I must admit to wondering why we are even bothering to have this meeting. History has spoken. Marxism has failed -- and failed massively. Both of its main forms, Social Democracy and its "revolutionary" child Bolshevism, simply proved Bakunin right. Social democracy became as reformist as he predicted while the Russian revolution proved that the dictatorship of the proletariat would become the dictatorship over the proletariat.
As such, the "successes" of Marxism have confirmed the anarchist critique time and again. Indeed, with victories like those, Marxism does not need defeats! Sadly, while the empirical evidence is in favour of anarchism, the sad fact is that many on the revolutionary left ignore it. This speech is an attempt to show why Marxism have failed, why anarchism was proved right and, basically, to indicate why socialism has to be libertarian in order to be count as socialist.
Before starting, I must stress that there are different types of Marxism. While the mainstream tradition I discuss here is deeply authoritarian, not all Marxists are of this school. There are a minority (and a very small minority at that) of Marxists who are libertarian. These Marxists (the council communists, the situationists, many autonomists) are close to anarchism. A fact recognised by Lenin, who called the council communists an "anarchist deviation" and denounced other "semi-anarchist elements" who stressed that party power did not equal working class power. So I will not be discussing these, libertarian, Marxists.
Nor, I must stress, I am arguing that we simply reject everything Marx wrote. Far from it! We should read all those who have contributed to socialist theory, but critically. We should encourage socialists to look on, say, Marx as anarchists do Bakunin -- namely, as an individual who got some things right, some things wrong and made mistakes. To call your political theory after a person smacks more of religion than anything else. So if I can put it this way, socialism would be better served if we placed Marx against Marxism!
How Marxists lie about Anarchism
I'm sure that most of you are aware that Marxist parties regularly have meetings entitled "Anarchism and Marxism" after we get into the news or are active in the locality. Needless to say, these are always inaccurate. I remember the first one I went to, about 15 years ago. I went in feeling comradely disagreement with the holders of the meeting (the British SWP) and came out hating them for lying about anarchist ideas and history. Things have not got any better since then. For example, to take the SWP again, they published an article on anarchism by one of their leading members (Pat Stack) a few years ago after the anti-capitalist movement exploded in the streets. It must be the worse article on anarchism I've ever had the misfortunate to read. It was wrong on every assertion! In fact, the best that can be said of it is that Stack spelt the names correctly and got the dates right!
What strikes me about these articles and meetings is how they are based on criticism of individual anarchists, not anarchism as such. This is for a good reason, as any honest Marxist account of anarchism would quickly expose the authoritarian basis of mainstream Marxism. After all, if they are for "workers power" then why the power of the party over the workers? Hence the focus on the personality flaws of individual anarchists (the only facts they present they generally get right!) and the distortions about anarchist theory they subject the audience to.
Not that it is ideologically impossible for Marxists to write accurate articles on anarchism. Harry Cleaver's essay on Kropotkin, for example, shows that it is possible for someone who considers themselves an Marxist to present an honest and accurate account of anarchism. But then again, Cleaver is a libertarian Marxist, an autonomist whose politics would probably be dismissed as "anarchist" by the mainstream Marxists whose ideas and tradition I am discussing today.
Why Marxists lie about Anarchism
So, mainstream Marxists seem incapable of presenting an honest account of anarchism. Why? For numerous reasons, I would say. Firstly, to hide the truth from their followers, many of whom are probably closer to anarchism than Leninism. Secondly, to stop their members re-evaluating their own tradition. If the real differences between anarchism and Marxism were raised, it would involve many Marxists questioning their own political ideology and tradition, its history and its practice. As they would not like what they found, it is best to hide the fundamental differences between libertarian and authoritarian socialism. Of course, part of the problem may be the lack of awareness by the rank and file of these parties of even their own political tradition, never mind the anarchist one! Thirdly, as in capitalism, control is aided by lack of coherent alternative. By rubbishing anarchism, the leadership of the party can maintain their position as the only "real" socialist theory, with the main opposing theory portrayed in such a negative manner that no self-respecting socialist would even give it the time of day.
A short summary of Marxist "differences" with anarchism
At these Marxist meetings and in articles, numerous assertions are made about the differences between anarchism and Marxism are. They generally go from the ridiculous to the inaccurate. Needless to say, I cannot cover all of them here. So I will concentrate on the most important.
One of the main one is the assertion that, for anarchists, the state is considered as the "main enemy" (rather than one aspect of class society). This is often arrested, but never proven! Little wonder, because anarchists think no such thing! Indeed, where this assertion comes from is significant as it does not come from any anarchist, but rather from Engels (an impartial commentator if there ever was one!). This can be seen from the introduction of a book called "Marxism versus Anarchism." This made this claim and, unusually, they referenced it (which Marxists usually don't do). Interested in discovering what anarchist said that, I looked up the reference. Needless to say, as good "scientific" socialists they quoted Engels! And, equally needless to say, Engels himself did not provide a reference from Bakunin's works proving his assertion. Thus an assertion by Engels about Bakunin has become a fact about anarchism!
The fact that anarchists do not consider the state as the main problem, I don't even need to quote an anarchist, I can compare Marxist assertions. Trotskyist Felix Morrow (in his book on the Spanish Revolution) stated that since Bakunin, "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." Engels, however, stated that Bakunin saw "the state as the main evil to be abolished . . . it is above all the state which must be done away with and then capitalism will go to blazes of itself."
A tad contradictory, you have to admit. Of course, they both are wrong and right as Bakunin (like all anarchists) opposed both state and capital! Anarchism, as would be obvious if you actually read anarchist thinkers, never had the limited vision claimed by Marxists. It has always challenged all forms of authority and exploitation, and has been equally critical of capitalism as it has been of the state. By why let facts get in the way of a good rant?
Another common assertion if that on class and class struggle. Pat Stack, for example, claimed that anarchists "dismiss . . . the importance of the collective nature of change" and that anarchism "downplays the centrality of the working class" in the revolutionary process. This utter bollocks, as would be known if you actually read anarchist thinkers.
For example, Bakunin argued that strikes workers for social revolution, as they "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." He stressed that socialists must "organise the city proletariat in the name of revolutionary Socialism, and in doing this unite it into one preparatory organisation together with the peasantry." Socialism would be "attained . through the social (and therefore anti-political) organisation and power of the working masses of the cities and villages." Indeed, the "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."
Similarly for Kropotkin, who argued 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." Indeed, "to make the revolution, the mass of workers will have to organise themselves. Resistance and the strike are excellent means of organisation for doing this."
If this is being opposed to "class struggle" and collective organisation, I'm not sure what being in favour of it would entail!
The kind of nonsense spouted by Marxists reaches ridiculous when they discuss anarchism and syndicalism. According to Pat Stack, the "huge advantage" anarcho-syndicalists "had over other anarchists was their understanding of the power of the working class, the centrality of the point of production (the workplace) and the need for collective action." Marxists made this exception for anarcho-syndicalists probably because they are obviously in favour of unions and class struggle, making it hard for the Marxist to claim they did not.
However, in reality every anarchist and every informed commentator on syndicalism notes the similarities between the two theories. Indeed, the roots of syndicalism lie in Bakunin's ideas and the libertarian wing of the First International. Ironically, you don't need to read Bakunin (or Kropotkin, Goldman, Berkman, Malatesta, or any other anarchist) to find the similarities between his ideas and syndicalism, you can read Marx and Engels. The former, for example, stated that Bakunin thought that the "working class . . . must only organise themselves by trades- unions" and "not occupy itself with politics."
