a consistent
anarchism is rooted in free association within a context of self-management,
decentralisation and "bottom-up" decision-making (i.e., it is rooted in
political, economic and social equality). While it is possible to be an
@@ -215,33 +215,21 @@ the first place.
Iain McKay
-[An Anarchist FAQ](http://www.anarchistfaq.org/)
+[An Anarchist FAQ](index.html)
# A Summation
-**_"No question, the word anarchy freaks people. Yet anarchy -- rule by no one -- has always struck me as the same as democracy carried to its logical and reasonable conclusions. Of course those who rule -- bosses and politicians, capital and the state -- cannot imagine that people could rule themselves, for to admit that people can live without authority and rulers pulls out the whole underpinnings of their ideology. Once you admit that people can -- and do, today, in many spheres of their lives -- run things easier, better and more fairly than the corporation and the government can, there's no justification for the boss and the premier. I think most of us realise and understand that, in our guts, but schools, culture, the police, all the authoritarian apparatuses, tell us we need bosses, we need to be controlled 'for our own good.' It's not for our own good it's for the good of the boss, plain and simple."
-
-"Anarchism is a demand for real freedom and real autonomy"
-
-"But I also remain convinced that something like an anarchist future, a world
-of no bosses or politicians, one in which people, all people, can live full
-and meaningful lives, is possible and desirable. We see glimpses of it all
-around us in our day-to-day lives, as people organise much of their lives
-without depending on someone to tell them what to do. We see it in that spirit
-of revolt -- a spirit that is often twisted by anger and despair, but
-nonetheless shows us that people have not given up. We see it in the political
-activism, the social lives, the demands for decency and respect and autonomy
-people put forward, the desire to be individuals while still being part of a
-community.
-
-"No, I don't think bowling leagues are the anarchist utopia, but they, like
-much of our lives outside of the workplace, are organised without hierarchy
-and oppression; the most meaningful, truly human parts of our lives already
-work best when organised on anarchist principles. Yet I also believe that in
-its function as critique and as a vision of the future -- perhaps the only one
-that doesn't end in our extinction as a species, or, as Orwell put it, as a
-jackboot smashing a human face, forever -- anarchism is not only desirable but
-possible and necessary."**_
+**_"No question, the word anarchy freaks people. Yet anarchy -- rule by no one -- has always struck me as the same as democracy carried to its logical and reasonable conclusions. Of course those who rule -- bosses and politicians, capital and the state -- cannot imagine that people could rule themselves, for to admit that people can live without authority and rulers pulls out the whole underpinnings of their ideology. Once you admit that people can -- and do, today, in many spheres of their lives -- run things easier, better and more fairly than the corporation and the government can, there's no justification for the boss and the premier. I think most of us realise and understand that, in our guts, but schools, culture, the police, all the authoritarian apparatuses, tell us we need bosses, we need to be controlled 'for our own good.' It's not for our own good – it's for the good of the boss, plain and simple."_**
+
+**_"Anarchism is a demand for real freedom and real autonomy"_**
+
+**_"But I also remain convinced that something like an anarchist future, a world of no bosses or politicians, one in which people, all people, can live full and meaningful lives, is possible and desirable. We see glimpses of it all around us in our day-to-day lives, as people organise much of their lives without depending on someone to tell them what to do. We see it in that spirit of revolt -- a spirit that is often twisted by anger and despair, but nonetheless shows us that people have not given up. We see it in the political activism, the social lives, the demands for decency and respect and autonomy people put forward, the desire to be individuals while still being part of a community._**
+
+**_"No, I don't think bowling leagues are the anarchist utopia, but they, like much of our lives outside of the workplace, are organised without hierarchy and oppression; the most meaningful, truly human parts of our lives already work best when organised on anarchist principles. Yet I also believe that in its function as critique and as a vision of the future -- perhaps the only one that doesn't end in our extinction as a species, or, as Orwell put it, as a jackboot smashing a human face, forever -- anarchism is not only desirable but possible and necessary."_**
Mark Leier: **The Case for Anarchy**
+[‹ An Anarchist FAQ after ten years](/afaq/10years.html "Go to previous page"
+) [up](/afaq/intro.html "Go to parent page" ) [An Anarchist FAQ: Introduction
+to Volume 2 ›](/afaq/vol2intro.html "Go to next page" )
+
diff --git a/markdown/vol2intro.md b/markdown/vol2intro.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d4ccdae9e2d4a0068ee188f43b5573546069f2c4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/markdown/vol2intro.md
@@ -0,0 +1,460 @@
+# An Anarchist FAQ: Introduction to Volume 2
+
+> _“Conquer or die – such is the dilemma that faces the . . . peasants and
+workers at this historic moment . . . But we will not conquer in order to
+repeat the errors of the past years, the error of putting our fate into the
+hands of new masters; we will conquer in order to take our destinies into our
+own hands, to conduct our lives according to our own will and our own
+conception of the truth.”_
+
+> Nestor Makhno[1]
+
+Welcome to volume 2 of **An Anarchist FAQ** (**AFAQ**)!
