I notice that you chopped by letter in half (issue 497). I'm sure you will say that this was because of space, however I feel that you removed many of my key arguments and examples. Here is the removed section:
'Anarchists argue that centralism kills popular democracy. This is because it centralises power into the hands of a few leaders (not so much "all power to the soviets" as "all power to the central committee"). Instead we argue for bottom-up federalism based on mandated and recallable delegates to co-ordinate decision making and the defence of the revolution. Wills makes no mention of this fact, instead implying that anarchists reject co-ordination by quoting Engels on the Spanish uprising of 1872-3. But this seems ironic, as he uses an example of lack of federation to refute federalism. He generalises by pointing to Argentina today where factory occupations are being defeated one by one by the police. What a surprise. That is why anarchists have been stressing, from the start, that the factories must federate together (see "From Riot to Revolution", Black Flag no. 221).
'Wills argues that "the only guarantee of defence against counterrevolution is the centralised dictatorship of the proletariat." This is false. Firstly, as noted, this system in Russia destroyed the revolution before the civil war started. The Bolshevik leadership held power, not the proletariat -- as Bakunin predicted it was the dictatorship over the proletariat. Secondly, the example of the Makhnovists in the Russian Civil War shows that it is possible to defend a revolution without centralised power in the hands of a few leaders. Operating in as bad conditions as the Bolsheviks, the Makhnovists called soviet congresses, protected soviet, workplace and military democracy as well as freedom of speech and association. Unsurprisingly, the Bolsheviks slandered and betrayed them (slanders Leninists today repeat parrot-like, incidentally).
'Wills states that "'pure communist' alternatives" are "ahistorical." Not true. They are rooted in a clear understanding of the events of the Russian Revolution (and better rooted in historical fact than the Leninist accounts). He asserts that we anarchists "seem to provide no viable alternative except to slam every organised attempt by revolutionaries to defend their revolution." The facts are different. From Bakunin onwards anarchists have argued that a revolution required a federation of workers councils to succeed and that this would organise the defence of the revolution by means of a workers militia. Exactly the approach of the Makhnovists in the Ukraine and the anarchists in Aragon during the Spanish revolution.
'Now, perhaps Wills will explain why such a system cannot work. Is he arguing that working class people are incapable of self-organisation? That power needs to be centralised into the hands of a few leaders simply because the masses cannot govern themselves? If so, then let him say so clearly. If he claims that the masses govern themselves when they elect leaders to govern on their behalf, then he is playing with words. As the Russian Revolution shows, a "revolutionary" government centralises power into a few hands and definitely does not empower the many. Such a situation can only spell the death of a social revolution, which requires the active participation of all if it is to succeed. It also exposes the central fallacy of Leninism: claiming to desire a society based on mass participation it favours a form of organisation - centralism - that precludes it.
'It is no coincidence that the ruling class prefers centralism. It empowers the few, not the many. Bolshevism shows that applying this system in the name of socialism does not work. We need to organise in new ways to build a new world.
'For more information about the points raised, visit www.anarchistfaq.org"
Lastly, Terry Sheen account of the events in 1930s Spain leaves a lot to be desired. For example, he fails to note that the CNT argued for a "united front from below" based in the factories. The UGT ignored these appeals. As for having "little practical political policy to propose" in 1936, the fact is that the CNT did (namely a federation of workers' councils). The tragedy of Spain is that the CNT (except in Aragon) embraced the Marxist policy of the UGT in the name of anti-fascist unity rather than stick to their libertarian policy. Why? Fear of isolation and, perhaps, the knowledge that the UGT, like good Marxists, would not co-operate on any terms bar their own and to secure their domination (as they had from 1933 onwards).
yours sincerely
Iain McKay