The next big assertion is that anarchists do not think we need to defend a revolution. Indeed, it is often claimed that anarchists think the capitalist class will "disappear" without a fight. In reality, of course, anarchists have always stressed the need to organise and co-ordinate the defence of the revolution. For Bakunin, for example, "in order to defend the revolution," volunteers will "form a communal militia. But no commune can defend itself in isolation. . . [hence the need] to federate . . . for common defence" So much for that assertion! I suppose this allows them to ignore the real anarchist critique of the "workers' state" by raising such nonsense.
There are other assertions, of course, such as the claim that we believe in "overnight" communism (never mind that Kropotkin explicitly rejected this idea out of hand). In fact, anarchists thinkers have generally stressed the difficulties facing a revolution, including the economic disruption that accompanies them. Then there is the idea that we aim for "small scale" production. Have these people never heard of appropriate technology? Anarchists have rooted our ideas in the simple and commonsense notion that scale will be determined by what is most efficient from a productive, human and ecological perspective. Thus we do not reject "large-scale" production. Proudhon, for example, argued that workers' associations would be the best means of organising such concerns. Later anarchists have concurred. We simply reject the idea that just because capitalism has found such ways of organising production "efficient" it does not automatically follow that a free society would. After all, big business may be "efficient" in enhancing the profits and power of a few, but surely a socialist society with have a different criteria of what "efficiency" is?
So anarchism is based on the obvious principle that capitalist means cannot be put to socialist ends and it recognises what is considered "efficient" from a capitalist perspective may not be so from a socialist one. Thus, Lenin's position that the structures of modern capitalism will also be the framework of a socialist economy is, from an anarchist perspective, nonsense. This critical position as regards capitalism does not imply a dogmatic position as regards scale, as is obvious if you read, say, Kropotkin's "Fields, Factories and Workshops." In fact, I would say that this Leninist assertion says more about their glorification of "large scale," centralised production than of our ideas. It shows the state capitalist nature of their ideas.
Then there is the related notion that anarchism (to quote Pat Stack again) "yearns for the past." This seems to be derived from Marx's comment that Proudhon was the socialist of the small craftsperson and peasant. This is generalised to all anarchists, in spite of the fact that Proudhon died in 1865! However, such claims simply show that Leninists are not materialists. If they were, they would know that when Proudhon was writing the artisans and peasants were the majority of the working class in France (and, indeed, in all of the world bar Britain). Proudhon's ideas were simply reflecting the society he was in. Rather than "yearn for the past," he wanted the end of capitalism in his life time and so his ideas had to be applicable to a society of craftspeople and peasants. This did not mean he ignored the proletariat, far from it as he argued for self-managed workers associations for large-scale industry. Only a Leninist could say that advocating ideas suitable for the society you are in means you "yearn for the past"!
Then there is the question of organisation. For some reason Marxists like to claim that anarchists oppose organisation or, at best, argue that all organisation necessitates "authority." The first claim is obviously a lie, but it is all too frequently repeated. As for the latter, Engels essay "On Authority" is usually trotted out. This in spite of the fact that its critique, at best, misses the point and, at worse, has deeply authoritarian implications. Simply put, Engels confused authority with agreement, coercion with co-operation.
While on organisation, I should mention the strange Marxist position that anarchist organisation implies totalitarianism. Often Marx's opinion of Bakunin's organisation, the Alliance of Social Democracy, is used as evidence for the claim that anarchist organisation are deeply authoritarian, being run by a few unaccountable leaders at the top. It is significant that they ignore the whole history of anarchist organising from the 1860s onwards in favour of Marx's assertions about Bakunin. If they did look at actual anarchist groups they could not defend their assertions. After all, it is hard to reconcile self-managed federations with their claims, so best not to mention the way anarchists actually organise in the here and now!
However, what is significant about these kinds of comments is their logic. Simply put, they are based on the idea that by making decisions ourselves, directly, then we are being "anti-democratic"! The implication is that only by having a clear hierarchy of leaders who are given power to make decisions for us can we be free from authoritarianism! A very strange position to hold. Then, to top it off, the Leninists tend to say that they support our goals, our ends, but oppose our current ways of organising as being "undemocratic." In other words, yes, they agree that self-management can work, but only after the revolution. Until then, well, I suppose the Leninists will have to take power for us, as we are too thick to govern ourselves... I just wish they would come clean and admit that this is their position rather than hide behind rhetoric about "democracy."
As for the claims that anarchism is individualism, "anti-democratic" and/or "petty-bourgeois," well the less said about them the better. They are all pretty meaningless and usually just expose the authoritarian nature of Leninism.
Marxist borrowing from Anarchism
Despite mainstream Marxists dismissing anarchism as "petit-bourgeois" nonsense, this has not stopped then appropriating key anarchist ideas and passing them off as "Marxist" (in spite of anarchists saying them first!). We even find Marxists stealing anarchist expressions and rhetoric. For example, leading members Scottish Socialist Party call their ideas "libertarian socialism" and their bulletins even describe their politics as "anti-authoritarian" (Engels must be spinning in his grave!).
The worse example, I suppose, of this stealing of anarchist rhetoric for authoritarian politics must be the expression "socialism from below." The Leninist Socialist Workers' Party is perhaps the most famous user of this anarchist sounding expression to describe their politics. While anarchists have been using the "from below" imagery since Proudhon in the 1840s, leading Marxists dismissed the idea that Marxism could be described in such terms. Indeed, Lenin was quite explicit on the matter, stating that "the organisational principle of revolutionary Social-Democracy" was "to proceed from the top downward." Indeed, the "organisational principle of opportunist Social-Democracy" was to "proceed from the bottom upward." 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 stressed that "limitation, in principle, of revolutionary action to pressure from below and renunciation of pressure also from above is anarchism." He was not alone. Marx dismissed Bakunin's vision of "the free organisation of the worker masses from bottom to top" as "nonsense."
So much for the idea that Marxism is "socialism from below." If any political idea deserves that name, it is anarchism.
Then there is the question of "soviets" (workers councils). The idea that workers' councils should be the framework of a socialist society was only paid lip-service to by Marxists in 1917, when Lenin rejected the orthodox Marxist position that the current state had to be seized. But the idea of workers organisations as the basis of socialism existed long before this. Ironically, it is not found in Marx, but in Bakunin! As he put it, "the federative alliance of all working men's associations . . . [will] constitute the Commune." Thus Lenin's rhetoric was echoing the ideas and practice of Bakunin, not Marx!
Given this, it is somewhat ironic that Lenin claimed in State and Revolution that anarchists "while advocating the destruction of the state machine, have absolutely no idea of what the proletariat will put in its place." After all, Lenin's own answer was simply repeating what anarchists had been saying since at least the 1860s and, moreover, what the Russian anarchists had said in 1905. During the near revolution of that year, the Russian anarchists had greeted the soviets with enthusiasm as non-party battle organisations of the working class and, moreover, considered them as the basis of the revolutionary commune. Unlike the Bolsheviks, incidentally, who initially opposed them and at no time suggested their possible role as the framework of socialism.
Then there is the idea of "workers' power." This clearly has an anarchist basis, namely the idea that working class people manage their own affairs directly, and so manage society themselves. Thus a superficial reading of the Leninist use of the term "workers' power" would suggest that anarchists and Marxists seek the same thing. The reality is different. Take, for example, Felix Morrow's summary of the ideas of the anarchist group the Friends of Durruti active in the Spanish Revolution. According to Morrow, their "slogans included the essential points of a revolutionary program: all power to the working class, and democratic organs of the workers, peasants and combatants, as the expression of the workers' power." This is a good summary of the Friends of Durruti's position, reflecting as it does decades of anarchist theory and practice.