+
+If the core of volume 1 was based on outlining anarchist ideas and history as
+well as presenting the anarchist critique of authority, capitalism and
+statism, then this volume is focused around two threads. The first is the
+critique of Marxism, historically anarchism’s main alternative within the
+socialist movement. The second is what anarchists aim for and how we get
+there.
+
+Needless to say, the second theme is by far the more important as anarchism is
+more than just analysing what is wrong with the world, it also aims to change
+it.
+
+First, though, we start with an account of individualist anarchism ([section
+G](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secGcon.html)). It is fair to say that
+individualist anarchism has generally been on the margin of accounts of
+anarchism. This, undoubtedly, reflects the fact it has been predominantly a
+North American movement and was always a small minority within the global
+anarchist movement. Even in the USA, it was eclipsed by social anarchism.
+
+As such, it has been somewhat overlooked in accounts of anarchism and **AFAQ**
+seeks to correct that. Unfortunately, it has also to address claims that
+“anarcho”-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism and so it spends
+some time refuting such assertions. We do so with a heavy heart, as this will
+tend to exaggerate the importance of that ideology and its influence but it
+needs to be done simply in order to counteract those ideologues and academics
+who seek to confuse the two either out of ignorance (for the latter) or self-
+interest (for the former). In addition, section G is shaped by the history of
+**AFAQ**, when it started as an anti-“anarcho”-capitalist FAQ rather than a
+pro-anarchist one. If it had been started as the pro-anarchist FAQ it has now
+become, that section would have been substantially different (most obviously,
+the material on “anarcho”-capitalism being placed in an appendix where it
+belongs).
+
+This means that in some regards, section G can be considered as a continuation
+of [section F](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secFcon.html) (which is on
+why “anarcho”-capitalism is not a form of anarchism). Individualist anarchism
+**_is_** the form of anarchism closest to liberalism and, as a consequence, to
+“anarcho”-capitalism. However, similarities do not equate to the former being
+a (flawed, from an “anarcho”-capitalist perspective) forerunner of the latter.
+If this were the case then some would assert that social anarchism is a form
+of Marxism. There are overlaps, of course, but then again there are overlaps
+between individualist anarchism, Marxism and social anarchism. Yet, for all
+its differences with social anarchism, individualist anarchism shared a
+critique of capitalism and the state which has significant commonality.
+
+Individualist anarchism is a unique political theory and it does it a
+disservice to reduce it to simply a flawed precursor of an ideology whose
+origins and aims are radically at odds with it. It is no coincidence that
+individualist anarchism found its home in the broader labour and socialist
+movements while propertarianism views these with disdain. Nor is it a
+coincidence that the main influences on individualist anarchism were labour,
+monetary and land reform movements plus the economics of Proudhon and other
+socialists while, for “anarcho”-capitalism, it is “Austrian” economics which
+developed, in part, precisely to combat such popular movements. This leads to
+fundamentally different analyses, strategies and aims that show beyond doubt
+that the two cannot be confused. The individualist anarchists cannot be
+considered as forerunners of propertarianism in any more than the most
+superficial terms. So it is a shame this needs to be discussed at all, but it
+has.
