Joe Wills asserts that "Anarchist ideology . . . with its rejection of authority, opposes trade unions completely . . . and thereby rejects a major portion of the history of working class struggle." What nonsense. "Anarchist ideology" says no such thing. We do reject bureaucratic and hierarchical trade unions but we do so in favour of self-managed workplace organisations. To generalise, anarchists are divided on the question of trade unions. Some argue that revolutionary unions are possible and others argue that workers' councils, not unions, are the way forward. In both cases, we do not reject collective struggle and organisation in the workplace, far from it.
Nor do the anarchist positions on trade unions have anything to do with the "rejection of authority." Rather, they are based on an analysis of the role of unions in society and their actual activities. Indeed, it can be argued that the "major portion" of the history of trade unionism shows it to be reformist, at best, and subject to bureaucratic betrayal, at worse. This suggest our analysis has validity and that the workers movement needs to fundamentally change in order to be effective, never mind revolutionary. Anarchists, including those active in their trade unions, are trying to encourage such a change in favour of rank-and-file control of struggle and the use of direct action and solidarity as the means of achieving real change.
So Wills summary of "Anarchist ideology" on the unions is so flawed that when he writes "we Marxists take a different view" anarchists can only smile at the straw man arguments he presents. It would
Turning to the Russian Revolution, Wills argues that I think it happened "in a void." Far from it. As an anarchist I am aware, like Bakunin and Kropotkin, that any revolution breaks out "in a hostile bourgeois world." As such, "counter-revolution" is taken as inevitable and does not cut it as an excuse for Bolshevik authoritarianism.
Now, he argues that by "civil war" Lenin meant "the conquest of power by the proletariat." So Wills is arguing that Lenin defined "civil war" to mean something else than what everyone else on the planet thought it meant! Does that mean Marxists invent the meaning of words as and when it suits them? But assuming that Wills is correct, what does that imply? That Lenin thought that a revolution would happen without a civil war, counter-revolution and imperialist intervention? If so, then Lenin was extremely naive, which I doubt, suggesting that by "civil war" Lenin meant what most people mean by the term.
Wills asserts that he stands by his "original claim that the 'civil war' disrupted soviet democracy" and ignores the facts I raised in favour of quoting Stephen Cohen from 1973. Yet quoting an opinion made long before the research I summarised does not hold much water. To repeat, it was not in the civil war period "that much of the popular control exercised by local soviets and factory committees was lost." Soviets were disbanded, the factory committees undermined, solider democracy destroyed, as I indicated, prior to the civil war and was the result of deliberate Bolshevik actions. Ignoring these facts will not make them go away, sorry.
Given this, to state that "centralism was essential in Soviet Russia to defeat the whites" is simply not good enough. Centralism in Russia saw the de facto dictatorship of the Bolshevik Party arise before the start of the civil war. Centralism destroyed popular democracy, as anarchists predicted. Why repeat the same old mistakes?
Wills states that "Anarchists never explain, in manifest terms, how without a state it is possible to defeat imperialism and internal counterrevolution." His comments are ironic, given that I did discuss this in my original letter and, moreover, provided an example (the Makhnovists). But my letter was chopped. Here is the relevant bit:
"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."
As for the other aspects of revolution he thinks anarchists do not explain, well, does he expect me to expound on them in a letter? Particularly when the part of my previous letter on defence of the revolution was not printed due to space considerations? But if anyone is interested, visit www.anarchistfaq.org for details.
Wills then asserts that "the anarchists have supported all revolutions except the ones that actually succeed." Sorry, which Marxist revolutions succeeded? Where did one result in socialism rather than state capitalism, popular democracy rather than party dictatorship, workers' control rather than controlled workers? With "successes" like these, we do not need failures! And anarchists have supported all revolutions, until Marxists monopolised power. Then we supported the real revolution, the working class in its struggle against the new boss class. Needless to say, we paid the price for defending what socialism is really about.
Wills finishes his own inaccurate diatribe by quoting another, namely Engels' "On Authority." This appeal to authority hardly impresses. We can see why by looking at the quotes provided. Engels states that a revolution is "the most authoritarian thing there is" because "one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part." Yet in class society this happens all the time -- the capitalist class oppresses the working class. Therefore, revolution is an act of liberation for the working class. Stopping someone oppressing you (by force of arms, if necessary) is not "authority," it is exercising and defending your liberty. As such Engels does not look at revolution (or society) from a working class perspective. That Marxists like to parrot this warmed up liberal nonsense without thinking is sad, if not surprising.
I will end with a chopped part of my original letter:
"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 . . . We need to organise in new ways to build a new world."
yours,
Iain McKay