Morrow wrote this in 1937. The same year Trotsky was giving a somewhat different vision of "workers' power." As he put it in his essay Bolshevism and Stalinism, "a revolutionary party, even after seizing power . . . is still by no means the sovereign ruler of society." Not, the party is the "sovereign ruler," not the working class. He clarifies what this meant by stating that "those who propose the abstraction of the Soviets of 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." Two years later, he expounded further on this question:
"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 . . . if the dictatorship of the proletariat means anything at all, then it means that the vanguard of the proletariat is armed with the resources of the state in order to repel dangers, including those emanating from the backward layers of the proletariat itself."
So much for workers power. As everyone is, by definition, is backward compared to vanguard, we have the theoretical justification for the party dictatorship Trotsky thought was essential to achieve "the state form of the proletariat." In all this, Trotsky is simply repeating Lenin's opinion that "an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship" and that it "can be exercised only by a vanguard."
By Morrow's own definition, Trotskyism is not revolutionary! And given that Trotsky was simply repeating Bolshevik orthodoxy on this matter, we can generalise and say that Leninism does not have a "revolutionary program."
Then there is the use of the expression "state capitalism" by the likes of the SWP. This was first used by anarchists and left-communists to describe Lenin's regime and was an accurate reflection of the social relationships existing at the time (and since!). The state owned the means of production and extracted surplus value from the workers who, as under capitalism, sold their labour and so liberty to those who owned but did not use of the means of life. This term was, however, appropriated by Tony Cliff and its meaning significantly changed. It was no longer about social relationships within Russia, but now referred to military competition between Stalinist Russia and the west. Instead of an analysis of the social relationships facing the Russian working class, we got an essentially idealist analysis of Stalinism with the ideas attributed to Lenin determining the nature of the regime! Which is unsurprising, as any serious analysis of the two regimes would quickly see that the economic relations did not change from Lenin's time to Stalin's. So while Cliff's theory may be useful to denounce Stalinism and disassociate socialists from its horrors, it is pretty superficial and seems to exist to let Lenin off the hook.
So, clearly, while anarchists and Marxists may use the same words, the common sounding expressions hide different realities and aims!
The real differences between anarchism and Marxism
I've already given a short summary of what Marxists tend to say are the differences between themselves and anarchists. Now I had better explain what the real differences between libertarian and authoritarian socialism are. Needless to say, I cannot cover everything, so I will concentrate on the big issues. These are the so-called workers' state, the nature and role of the revolutionary organisation, using elections and the nature of socialism. I will cover each in turn.
I suppose that the question of the workers state is the biggest of the big. Marxists call this state many names: "workers state," a "semi-state", "the dictatorship of the proletariat" and so on. For anarchists, no matter what you call it, we are opposed to it. Why? First of all, our opposition has absolutely nothing to do with defence of the revolution. I must stress this, as Marxists tend to say that anarchist opposition to the "workers' state" means we think the capitalist class will just disappear. No, our opposition is based on an awareness that any revolution will need to defended. As such, it is really based on the question of who has power, the working class or the party.
I should point out, firstly, that when Marx first used the term "dictatorship of the proletariat", the proletariat was a minority of the working class everywhere bar the UK (and, indeed, for many decades after his death too). Thus, if we assume that Marx meant direct rule by all the proletariat by this term, he was still advocating rule by a minority. For Bakunin, this could not be justified nor supported. Secondly, what does the "dictatorship of the proletariat" mean in practice? Does it mean the "rule by the majority" or the minority elected by said? The two are by no means the same.
So which was it? Well, the evidence points to the latter. Marx, for example, argued in 1850 in his "Address to the Communist League," for "the most determined centralisation of power in the hands of the state authority." He thought that "the path of revolutionary activity . . . can only proceed with full force from the centre." Needless to say, if power rested at the centre, it could only be exercised by a few, by the leaders. This conclusion is confirmed by Engels, who noted that as "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." Elsewhere, he considered what would happen "as soon as our Party is in possession of political power." All of which simply (and dangerously) confused party power with working class power.
Thus working class "political power" simply meant the ability to nominate a government. "Universal Suffrage," argued Marx in the 1850s, "is the equivalent of political power for the working class of England, where the proletariat forms the large majority of the population . . . Its inevitable result, here, is the political supremacy of the working class." This position was echoed by Engels decades later:
"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 existing laws in conformity with their own interests and requirements. Thus the working class of Great Britain for years fought ardently and even violently for the People's Charter, which was to give it that political power."
Thus we have the "dictatorship of the proletariat" based on the proletariat delegating its power to a handful of leaders. As Bakunin argued, no matter how you look at it we get the "same dismal results: government of the vast majority of the people by a privileged minority." This is to be expected, as any state is based on inequality in power, with power lying at the top, in the hands of a few. The state structure, anarchists have long argued, has evolved to maintain minority class power and so marginalises the population by its very nature. Therefore a "workers' state" is a contradiction in terms for if the working class was in power, then the state would not exist and if a state existed, then only a few leaders would have real power. This would soon create a new class system, simply due to the institutional processes at work within any statist system.
Thus the anarchist critique of the "workers' state" is rooted in different analysis of the state than the Marxist one. Anarchists have an evolutionary definition of the state while Marxists have a metaphysical definition. Anarchists define the state in terms of delegated power, recognising that it has evolved certain features which to ensure its role as enforcer of minority rule. These are delegated power and centralisation. Ironically, Marxists tend to agree that this defines the actual state. For example, Engels in "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" defines the state as a public power no longer equal to the "population organising itself as an armed power," as a "special public power." However, for their "workers' state" they extract a metaphysical essence for it, arguing that "the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another." Anarchists argue that such a definition simply confuses two totally different things, namely an institution designed to maintain minority rule and an organisation by which people manage their own affairs. This confusion had serious effects, opening the door for the nonsense used to justify Bolshevik party dictatorship during the Russian revolution.
It is simple really. An armed, self-governing people is not a state, nor a "semi-state" -- it is the antithesis of the state and we should be clear on that! For this reason Kropotkin stressed that "the word 'State' . . . should be reserved for those societies with the hierarchical system and centralisation." This means that "the pyramidal organisation which is the essence of the State" simply "cannot lend itself to a function opposed to the one for which it was developed in the course of history." Hence the mass participation required by socialism needs new forms of social organisation to express it, something no state can do.
As mainstream Marxism sees the need for a state, based like all states on centralised power, it also sees the need for a the party to govern that state. For anarchists, the Marxist "revolutionary" party is no such thing as it organised in a capitalist manner, with the same "division of labour" between order givers and order takers. It simply recreates the very society it says it is against! Thus it is centralised, top-down, hierarchical and "democratic" in the typical bourgeois sense that we designate our rulers rather than govern ourselves directly. If such a party took power, anarchists argue that it would simply recreate the evils of class society in new forms.
Moreover, mainstream Marxism is based on the premise that workers, by their own efforts, can only achieve trade union consciousness. Needless to say, this lays the ground for party dictatorship as opposition to the party line can be dismissed as "petty-bourgeois"! As it was, once the party was in power. Rather than be based on the idea that the emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class itself, mainstream Marxism considers this to be an impossibility. Unsurprisingly enough, this makes them unresponsive to new developments in the class struggle. For example, in 1905 the Bolshevik party opposed the soviets, arguing that "only a strong party along class lines can guide the proletarian political movement and preserve the integrity of its program, rather than a political mixture of this kind, an indeterminate and vacillating political organisation such as the workers council represents and cannot help but represent." Thus the soviets could not reflect workers' interests because they were elected by the workers! The implications of this perspective came clear after 1917, when the Bolsheviks raised the need for party dictatorship to an ideological truism.
Ironically enough, given the justification for the centralised party in terms of "efficiency," it does not work that well. In 1917, Lenin had to fight his own party machine in order to for it to remain in touch with the masses (whom he admitted were far to the left of his own "revolutionary" party). Indeed, it was only be ignoring its own rules that it was effective. Ironically, it was by applying its own rules post-1917 that it helped to undermine the revolution! The application of centralisation of power within the party helped to marginalise the working class from its own revolution.