+
+Ironically, a sadly unpublished article from the 1950s by the founder of that
+ideology, Murray Rothbard, has come to light which came to the same conclusion
+(inaccurately entitled, given the history of anarchist use of libertarian,
+**Are Libertarians ‘Anarchists’?**). Ignoring the errors, distortions and
+inventions about anarchism Rothbard inflicts on the reader, this essay came to
+the following (correct!) conclusion: _“We must therefore conclude that we are
+_**not**_ anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm
+etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical.”_ This was
+applicable to both the _“dominant anarchist doctrine . . . of ‘anarchist
+communism’” (“which has also been called ‘collectivist anarchism,’ ‘anarcho-
+syndicalism,’ and ‘libertarian communism’_) as well as individualist
+anarchists, considered by Rothbard _“the best of them”,_ as **both** had
+_“socialistic elements in their doctrines_._” _He suggested that there were
+thinkers _“in that Golden Age of liberalism”_ who had ideas _“similar” _to his
+ideology but these _“never referred to themselves as anarchists”_ while _“all
+the anarchist groups . . . possessed socialistic _**economic**_ doctrines in
+common.”_ If only he had kept to that analysis and called his ideology
+something more accurate then this FAQ would have been much shorter!
+
+Also significant is Rothbard’s use of the term “libertarian communism” which
+indicates he was well aware of the traditional use of libertarian as an
+alternative to anarchist. Interestingly, while reminiscing about the origins
+of the so-called “libertarian” right in America Rothbard publicly acknowledged
+their stealing of the word libertarian from genuine anarchists:
+
+> _“One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the
+first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the
+enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-
+wing [sic!] anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either
+of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over . .
+.”_[2]
+
+Today, of course, propertarians shrilly denounce anarchists using the term
+libertarian in its original and correct meaning as attempting to appropriate
+_their_ name and associate it with socialism! Oh, the irony…
+
+Unlike the propertarians who are so busy degrading the good name “libertarian”
+and the memories of individualist anarchism, adherents of both schools of
+anarchism considered themselves socialists. Of course there _are_ real
+differences between individualist and social anarchism, and we explore these.
+We show that attempts by some members of each school to excommunicate the
+others are, ultimately, pointless (in general, the individualists seemed
+keener to do that than the social anarchists but both sides had their
+intolerant ones). There is significant overlap between both sections of the
+movement and so it is perfectly possible for each to coexist happily in a free
+society as well as, on certain issues and tactics, to work fruitfully together
+in resisting capitalism and the state.[3]
+
+We then turn to discuss Marxism and its flaws ([section
+H](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secHcon.html)). To be honest, it is
+staggering that this section even needs to be written given that the anarchist
+critique of Marxism has been validated time and time again. It is like writing
+a book on evolution and spending a significant time refuting the claims of
+Lamarckian theory. Sadly, though, many radicals seem unable to grasp the facts
+of history, namely that the predictions made by anarchism as regards Marxism
+have come to pass. Bakunin was right: social democracy did become reformist
+and the dictatorship of the proletariat became the dictatorship **_over_** the
+proletariat.
+
+This critique is not to suggest that anarchists should reject everything Marx
+argued.[4] In terms of his critique of capitalism, there is much that
+libertarians can agree with (undoubtedly because much of it was built on
+Proudhon’s analysis!). In part, it is this analysis which ensures that Marxism
+remains alive as a distinct ideology in the radical movement rather than
+Marx’s positive contributions being integrated along with others (such as
+Proudhon and Bakunin) into libertarian socialism. It is a powerful and, in
+large parts, a correct analysis of that system but in terms of constructive
+ideas on what socialism would be and how to achieve it, Marxism comes up as
+deeply flawed. So, as with anarchist thinkers, we should recognise the
+important and valid parts of Marx’s contribution to the socialist movement
+while rejecting its negative aspects – particularly as many so-called
+“Marxist” positions were first expounded by anarchists!
+
+In part, because as well as his critique of capitalism the other main reason
+for Marxism’s continued existence is, undoubtedly, its apparent success.
+Needless to say, most Marxists are keen to forget that the first apparently
+successful Marxist movement was social democracy. Engels lavish praise for it
+is rarely mentioned these days, given social democracy’s quick descent into
+reformism and, worse, explicit counter-revolution during the German
+revolution. Rather, it is the apparent success of Leninism[5] during the
+Russian Revolution that accounts for why so many radicals are attracted to it.
