Section H - Why do anarchists oppose state socialism?

H.1 Have anarchists always opposed state socialism?
	H.1.1 What was Bakunin's critique of Marxism?
	H.1.2 What are the key differences between Anarchists and Marxists?
	H.1.3 Why do anarchists wish to abolish the state "overnight"?
	H.1.4 Do anarchists have "absolutely no idea of what the proletariat 
      	will put in its place"?
	H.1.5 Why do anarchists reject "utilising the present state"?
	H.1.6 Why do anarchists try to "build the new world in the 
      	shell of the old"?
	H.1.7 Haven't you read Lenin's "State and Revolution"?

H.2 What parts of anarchism do Marxists particularly misrepresent?
      H.2.1 Do anarchists reject defending a revolution?
      H.2.2 Do anarchists reject the need for collective working 
            class struggle?
	H.2.3 Does anarchism "yearn for what has gone before"?
      H.2.4 Do anarchists think "the state is the main enemy" rather 
            than just "one aspect" of class society? 
      H.2.5 Do anarchists think "full blown" socialism will be 
            created overnight?
      H.2.6 How do Marxists misrepresent Anarchist ideas on mutual aid?
      H.2.7 Who do anarchists see as their "agents of social change"?
      H.2.8 What is the relationship of anarchism to syndicalism?
	H.2.9 Do anarchists have "liberal" politics?
      H.2.10 Are anarchists against leadership?
      H.2.11 Are anarchists "anti-democratic"?
	H.2.12 Does anarchism survive only in the absence of a strong
             workers' movement?       
	H.2.13 Do anarchists reject "political" struggles and action?
      H.2.14 Are anarchist organisations either "ineffective," "elitist" 
             or "downright bizarre"?
      H.2.15 Do anarchists reject discipline?
      H.2.16 Does the Spanish Revolution show the failure of anarchism?

H.3 What are the myths of state socialism?
      H.3.1 Do Anarchists and Marxists want the same thing?
      H.3.2 Is Marxism "socialism from below"?
      H.3.3 Is Leninism "socialism from below"?
      H.3.4 Don't anarchists just quote Marxists selectively?
      H.3.5 Has Marxism appropriation of anarchist ideas changed it?
      H.3.6 Is Marxism the only revolutionary politics which 
            have worked?
      H.3.7 What is wrong with the Marxist theory of the state?
      H.3.8 What is wrong with the Leninist theory of the state?
      H.3.9 Is the state simply an agent of economic power?
      H.3.10 Has Marxism always supported the idea of workers' 
             councils?
      H.3.11 Does Marxism aim to place power into the hands 
             of workers organisations? 
      H.3.12 Is big business the precondition for socialism?
      H.3.13 Why is state socialism just state capitalism?
 	H.3.14 Don't Marxists believe in workers' control?
	H.3.15 Can objective factors explain the failure of the 
	       Russian Revolution?
	H.3.16 Did Bolshevik ideology influence the outcome of the 
	       Russian Revolution?

H.4 Didn't Engels refute anarchism in his essay "On Authority"?
	H.4.1 Does organisation imply the end of liberty?
      H.4.2 How does free love versus marriage indicate the weakness
	      of Engels' argument?
      H.4.3 How do anarchists propose to run a factory?
      H.4.4 How does the class struggle refute Engels' arguments 
            that industry required leaving "all autonomy behind"?
      H.4.5 Is the way industry operates "independent of all
             social organisation"?
      H.4.6 Why does Engel's "On Authority" harm Marxism?
      H.4.7 Why does Engels' argument that revolution is "the most
             authoritarian thing there is" totally miss the point?

H.5 What is vanguardism and why do anarchists reject it?
      H.5.1 Why are vanguard parties anti-socialist?
      H.5.2 Have vanguardist assumptions been validated?
      H.5.3 Why does vanguardism imply party power?
      H.5.4 Did Lenin abandon vanguardism?
      H.5.5 What is "democratic centralism"?
      H.5.6 Why do anarchists oppose "democratic centralism"?
      H.5.7 Is the way revolutionaries organise important?
      H.5.8 Are vanguard parties effective?
      H.5.9 What are vanguard parties effective at?
      H.5.10 Why does "democratic centralism" produce "bureaucratic
             centralism"?
      H.5.11 Can you provide an example of the negative nature of
             vanguard parties?