As well as the structure of the party, anarchists reject the role of the party in Leninist theory. Simply put, the party, as Lenin continually stressed in and after 1917, aims for power for itself (which he identified with the power of the masses). This is best seen from Lenin's pamphlet "Will the Bolsheviks retain state power?" Sorry, but I always thought that it was meant to be the working class that held power?!?!?
Simply put, if the party holds power, the working class does not. Nor are anarchists particularly convinced by the justifications for this position. Trotsky inflicts a telling analogy upon us. "Just as the blacksmith cannot seize the red hot iron in his naked hand," he asserts, "so the proletariat cannot directly seize power; it has to have an organisation accommodated to this task." What altruism, saving the poor workers from harm by taking power from them! Needless to say, for anarchists this position reeks of elitism and is simply the dictatorship over the proletariat. Only freedom can create freedom and so anarchists argue for direct working class self-management of both the class struggle and the revolution. Anything else will simply result in new bosses, new masters.
One more point as regards the party. Please do not take this critique of the party as implying opposition to revolutionaries organising together to influence the class struggle. While Marxists have this tendency to lump anyone who opposes the vanguard party together with those who oppose all forms of political organisation, anarchists, in the main, see the need for anarchist groups and federations to spread our ideas. Opposition to vanguardism does not entail a worship of spontaneous revolution! Nor does its rejection imply an opposition to organisation (yet another sadly too common Leninist assertion). Anarchists form organisations based on the ideas developed in the class struggle (such as self-management, decision making from the bottom-up, strict mandates, recall, opposition to executive power and the union of intellectual and manual work) in order to encourage the revolutionary and libertarian tendencies that exist within it.
Then there is the question of socialists standing in bourgeois elections. As Bakunin predicted, the parties which used this tactic became reformist through and through. Moreover, using elections transforms the movements using it. Instead of acting on their own initiative, the people delegate to the leaders that power. The focus of struggle is transformed from the masses into the hands of a few leaders, narrowing and finally extinguishing constructive socialist activity in our workplaces and communities. Rather than building the new world in the shell of the old, the socialist movement just became an auxiliary to, and often the last line of defence of, the society it claimed to oppose.
Then there is the question of the nature of socialism. For anarchists, Marxism simply confuses state capitalism with socialism. Indeed, from 1917 onwards Lenin openly argued for, and implemented, state capitalism. He considered "socialism" as being state capitalism made to serve all the people and, moreover, built upon the structures of created under capitalism itself. He saw nationalisation considered as key to socialism, not workers self-management. Due to the need to gain popular support, Lenin did support, for a period, "workers' control" (by which he meant "workers' supervision" of the bosses) but once in power this was quickly abandoned in favour of one-man management appointed from above and armed with "dictatorial" power. The workers' own organisations, the factory committees, were not considered as being the basis of the framework of socialism, rather the state capitalist organisations created under Tsarism were the preferred organisational structure. And regardless of what his latter-day followers may say, none of this was considered as a mistake or a retreat! In summary, Lenin's vision of "socialism" had little in common with the anarchist vision and would be better described as state capitalism. Needless to say, this impoverished vision of socialism had a negative impact on the development of the Russian Revolution.
The Russian Revolution
Which brings me to the Russian Revolution, when the flaws in Marxism came to the fore. Its ideas on the state, the role of the party and its economic vision were all exposed as being inadequate to the tasks of social revolution.
Before starting, I should like to state the obvious. Marxists tend to proclaim the Russian Revolution as the great success of their politics. Even those who oppose Stalinism like to portray the Bolshevik revolution as a successful model which we should follow. However, this suggests a radically different meaning to the word "successful" than that most people are familiar with. After all, did the Russian Revolution result in socialism? No. Did it result in soviet democracy? No, far from it. What did it result in? Well, the Bolsheviks were still in power in 1921. This must be considered as the successful aspect of the event, as the Russian working class was subjected to a party dictatorship that had destroyed their basic human rights such as freedom of speech, association and assembly along with free trade unions and soviets. But, as I've noted, Lenin had always argued for party power and, moreover, equated that with workers' power. I suppose in these terms, the revolution was "successful" but in a socialist sense, it was not.
I'm sure that whenever you have discussed the Russian revolution with Marxists you will have noticed that they tend to sidetrack discussion about the reality of Bolshevik revolution. Indeed, they tend to suggest that you read Lenin's "State and Revolution" to find out what the Bolsheviks "really" wanted rather than dwell on the actualities of Bolshevik rule. This is hardly surprising given two facts. Firstly, most of the rank and file of these parties simply do not know what happened under the Bolsheviks. Secondly, the vision contained in that work is much more appealing than the reality of Bolshevik rule. I think it is significant that Marxists tend to stress the "election manifesto" rather than their actual record in government!
So what of Lenin's "State and Revolution"? Obviously the first thing to note is now much of that work is, in fact, pure anarchism. The substitution of revolutionary militias for professional armed bodies and the substitution of organs of working class self-management for parliamentary bodies can be found in anarchists works from Bakunin onwards. What is authentically Marxist in Lenin's pamphlet is the demand for "strict centralism," the confusion of the soviets with a state and the identification of "socialism" with state capitalism (i.e. nationalisation, universal wage slavery with the state as one big boss, etc.).
The second thing to note is how radically the reality of Bolshevik rule differed from Lenin's book. Indeed, the ideas expressed in that book did not last the night. While Lenin stressed the importance of combining executive and legislative power in the one body, the first act of the revolution was the creation of a government over the soviets, the Council of People's Commissars. Rather than "all power to the soviets," we got "all power to the party via the soviets" with the creation of this executive power over the soviets. But not to worry, this executive simply gave itself legislative power at end of October. The highest soviet organ, the Central Executive Committee, was overshadowed by the Council of People's Commissars. In the first year, only 68 of 480 decrees were actually submitted to it, and even fewer drafted by it. The soviets were simply marginalised, a process which was repeated at local level, with effective power relentlessly
gravitating to the executive committees. Similarly, while Lenin argued that there would be no separate armed forces, that the new "semi-state" would be based on the armed people, his government quickly formed the Cheka, a political police force, and then a few months latter the Red Army.
Now, maybe this can be justified in terms of the needs of the revolution but please stop telling us to read the bloody book if you think its ideas are impractical! However, for anarchists these developments came as no surprise. After all, the Bolsheviks kept the defining aspect of the (centralised and delegated power) and so the other trappings required by the state were only a matter of time in coming. Simply put, the Bolshevik government was a public power which was by no means the same as the armed population. As such, it would have to require "special bodies" of armed people, separate from the people, in order to enforce its will. Indeed, far from lamenting this change, after 1917 leading representatives of Leninism stressed that the idea that state power was not required to repress resistance by the ex-ruling class as such, but, in fact, was necessitated by the divisions within the working class. In other words, state power was required because the working class was not able to govern itself and so required a grouping (the party) above it to ensure the success of the revolution and overcome any "wavering" within the masses themselves.
This degeneration occurred from the start, from the moment of assumption of power by the party. It came to light once the Bolshevik party started to lose of working class support at the beginning of 1918. While harassment of left-wing party and press started from the start of the Bolshevik regime, the first major act of state repression was the Bolshevik attack on the anarchists in April, 1918. As with capitalist regimes, the new bosses claimed that it was not attacking anarchists of "ideas" but simply "criminals." This state repression soon spread.