+As such, what Alexander Berkman termed **The Bolshevik Myth** is alive and
+well – and needs to be combated.
+
+Suffice to say, the promises of Lenin’s **State and Revolution** did not last
+the night and within six months there was a _de facto_ party dictatorship
+presiding over a state capitalist economy (by early 1919, the need for party
+dictatorship in a revolution was considered a truism by all the leaders of the
+party). If that counts as a success, what would failure be? Luckily, unlike
+Berkman’s generation, the numbers blinded by wishful thinking about
+“socialism” in Russia are fewer although we do have those who, while
+denouncing Stalin, seem incapable of seeing the obvious links with Lenin’s
+regime and its ideological conceptions (most notably, but not limited to, its
+vanguardism). As we show in section H.6, the standard modern-day Leninist
+excuses for Bolshevik tyranny have nothing to recommend them – both in terms
+of theory and empirical evidence. So as well as presenting a theoretical
+critique of Marxism, we seek to root it in the experiences of Marxism in
+practice. This involves, in the main, focusing on the Social-Democratic
+movement, Bolshevism and the Russian Revolution.
+
+We also spend some time refuting numerous Marxist distortions of anarchist
+ideas. I’ve lost count of the times I have seen blatantly false claims about
+anarchism raised by Marxists. I’m not that surprised, as few Marxists actually
+bother to read the likes of Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin. Instead, they
+simply repeat what other Marxists have claimed about anarchism (starting, of
+course, with Marx and Engels). This explains why [section
+H.2](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH2.html) has so many quotes in it,
+simply to drive home what would be obvious to anyone familiar with anarchist
+theory and practice. A few quotes could be dismissed as selective, a multitude
+cannot. I’m sorry that has to be done, but the regularity of abysmally bad
+Marxist diatribes against anarchism means that it had to be done in such
+detail. Sadly, I’m sure that refuting these habitual false assertions in
+**AFAQ** it will not stop Marxists repeating them.
+
+Marxist myths on anarchism also feeds into section G, given that many Marxists
+have been at pains to portray anarchism as being simply “anti-state” (in this,
+they share common-ground with the propertarians). Yet even a cursory glance of
+anarchist theory and history shows that it has _never_ limited itself to just
+a critique of the state. As long as anarchism has been a named socio-economic
+theory we have directed our fire at both state **_and_** property. [_Property
+is Theft!_](http://www.property-is-theft.org), my new anthology of Proudhon’s
+writings, shows how interlinked the anarchist opposition to the state and
+capitalism has been from the start. Thus we find Proudhon arguing that _“the
+capitalist principle” _and the _“governmental principle are one and the same
+principle” _and so_ “the abolition of the exploitation of man by man and the
+abolition of government of man by man are one and the same formula.”
+_Moreover, it is _“to protect this exploitation of man by man that the State
+exists” _Unsurprisingly, then, anarchists are _“simultaneously striving for
+the abolition of capital and of the State”_ and _“if you do away with the
+former, you still have to do away with the latter, and **vice versa**.”_[6]_ _
+
+So the notion of an anarchism which is simply anti-state is completely alien
+to our tradition. However, falsely limiting anarchism to purely opposition to
+the state does allow Marxists to portray their tradition as the only form of
+socialism and so exclude anarchism, by definition, from anti-capitalism.
+
+After Marxism, we move onto more constructive and fruitful subjects, namely
+anarchist ideas of what a free society could be like ([section
+I](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secIcon.html)) and what we do in the
+here and now to bring it closer and to make our lives better ([section
+J](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secJcon.html)).
+
+[Section I](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secIcon.html) is important,
+simply because it presents a rough outline of what anarchists have suggested
+would characterise a free society. So we discuss workers self-management,
+community self-government, economic and social federalism, anti-social
+behaviour in a free society, and a host of other issues. While many people,
+particularly Marxists, question the wisdom of discussing the future society
+(Marx’s comment on “writing the cookbooks of the future” springs to mind[7]),
+anarchists have been more willing to sketch out a rough vision of what a free
+society could be like. This may come as a surprise for some (infatuated with
+Bakunin’s pre-anarchist comment that _“the urge to destroy is a creative
+urge”_) but in reality anarchism has always been a constructive socio-economic
+theory and anarchist thinkers have always been more than willing to sketch
+what a free society _could_ be.