Faced with great Bolshevik losses in the provincial soviet elections during the spring and summer of 1918, Bolshevik armed force usually overthrew the results. All these elections (for which data is available) saw Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries becoming the majority in the soviet assembly and the Bolshevik executives refusing to give up their power. Rather than submit to soviet democracy, the exponents of "soviet power" simply got rid of the soviets. In Petrograd, the Bolsheviks constantly postponed elections and only held them once they had packed the soviet with delegates from pro-Bolshevik organisations. The elections, once held, were meaningless as the Bolsheviks had an assured majority.
They also undermined the factory committees, stopping them federating. Lenin did not want to expropriate the capitalists. Rather he wanted what he called "state capitalism," with the capitalists still in place but subject to extensive state control (based on the institutions and structures created by, and inherited from, capitalism). This system would be the basis of socialism, which was, as Lenin put it, simply "nothing but the next step forward from state capitalist monopoly. In other words, Socialism is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people; by this token it ceases to be capitalist monopoly." Workers' control was initially paid lip-service to, but in the limited form of "supervision" of the bosses rather than workers' self-management. However, even this narrow version of it was quickly dropped, with Lenin advocating one-man management of production (and of workers) from early 1918. As he infamously put it: "Obedience, and unquestioning obedience at that, during work to the one-man decisions of Soviet directors, of the dictators elected or appointed by Soviet institutions, vested with dictatorial powers." He basically handed the factories to the state bureaucracy and, moreover, argued for and implemented piecework, Taylorism and other things (such as one-man management!) Stalinism is condemned for!
In the army, Trotsky disbanded soldier committees and elected officers by decree. In 1922, he admitted that a "social revolution" had swept through the Tsarist army. He also admitted to reversing that revolution, replacing its organs of "self-government" with ones identical to the old regime. When that happens it is usually called by its true name, namely counter-revolution. How Trotsky defended this appointment of officers significant at the time is significant. Firstly, he argued that government elected by workers, so nothing to fear. The stupidity of that justification need not be expanded upon. Secondly, he compared the soviet government to a Trade Union leadership. You elect the committee, he argued, and can replace it. Until then, since it is "better able to judge in the matter" of appointing people "than you," you should let them get on with it! Truly socialism from below! He ended his justification for the end of solider democracy by asking "how could the soldiers who have just entered the army choose the chiefs! Have they have any vote to go by? They have none. And therefore elections are impossible." If only the Tsar had thought of that one!
At this point, I'm sure Marxists will be muttering to themselves that this is a typical anarchist critique of Bolshevism in-so-far as I've failed to discuss the civil war and foreign intervention. Where, it will be argued, is the White threat, the fourteen (or twenty-two) Imperialist armies? By ignoring the civil war, it will be argued, we do not give an honest account of Bolshevism. All these counter-revolutionary policies, all these authoritarian actions, can only be understood in light of the problems caused by the civil war.
And they are right, I have not mentioned the civil war. And for a very good reason -- it had not started yet! It is difficult to blame something that had not started yet for these policies, but amazingly many Marxists do. Indeed, it could be argued that civil war saved the Bolsheviks from the growing working class backlash. Faced with the alternative of White victory and Bolshevik dictatorship many (including most Mensheviks and many anarchists) supported the latter as the lesser evil. Significantly, Bolshevik repression tended to increase as external danger decreased. Indeed, the final crushing of the opposition occurred after the end of the civil war.
As it is, the civil war simply increased the authoritarian tendencies already applied by the Bolsheviks. So while the terrible objective conditions caused by civil war may have shaped certain aspects of the actions of the Bolsheviks it cannot be denied that the impulse for them were rooted in Bolshevik theory and had existed before it started. These developments can be seen from the development of party power into full-fledged support for party dictatorship and one-man management into the militarisation of labour.
The dictatorship of the party
Looking at the first development, we see that the idea of the "dictatorship of the party" very quickly became a Bolshevik truism. All the leading Bolsheviks supported it (Zinoviev, Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin), from start of 1919 (at the latest). This position found its best expression at the Second Congress of the Third International, with Zinoviev stating quite unashamedly the following:
"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."
Needless to say, Lenin and Trotsky did not disagree, quite the reverse. Unsurprisingly, this position is rarely mentioned in modern Leninist accounts of this congress in spite of the fact this was the underlying assumption of Bolshevik policies at the time. This can be seen from Victor Serge's comments at the time. The party, he argued, "is in a sense the nervous system of the class. Simultaneously the consciousness and the active, physical organisation of the dispersed forces of the proletariat, which are often ignorant of themselves and often remain latent or express themselves contradictorily." And the masses, what is their role? For Serge, the workers are "behind" the communists, "sympathising instinctively with the party and carrying out the menial tasks required by the revolution." While he states that the party is "supported by the entire working population," he contradicts himself by acknowledging that, strangely enough, "it maintains its unique situation in dictatorial fashion." Why would a party with popular support need to maintain its position by dictatorial means?
The Bolsheviks had taken state power in November 1917 and had created a de facto party dictatorship by the spring of 1918. By the start of 1919, they were simply revising rhetoric to bring it into line with reality. Moreover, they universalised their conclusions, arguing that every revolution would need strict party rule. This can be seen in Lenin's infamous "Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder," written in 1920 (and still considered by Leninists worthy of reprinting today!). In that work, Lenin lambasted those revolutionaries (particularly the council communists) who argued for direct working class power against the idea of party rule. He stated that it was "ridiculously absurd and stupid" to make "a contrast in general between he dictatorship of the masses and the dictatorship of the leaders." Unfortunately for those who like to portray Leninism as "socialism from below," he repeated his 1905 dismissal of such a notion by showing "the general mechanism of the proletarian state power viewed 'from above,' from the standpoint of the practical realisation of the dictatorship." From this he concluded that "all talk about 'from above' or 'from below,' about 'the dictatorship of leaders' or 'the dictatorship of the masses,' cannot but appear to be ridiculous, childish nonsense."
Needless to say he did not bother to view "proletarian" state power "from below," from the viewpoint of the proletariat. As such, there was no mention of 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. All this was considered irrelevant in determining the "proletarian" character of the regime.
While ignoring the role of the proletariat in the "dictatorship of the proletariat," Lenin did stress the role of the 19 members of the Central Committee, elected once a year by the party congress. "Not a single important political or organisational question," he notes, "is decided by any State institution in our republic [sic!] without the guiding instructions of the Central Committee of the Party." Ironically, in these days of protests against the G8, we find the key the difference between Leninism and capitalism. Under Bolshevism, 19 people made life and death decisions for millions. Under capitalism, 8 people make them. A massive improvement in terms of democracy, I am sure you would agree.
Interestingly enough, the experience of Lenin in power allows us to refute Lenin the author of "State and Revolution." In 1920, he made a speech to the Cheka in which he argued that "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." However, in 1917 he had argued that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" meant "democracy for the people" which "imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists." These must be crushed "in order to free humanity from wage-slavery; their resistance must be broken by force; it is clear that where there is suppression there is also violence, there is no freedom, no democracy."
Now, if the working class itself is being subject to coercion then, clearly, there is "no freedom, no democracy" for that class. Which explains why, by November 1920, 73% of Bolshevik prisoners were workers (34%) and peasants (39%). As Bakunin put it, the people "will feel no better if the stick with which they are being beaten is labelled 'the people's stick'."
This support for party dictatorship extended even to those groupings in the party which are considered by some to be somewhat libertarian. The Workers' Opposition, labelled by Lenin as "syndicalist," did not oppose party dictatorship. This can be seen from Alexandra Kollontai's pamphlet "The Workers' Opposition," in which the issue of political democracy is not mentioned. The call for democracy was limited to more democracy in the party and for communist factions in the unions. The economic democracy they wanted was, "of course," to be composed of delegates nominated and elected "through the party cells, as we always do it" (to quote one of the group's leading members, Shlyapnikov). The Workers' Opposition simply rejected the proto-Stalinist methods of the central committee rather than present a democratic opposition to Leninism or the monopoly of power held by the Communist Party. Unsurprisingly, therefore, it backed the repression of Kronstadt (which did call for soviet and real trade union democracy) and many of it members went to fight against it.
In fact, the only known Bolshevik to oppose party dictatorship was the old working class Bolshevik Myasnikov, whom Lenin had a significant letter exchange over the value of freedom of speech. Lenin, unsurprisingly, opposed it while Myasnikov quite rightly argued that it was the working class, not the bourgeoisie, who suffered most from Lenin's policy. Unconvinced by Lenin, Myasnokov was expelled from the party in 1922. The Workers' Group which he founded was latter arrested by the Cheka the next year later for daring to support the highest explosion of working class struggle against the Bolsheviks since the events leading up to Kronstadt (during the "Scissors Crisis"). Trotsky, it should be noted, did not oppose this repression.
Significantly, Myasnikov did not support the suppression of the Kronstadt revolt in early 1921. While there is a tendency to stress Kronstadt in anarchist circles, it should be remembered that this revolt was not the first major revolt by the masses against the Bolshevik dictatorship. Just as Kronstadt itself cannot be considered in isolation to the huge wave of industrial protest and strikes across Russia that proceeded and inspired it, we should see Kronstadt for what it is, as a symbol of working class resistance to Bolshevism, the culmination of years of strikes and resistance which began almost from the moment the Bolsheviks seized power. Kronstadt can be considered as the end of the revolution, the final nail in the coffin of Bolshevism's claim that it was revolutionary or had anything to do with socialism. Given its nature as a key turning point of the revolution, we find Leninists spreading numerous lies and distortions about it (a subject I cannot hope to cover here).
Trotsky's "Opposition"
Thus, by 1919 at the latest the Bolsheviks recognised ideologically that which they had been implementing since, at the latest, the summer of 1918, namely the equation of the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the party. As it was, this not such a far step as some would like to believe. Lenin had, after all, constantly equated working class (or soviet) power with Bolshevik party power. Nor should we be surprised that none of the major Bolsheviks revised this position after 1921. Not even Trotsky, who (thanks to his followers) has a reputation for somehow returning to the "democratic essence" of Bolshevism. In fact, the opposition was the case -- Trotsky consistently supported the Bolshevik orthodoxy position throughout the 1920s and the 1930s (i.e. well after the rise of Stalin).
There is no point discussing the Trotsky of 1918 to 1921, his authoritarianism is known by most and admitted by many Trotskyists themselves. It is the Trotsky of 1923 and after that counts, when he started to question the way the revolution was developing. In other words, the period of the "Left Opposition," when it is often claimed Trotsky moved to a more democratic position. Nothing could be further from the truth. For example, in 1923 he was still stressing that "if 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." Four years later, the platform of the Left Opposition stated its whole-hearted support for 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." For Trotsky and the Left Opposition, democracy was only applicable for the party, not the masses (as admitted at the time with, for example, Max Eastman openly stating that the term "workers' democracy" meant party democracy only).
Ten years later, Trotsky still argued for party dictatorship. As he put it in a letter specifically written to an anarchist to discuss this very question, "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 . . . The dictatorship of a party belongs to the barbarian prehistory as does the state itself, but we can not jump over this chapter. . . The revolutionary party (vanguard) which renounces its own dictatorship surrenders the masses to the counter-revolution." Even after the rise of Stalinism, Trotsky was still subscribing to the same "Leninist principle."
But, perhaps, we should not be too surprised by all this. After all, he was still describing Stalinism as expressing the rule of the workers! As he put it in the early 1930s, the "bureaucracy has expropriated the proletariat politically in order to guard its social conquests with its own methods. The anatomy of society is determined by its economic relations. So long as the forms of property that have been created by the October Revolution are not overthrown, the proletariat remains the ruling class." Then again, he thought the working class was the ruling class under his and Lenin's rule! Unsurprisingly enough, Ante Ciliga recounted in his classic work "The Russian Enigma" how Trotskyist prisoners in the late 1920s still thought "freedom to choose one's party" was "Menshevism"!
Trotsky and his followers really had no idea of why the revolution failed.
Simply put, there is a clear-cut and incontrovertible link between what happened under Lenin and Trotsky and the later practice of Stalinism. While many on the revolutionary left will simply reject this statement out of hand, I'm convinced however that any honest reading of the facts cannot but lead to this conclusion. The more one unearths about the period 1917 to 1921, the more difficult it becomes to define -- or even see -- the 'gulf' allegedly separating what happened in Lenin's time from what happened later. Real knowledge of the facts makes it impossible to accept the standard Leninist explanations of what went wrong (as I discuss later, none of the standard ones hold water). The Bolshevik ideology and actions themselves played a key role in the course of events and they were not "objectively determined."
Thus, the Bolshevik revolution is the greatest confirmation of anarchist ideas and the greatest failure of Marxism. Perhaps this explains the shocking lack of knowledge of most Marxists have about this revolution? Ultimately, anarchists have to wonder if this was a successful revolution, as Marxists tend to argue, then what a failed one would be like!
Anarchists do not think that the Bolsheviks were "evil" men, aiming to impose their tyranny from the start. No, Lenin, Trotsky and all where sincere socialists who did think their ideas would help create a just society. However, a combination of bad politics and institutional pressures soon saw the twisting of their hopes into the exact opposite of what socialism is about (even the impoverished, basically state capitalist, vision of socialism held by the likes of Lenin and Trotsky). Anarchists were not surprised by this development, after all the state was designed for minority rule. That working class political self-management was replaced by party power should be unexpected, particularly when the party leading the revolution aimed for that specific outcome! Moreover, the elimination of workers' self-management within production also played its role, for without economic power, political power does not exist. The working class soon became subject to rule by a new ruling class, based on the party and state bureaucracy. As anarchists had long predicted.
In Kropotkin's words, the Bolsheviks showed us how not to introduce communism!
Excuses for Bolshevism
At this point I'm sure that Leninists will have various objections to my comments.
The first line of defence would be to make the accusation of selective quoting. Perhaps the quotes will not be denied, but it will be claimed that other things were said as well. Which is true, of course. But Marx and, ironically enough, Trotsky stressed that we must judge people on what they do, not what they say! In other words, anarchists ask people to judge the Bolsheviks by their practice, not on their election manifestos. Once we do, the difference between rhetoric and reality is simply too great to stress the former and ignore the latter.
For example, in 1920, Zinoviev wrote to the IWW, claiming 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." The same year, he wrote in a Communist journal 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 by achieved only by the dictatorship of its vanguard, i.e., by the Communist Party."
Now, the second quote reflected reality, the former had no bearing on what the Bolsheviks were doing. Is it "selective" to quote the one that reflects the truth and not the one that is a lie? It seems far more relevant to quote those statements of the Bolsheviks leaders of 1917 and after which helped determine Russia's evolution towards Stalinism rather those other statements which were for ever to remain in the realm of rhetoric. So this argument simply wants us to look purely at Bolshevik rhetoric and not its theory nor its practice!
The next major defence of Bolshevism is to stress the civil war and its impact. Ignoring the awkward fact that Bolshevik authoritarianism started before the civil war broke out, what can be made of this argument? Well, the major problem with it is that Marxists are meant to think that civil war is inevitable. To quote just one statement on this subject by Lenin, "Revolution 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." Which means, for Marxists, the Russian revolution would have been fine, if the inevitable had not happened...
And they (incorrectly) harp on about anarchists ignoring civil war!