+
+And that is the key, this is what anarchy _could_ be like. As we are at pains
+to stress, we are not presenting a blueprint: it is a series of suggestions
+based on our critique of capitalism, anarchist principles and the experiences
+of the struggle against oppression as well as social revolutions that have
+taken place. This is important, as anarchists have never abstractly postulated
+ideal social organisations to the oppression of hierarchy but, rather,
+developed our ideas of what a free society could look like by critically
+analysing the current exploitative and oppression one as well as the self-
+activity and self-organisation of those resisting it. Anarchy will be created
+from below, by the people themselves, for, as Kropotkin put it, the _“work of
+demolition can only be accomplished by the direct participation of the whole
+of the people. And they will only act in the name of their immediate and
+popular needs. The land to the peasant; the factory, the workshop, the railway
+and the rest to the worker.”_[8]
+
+This anti-utopian perspective has been a significant aspect of anarchism since
+Proudhon who (especially his **System of Economic Contradictions**) attacked
+utopian socialists like Fourier and Saint-Simon for presenting fantastical
+visions (and appealing for rich benefactors!) rather than studying tendencies
+within capitalism which could transcend it (particularly working class self-
+activity). Thus social transformation _“__must not emanate from the powers
+that be; it ought to be SPONTANEOUS.”_ It must come _“from below”_ as only
+this ensured change _“by the concerted action of the citizens, by the
+experience of the workers, by the progress and diffusion of enlightenment,
+revolution by the means of liberty.”_[9] Echoing Proudhon, Kropotkin argued
+that _“the method followed by the anarchist thinker”_ is _“entirely different
+from that followed by the utopists . . . He studies human society as it is now
+and was in the past . . . tries to discover its tendencies, past and present,
+its growing needs, intellectual and economic, and in his ideal he merely
+points out in which direction evolution goes.”_[10] A key aspect of this is
+looking at the self-organisation and struggles of working class people, these
+being the means by which anarchists link the current to the future.
+
+So we discuss in **AFAQ** the perennial issues of both transition and how the
+new world gestates within the old. As section I.2.3 shows in detail,
+anarchists have always stressed that the new world is created in our struggles
+against the old. The fight for freedom transforms those who take part as well
+as creating the organisations (such as community assemblies, workers’
+councils, factory committees and their federations) which will be the
+framework of a free society. So the IWW slogan of _“building a new world in
+the shell of the old”_ has been a key aspect of anarchism for some time, with
+Proudhon proclaiming during the 1848 Revolution that _“a new society be
+founded in the heart of the old society” _based on _“__a body representative
+of the proletariat be[ing] formed . . . in opposition to the bourgeoisie’s
+representation.”_[11]
+
+Which brings us nicely to the last section, on what do anarchists do? In
+[section J](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secJcon.html) we summarise how
+anarchists see social change happening. There are substantial discussions on
+alternative forms of social organisation we advocate and how they are the
+embryonic forms of a free society we create while resisting the current
+oppressive one. Thus, for example, we discuss how the federations of workplace
+assemblies we urge to fight the bosses become the means by which co-operative
+production is organised in a free society while the neighbourhood assemblies
+created as a counter-power to the state become the means by which free
+individuals manage their communities. As will soon become clear, Marxist myths
+not withstanding, anarchists stress the importance of working class struggle
+in changing the world. Kropotkin summarised the libertarian perspective well
+in 1907:
+
+> _“Workmen’s organisations are the real force capable of accomplishing the
+social revolution – after the awakening of the proletariat has been
+accomplished, first by individual action, then by collective action, by
+strikes and revolts extending more and more; and where workmen’s organisations
+have not allowed themselves to be dominated by the gentlemen who advocate ‘the
+conquest of political power’, but have continued to walk hand in hand with
+anarchists – as they have done in Spain – they have obtained, on the one hand,
+immediate results (an eight-hour day in certain trades in Catalonia), and on
+the other have made good propaganda for the social revolution – the one to
+come, not from the efforts of those highly-placed gentlemen, but from below,
+from workmen’s organisations.”_[12]
+
+We also outline why anarchists support direct action and reject voting
+(“political action”) as the means of social change as well as the role of
+libertarians in social struggle and revolution as well as how we organise to
+influence both. As well as summarising our ideas on the important issues of
+how we organise and how we change the world, we take the time to refute some
+of the more common false claims against abstentionism and whether we are
+“a-political” or not. Suffice to say, the anarchist critique of electioneering
+has been validated (as can be seen by the numbers of ex-radical politicians
+and ex-socialist parties in the world). Our arguments on the transforming
+power of direct action, solidarity and working class self-organisation from
+below have, likewise, been vindicated time and time again.