So, obviously, this line of defence is nonsense. If civil war is inevitable, then it cannot be used to justify the failure of the Bolshevism. Marxists simply want to have their cake and eat it to.
Then there is the related idea that the Bolshevism faced exceptionally bad circumstances and so cannot be blamed for the acts they had to do in face of them. Like the civil war argument, this has the slight problem that, as Marxists, they should know that, to again quote Lenin "revolution . . . in its development, would give rise to exceptionally complicated circumstances" and so "those who believe that socialism will be built at a time of peace and tranquillity are profoundly mistaken: it will everywhere be built at a time of disruption, at a time of famine." All the leading Bolsheviks (includng Trotsky, Lenin and Bukharin) considered economic collapse and as a "law of history" and of revolution (how things changed once Trotsky was out on his ear!).
Moreover, Lenin admitted that revolution in the west would see even greater destruction and chaos than Russia did! And Lenin was right. If we compare the Russian Revolution to the German and Spanish, we find the same economic disruption going on. I will concentrate on the German revolution as this is viewed as the potential saviour for the Bolsheviks. If, it is argued, the German revolution had succeeded then the economic might of Germany could have been used to bolster the Bolshevik regime. Ignoring the fact that the Bolsheviks had already identified party power with working class power and had raised the "dictatorship of the party" to an ideological truism by the start of 1919, the simple fact is that, relatively speaking, Germany was at least in as bad shape as Russia! In Russia, production had fallen by 23% between 1913 to 1917. In Germany, it had fallen by 43% (from 1913 to 1918). The next year (1918 and 1919 respectively), it had fallen even more (to over 60% in both countries). Thus at each stage of the revolution, the economic problems facing both countries were (at best) the same. If economic disruption meant that workers' power was impossible in Russia, then why was it possible in Germany?
Nor is this the end of the problems with this rationale. In 1923, German production fell dramatically by 34% (from around 70% of its pre-war level to around 45% of that level). Yet this economic collapse did not deter the Communists from trying to provoke a revolution in Germany that year. Nor has it stopped Marxists during any other economic crisis. Which suggests that economic collapse only means socialism is impossible if Marxists are in power!
So, on the face of it, we are back to the old story that the Russian Revolution would have been fine if the inevitable had not happened.
One final comment on this issue. Marxists usually claim that anarchists ignore the terrible objective circumstances the Bolsheviks faced when we present our critique of their politics and practice. The truth is somewhat different. Anarchists had predicted that a revolution would face these very problems. Kropotkin in Conquest of Bread (and elsewhere) has stressed that a revolution would experience massive economic disruption, rising unemployment, etc. As he put it, in 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." Indeed, he considered it essential to "show how tremendous this problem is."
In summary, anarchists do not ignore effects of revolution, we predicted them! And, we argue, if your politics cannot handle the inevitable, then your politics are flawed...
Then there is the excuse that due to economic disruption and civil war, the Russian proletariat had effectively "disappeared," so necessitating the Bolsheviks to monopolise power themselves. Of course, this argument has the slight problem that the express aim of the Bolsheviks in 1917 was for their party to take state power for itself. And that is what it did. Equally, it seems hard to reconcile this argument with the fact that the Bolsheviks simply disbanded any soviet to which a non-Bolshevik majority was elected to from the start.
And then there is the problem that the working class was still more than capable of taking collective action all throughout the civil war. But, as this was against the Bolsheviks, it has been written out of their history! As one Bolshevik told Emma Goldman, "strikes under the dictatorship of the proletariat? There's no such thing." Latter-day Bolsheviks simply repeat this position, ignoring (when possible) or downplaying (when forced to) the working class protests which took place from 1918 onwards. Indeed, strikes took place from the start, as did the repression. Martial law, lockouts, mass arrests of strikers occurred all throughout the Civil War period, as well as before and after it.
So, surely, if the working class had "disappeared" then all this state repression would not have been required!
As one expert (Jonathan Aves in Workers Against Lenin) notes, strike action "remained endemic in the first nine months of 1920" (as it had in 1919). For example, in Petrograd province, 85,642 people were involved in strikes, which is a high figure indeed as there were only 109,100 workers there at the time! Indeed, the notion that the working class had "disappeared" or had become "declassed" was developed in response to 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.'" Ironically, but unsurprisingly, the Bolsheviks usually labelled workers as non-proletarian if they were against the party or its policies, turning class into an ideological position rather than a socio-economic one. 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."
Little wonder the "dictatorship of the party" was raised to an ideological truism!
"Exceptional circumstances"
All the Marxist explanations and justifications for Bolshevik authoritarianism basically, as seen, boil down to the idea that "exceptional circumstances" forced them to act as they did. Ironically enough, Trotsky slagged off the anarchists in Spain for using exactly this kind of justification for their acts. As he put it, "did not the leaders of German social democracy invoke, in their time, the same excuse? Naturally, civil war is not a peaceful and ordinary but an 'exceptional circumstance.' . . . we do severely blame the anarchist theory, which seemed wholly suitable for times of peace, but had to be dropped rapidly as soon as the 'exceptional circumstance' of the . . . revolution had begun."
So it appears that "exceptional circumstances" cannot be used to explain Bolshevism. Some one should tell Trotsky's followers this (of course, his own account of the rise of Stalinism was precisely a variation of this argument, but never mind!). Tony Cliff (now dead leader of the SWP) presents us with a particularly ironic example of this. Commenting on the platform of the Left Opposition, he notes that it showed "the inheritance of the exceptional conditions of the civil war, when the one-party system was transformed from a necessity into a virtue." Obviously "exceptional conditions" explain everything and are a suitable instrument of scientific socialist analysis while "exceptional circumstances" are simply petty-bourgeois justifications for anti-revolutionary acts!
Which, of course, raises the question, was Bolshevik authoritarianism a "necessity"? Given that this authoritarianism was implemented from the start and was never considered as a retreat, we would have to say that the Bolsheviks themselves did not think it was a necessity forced upon them. However, that is beside the point. In fact there is an example of a revolutionary movement operating during the Russian Revolution and Civil War which shows whether the actions of the Bolsheviks were a "necessity" or not. The Makhnovists (an anarchist influenced insurgent army) showed that party dictatorship and state capitalism was not necessary. They practised as far as possible soviet, workplace and army democracy, plus defending freedom of speech and association, in extremely difficult circumstances. Thus we have empirical proof that "necessity" does not explain the actions of Bolshevism. Faced with the same objective circumstances, the anarchists and Bolsheviks reacted in radically different ways. The Makhnovists show the importance of political ideas and the structures aimed for and introduced in how the Russian revolution developled (which explains the Marxist need to rubbish their example and memory).
Ultimately, the various Marxists excuses for Bolshevism all boil down to one conclusion. Simply it, they logically imply that Marxism is only applicable to times of peace. Which simply shows its uselessness -- if it cannot handle what they claim to think as inevitable then it should be avoided!
The Spanish Revolution
The Spanish revolution is usually used as an example of why Marxism is right and Anarchism is flawed. Simply put, it is used as the ultimate means to refute anarchism. So, does the Spanish revolution refute anarchism?
In summary, and unsurprisingly, anarchists say no, it does not. I will indicate why, but first I should make a short comment on how Marxists portray anarchists in the Spanish Revolution. The first thing to stress is that whether something good happens in the revolution, it is the "workers and peasants" who do it. Whenever anything bad happens, then it is the "anarchists" who do it. Thus, for Marxists, the "anarchists" are the few bureaucrats who joined the bourgeois government, not the hundreds of thousands of the CNT and FAI members for created and ran the collectives and militias. Similarly, the constructive aspects of the revolution, the obvious product of decades of anarchist organising and theory, are rarely portrayed as such.