+
+Few, if any, anarchists place all their hopes in spontaneity (if that were all
+that was required we would be in an anarchist society by now!). So we organise
+_as anarchists_ and participate in the class struggle to push it in
+libertarian directions. Kropotkin words are extremely relevant here:
+
+> _“The syndicate[union] is absolutely necessary. It is the only form of
+working-men’s group that permits of maintaining the direct struggle against
+capital, without falling into parliamentarianism. But evidently it does not
+take that trend mechanically, since we have in Germany, France and England
+syndicates rallying to parliamentarianism . . . The **other** element is
+necessary, the element of which Malatesta speaks and which Bakunin has always
+practised.”_[13]
+
+So section J also addresses the issue of how anarchists organise, the kinds of
+associations we create and how we seek to influence social movements and the
+class struggle. Suffice to say, while we reject Leninism and its vanguardism
+we do not reject organising anarchist groups and federations to explain our
+ideas in order to see them gain predominance in popular organisations and
+social conflicts.
+
+It must also be noted that the sections within this volume have been slightly
+edited to ensure that it approximates volume 1 in size. This has involved
+trimming around a tenth of the material. I have tried to cut non-essential
+paragraphs and sub-sections to ensure that the core of the arguments remain
+intact. This means that, for example, [section
+H.2](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH2.html) (which debunks various
+Marxist myths about anarchism) ends on section H.2.11 in print but goes to
+section H.2.14 on-line. This was done with a heavy heart.
+
+Since volume 1 has been published, significant changes have occurred in the
+world. Neo-liberalism has taken a battering as the inevitable consequences of
+its policies resolved themselves in economic crisis. While reality has struck
+a blow to that ideology, it is fair to say that it will survive – after all,
+the ideology is so unrealistic already why should mere reality impact on its
+beauty for the true believer? Not to mention, of course, the significant class
+interests expressed in it. One thing is true, unless working class people
+organise and resist then governments, political discourse, economies and
+economic ideology will simply continue on as before – and those who will pay
+the costs of the crisis will not be the ruling class that created it.
+
+On a more positive note, [section
+B.1](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secB1.html) of **AFAQ** indicated how
+hierarchies of wealth and power adversely affect those subject to them. **The
+Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better** by Richard
+Wilkinson and Kate Pickett presents more evidence on this subject, noting that
+on almost every index of quality of life or wellness there is a strong
+correlation between a country's level of economic inequality and its social
+outcomes. Significantly, it is not just the poor that are adversely affected
+by inequality, but society as a whole. So more equal societies have less crime
+and smaller prison populations as well as consistently delivering other
+advantages such as better physical and mental health, lower rates of teenage
+pregnancy and obesity, and higher rates of literacy and social trust. All of
+which confirm the anarchist analysis of the harmful effects of inequality in
+wealth and power.
+
+**AFAQ** has moved its main site location (although the various aliases we have remain the same).[14] As a result, it also has a blog in which we post supplemental material on anarchism and news about the FAQ itself (such as updates).[15] Notable postings include the 2008 article marking the 150th anniversary of the use of the term “libertarian” by anarchists ([_150 years of libertarian_](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/150-years-of-libertarian)), a supplement to our appendix on anarchist symbols contained in volume 1 ([_The Red Flag of Anarchy_](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/the-red-flag-of-anarchy)) and [an unfinished appendix](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/blogs/afaq/secCapp.html) to [section C](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secCcon.html) explaining classical economics from a socialist perspective.
+
+Finally, on a personal note, I dedicate this volume, like the first, to my
+family. I hope that this work will help, however slightly, to make the world a
+better place for them and that my children will grow up in a freer, more
+sustainable, world. Whether they do or not really is up to us, the current
+generation. Are we up for the challenge? Are we ready to fight for freedom and
+equality? The answer to that lies in your hands.