However, that is an aside. Did the Spanish Revolution refute anarchism? Of course not. Rather, it was a failure of anarchists, not anarchism. Simply put, the leadership of the CNT (an anarcho-syndicalist union) and FAI (an anarchist federation) failed to apply their politics, placing the fight against Franco before the creation of an anarchists society. Needless to say, this was a huge mistake. Luckily, the revolution went ahead anyway, regardless of the decision!
I should stress the fundamentally idealist analysis by Marxists of this decision. Rather than try and root it in the objective circumstances facing the CNT-FAI, Marxists basically argue that the decision flowed directly from anarchist ideology. Thus the ideas of the anarchists explain everything. Need I point out that this is the kind of analysis they reject out of hand when it is applied to the Bolsheviks. When that happens, they stress the "objective factors" and ignore the "subjective factors" (i.e. political and social ideas). For anarchism, the opposite applies -- they ignore the former and stress the latter.
So Marxists almost always fail to discuss the problems facing the CNT. This is unsurprising, for once these factors are highlighted the decision of the CNT simply cannot be laid at the door of (what Marxists consider to be) anarchist theory. What were these objective factors? The most obvious one was their potential isolation, both within Spain and in the world. When the decision in Catalonia to postpone libertarian communism and to collaborate with the republican state was made, the outcome of the street fighting was only known in Catalonia itself. The decision to implement libertarian communism would have meant, in all likelihood, fighting fascism, the Republic and international capitalism. This may have meant the immediate victory of Franco. This explains why the decision was made, but does not justify it.
To bolster their claims that anarchist theory was the sole cause of the fatal decision to collaborate, Marxists tend to trot out (pun intended) a quote from Garica Oliver (the famous FAI militant and CNT member of the bourgeois government). He explained the decision to collaborate as follows:
"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."
Significantly, the Marxists who like to use this quote fail to mention that it dates from a year after the decision was made, long after the leadership of the CNT had stopped being revolutionary and had embraced fully the logic of collaboration. Simply put, it cannot and does not reflect the actual concerns of the CNT and FAI leadership when they made their decision. Rather, they reflect the attempts of the leaders of an organisation that had significantly departed from its libertarian principles to justify their actions.
This can be seen from the fact it is obviously internally contradictory and in flat contradiction to basic anarchist theory. Garica Oliver is arguing that libertarian communism (a society based on directly democratic free associations organised and run from the bottom up) is an "anarchist dictatorship" and less democratic than the capitalist Republic he had been fighting against for most of his life. Moreover, libertarian communism was the revolution -- to state that to choose it over capitalist democracy meant "the strangulation of the revolution" makes no sense. Equally, the fact was that the revolution broke out independently of as well as after the decision to collaborate was made on July 20th, 1936. Thus the decision to collaborate had nothing to do with a revolution which was just starting in the streets and factories. And, of course, the argument was totally alien to anarchist ideas and contradicts everything anarchists (and the CNT) had argued for decades previously!
So, to concentrate on anarchist theory to explain the CNT's decisions on July 20th simply does not hold water. Equally, the idea that Marxists had a viable alternative to anarchist ideas in that revolution also cannot withstand analysis.
Marxist alternatives for Spain
The notion that Marxism offered a realistic alternative to the problems of the Spanish revolution is easy to disprove. All I need to do is to indicate Trotsky's proposed "alternative." In his words, 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." Thus the leaders should have seized power and become the "sovereign ruler," not the working class as a whole. He clarified what he meant a few months later: "Because the leaders of the CNT renounced dictatorship for themselves they left the place open for the Stalinist dictatorship."
Need I point out that a major problem in the Spanish Revolution was precisely the fact that the leaders of the CNT and FAI did "seize power" within their own organisations, centralising power and marginalising their own membership? The idea that party dictatorship could be considered as a socialist alternative says more about the flaws in Marxism than anarchism. Trotsky obviously wanted to prove Marx right when he noted that history repeats itself, first time as tragedy, second time as farce!
Was there an alternative to the CNT's decision? Yes -- they could have implemented anarchist ideas. According to Trotskyist Felix Morrow, to save the revolution it was necessary to "give the factory committees, militia committees, peasant committees, a democratic character, by having them elected by all workers in each unit; to bring together these elected delegates in village, city, regional councils . . . [and] a national congress." In other words, the sort of thing the Bolsheviks did not do when in power but what the Makhnovists did! Thus, ironically enough, Morrow's "Trotskyist" vision of a federation of workers' councils actually reproduces basic anarchist ideas and practice (and CNT policy!) and most definitely not Trotsky's ideas or practice...
That this anarchist solution was viable can be seen from looking at what happened in Aragon, where anarchism was put into action. Unlike in Catalonia, Aragon saw the state smashed and a federation of collectives created. In other words, anarchism was applied! Needless to say, most Marxists fail to mention the Council of Aragon as it totally undermines their case against anarchism. After all, how can anarchist theory be blames for the decision to collaborate in Catalonia when it successfully applied in Aragon? Hence the superficial and idealist critique of anarchism in the Spanish revolution we get subjected to time and time again!
One last point, Marxists tend to argued that the anarchist group "The Friends of Durruti" signified a "conscious break" with anarchism because it argued for the end of collaboration and the creation of "juntas" in the overthrow of capitalism and to defend against counter-revolution. But this was exactly what revolutionary anarchists have argued for since Bakunin and what the CNT had implemented in Aragon. In other words, the "Friends of Durruti" did not signify a "conscious break" with anarchism, rather it signified a conscious return to it. This would be obvious if you compare their arguments to those of Bakunin, Kropotkin and so on as well as the ideas of the CNT before the 19th of July 1936. But, being ignorant of actual anarchist ideas, I'm not surprised that Marxists fails to state this obvious fact.
A real alternative
Engels, in his particularly crap critique of anarchism called "On Authority," argued that "revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon -- authoritarian means, if such there be at all." Marxists have been parroting this against anarchists ever since.
Ironically, this quote actually shows the strength of anarchism and the flaws in Marxism. Engels' comments on revolution are without class analysis and so will, by necessity, mislead. He 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 imposes its decisions to those beneath them in the social hierarchy. Discussing the "population" as if it was not divided by classes and so subject to specific forms of authoritarian social relationships is liberal nonsense.
This exposes the fallacy of Engels argument. Social revolution, the act of revolution is the overthrow of the power and authority of an oppressing and exploiting class by those subject to that oppression and exploitation. Rather than an "authoritarian" act, 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!
From this it follows that anarchism is revolution from a working class perspective. It places working class power and freedom at its core. It does not does not equate party power with working class power. Rather anarchists have constantly stressed that importance of working class self-organisation and self-management. Anarchists, to quote Bakunin, "not accept, even in the process of revolutionary transition, either constituent assemblies, provisional governments or so-called revolutionary dictatorships; because we are convinced that revolution is only sincere, honest and real in the hands of the masses, and that when it is concentrated in those of a few ruling individuals it inevitably and immediately becomes reaction."
Anarchism, therefore, recognises the importance of matching means to ends. If you desire a socialist society of free and equal individuals then you must built it in your struggles today. A self-managed society can only come about by applying the principle of working class self-management of the class struggle and our own organisations. Rather than the party organised along capitalist lines, anarchists stress a movement rooted in the principles of self-management and socialisation -- a movement organised, run and created from below upwards. Our vision of socialism is rooted in workers power in production, not Lenin's ambiguous and flawed concept of workers' "supervision" of those with real power in the workplace (i.e. the capitalist or state appointed boss). It is also rooted in self-government, not "revolutionary" government by a few. As Bakunin put it, "liberty can only be created by liberty, by an insurrection of all the people and the voluntary organisation of the workers from below upward." History has proven him right time and time again.
If you want to change the world and not just the bosses then anarchism may be for you!