+
+Either you can read **AFAQ** and leave it at that or you can join in the
+struggle for freedom and equality. The anarchist movement is not perfect, nor
+does it have all the answers. However, it remains for all that our best chance
+of making the world a fit place for unique individuals to live and flourish
+in. The question is whether we will remain happy to keep surviving within
+capitalism or whether we will seek to transform ourselves and our world for
+the better. We may fail. We may not stop the slide towards increased
+authoritarianism and atomisation. One thing is sure, if we do not resist then
+that slide will accelerate.
+
+And if we do resist? Well, we may well change the world…
+
+Iain McKay
+
+[www.anarchistfaq.org.uk](http://www.anarchistfaq.org.uk/)
+
+* * *
+
+[1] quoted by Peter Arshinov, **The History of the Makhnovist Movement**, p.
+58
+
+[2] **The Betrayal of the American Right**, Ludwig von Mises Institute, p. 83
+
+[3] I would also like to take the opportunity to thank individualist anarchist
+Shawn Wilbur for his valued input into [section
+G](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secGcon.html) and the suggestions he
+made after reading the first drafts sent to him. Without this help, and the
+numerous works of nineteenth century anarchism he has placed on-line, this
+section would not be as comprehensive as it has become.
+
+[4] Nor, for that matter, that there are no libertarian Marxists. There are,
+as we indicated in [section
+A.4.4](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secA4.html#seca44) of volume 1 of
+**AFAQ**. Why they continue to call themselves Marxists while rejecting Marx’s
+ideas on numerous key issues (and implicitly agreeing with Bakunin in the
+process) is a mystery.
+
+[5] We are aware that many Marxists reject the suggestion that Leninism is
+actually Marxist – a position we show has some validity. We argue that it was
+not only anarchism which Lenin distorted in **State and Revolution** but also
+important aspects of the ideas of Marx and Engels on such key issues as the
+state (see [section
+H.3.10](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH3.html#sech310), for example).
+
+[6] [**Property is Theft!**](http://www.property-is-theft.org), p. 496, p.
+535, p. 503 and p. 506
+
+[7] If Marx had been a bit more forthcoming then the likes of Stalin would
+have found it harder to label their nightmare regimes “socialist.”
+
+[8] quoted by G. Woodcock and I. Avakumovic, **The Anarchist Prince**, p. 369.
+
+[9] Proudhon,** Op. Cit.**, p. 325 and p. 398
+
+[10] **Anarchism**, p. 47
+
+[11] **Op. Cit.**, p. 321. Proudhon had made a similar call in 1846, arguing
+that _“__an agricultural and industrial combination must be found by means of
+which power, today the ruler of society, shall become its slave”_ as the state
+is _“inevitably enchained to capital and directed against the proletariat.”_
+(pp. 225-6)
+
+[12] quoted by Woodcock and Avakumovic, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 294-5. As noted in
+the introduction to volume 1, the words used by previous generations of
+anarchists are dated and would appear sexist if uttered today. Suffice to say,
+Kropotkin was in favour of working women unionising. As discussed in [section
+A.3.5](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secA3.html#seca35), with the
+notable exception of Proudhon, anarchists are for equality between the sexes –
+even if they unthinkingly used the sexist terminology of their time (Emma
+Goldman, for example, used “man” to describe all humanity).
+
+[13] quoted by Woodcock and Avakumovic, **Op. Cit.**, p. 295
+
+[14] Namely: [www.anarchistfaq.org](http://www.anarchistfaq.org),
+[www.anarchismfaq.org](http://www.anarchismfaq.org),
+[www.anarchyfaq.org](http://www.anarchyfaq.org) and
+[www.anarchistfaq.org.uk](http://www.anarchistfaq.org.uk).
+
+[15] It can be found at: <http://anarchism.pageabode.com/blogs/afaq>
+
+[‹ An Anarchist FAQ: Introduction to Volume 1](/afaq/vol1intro.html "Go to
+previous page" ) [up](/afaq/intro.html "Go to parent page" ) [What Anarchists
+Say about An Anarchist FAQ ›](/afaq/quotes.html "Go to next page" )
+