Section H - Why do anarchists oppose state socialism?

The socialist movement has been continually divided, with various
different tendencies and movements. Two of the main tendencies of
socialism are state socialism (Marxism, Leninism, Maoism and so on)
and libertarian socialism (anarchism in all its many forms). The
conflict and disagreement between anarchists and Marxists is
legendary. As Benjamin Tucker noted:

"[I]t is a curious fact that the two extremes of the [socialist
movement] . . . though united . . . by the common claim that labour
should be put in possession of its own, are more diametrically 
opposed to each other in their fundamental principles of social 
action and their methods of reaching the ends aimed at than
either is to their common enemy, existing society. They are
based on two principles the history of whose conflict is almost
equivalent to the history of the world since man came into it . . .

"The two principles referred to are AUTHORITY and LIBERTY, and
the names of the two schools of Socialistic thought which fully
and unreservedly represent one or the other are, respectively,
State Socialism and Anarchism. Whoso knows that these two
schools want and how they propose to get it understands the
Socialistic movement. For, just as it has been said that there
is no half-way house between Rome and Reason, so it may be said
that there is no half-way house between State Socialism and
Anarchism." [_The Individualist Anarchists_, pp. 78-9]

In addition to this divide between libertarian and authoritarian
forms of socialism, there is another divide between reformist and
revolutionary wings of these two tendencies. "The term 'anarchist,'"
Murray Bookchin writes, "is a generic word like the term 'socialist,'
and there are probably as many different kinds of anarchists are
there are socialists. In both cases, the spectrum ranges from 
individuals whose views derive from an extension of liberalism (the 
'individualist anarchists', the social-democrats) to revolutionary 
communists (the anarcho-communists, the revolutionary Marxists, 
Leninists and Trotskyites)." [_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_, p. 214f]

In this section of the FAQ we concentrate on the conflict between
the revolutionary wings of both movements. Here we discuss why
communist-anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and other revolutionary
anarchists reject Marxist theories, particularly the revolutionary
ideas of Leninists and Trotskyites. We will concentrate almost
entirely on the works of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky as well as the
Russian Revolution. This is because many Marxists reject the Chinese,
Cuban and other revolutions as being infected by Stalinism. In 
contrast, there is a general agreement in Marxist circles that
the Russian Revolution was a true socialist revolution and the 
ideas of Lenin (and usually Trotsky) follow in Marx's footsteps.
What we say against Marx and Lenin is also applicable to their
more controversial followers, therefore we ignore them. We also 
dismiss out of hand any suggestion that the Stalinist regime was 
remotely socialist. Unfortunately many serious revolutionaries 
consider Lenin's regime to be a valid example of a valid socialist 
revolution so we have to discuss why it was not. 

As noted, two main wings of the revolutionary socialist movement, 
anarchism and Marxism, have always been in conflict. While, with 
the apparent success of the Russian revolution, the anarchist 
movement was overshadowed by its authoritarian name-sake in many 
countries, this situation has been changing. In recent years anarchism 
has seen a revival as more and more people recognise the fundamentally 
anti-socialist nature of the Russian "experiment" and the politics that 
inspired it. With this re-evaluation of socialism and the Soviet Union, 
more and more people are rejecting Marxism and embracing libertarian 
socialism. As can be seen from the press coverage from such events as 
the anti-Poll Tax riots in the UK at the start of the 1990s, the J18 
and N30 anti-capitalist demonstrations in 1999, anarchism has become
synonymous with anti-capitalism. 

Needless to say, the self-proclaimed "vanguard(s) of the proletariat" 
become worried and hurriedly write patronising articles on "anarchism" 
(without bothering to really understand it or its arguments against 
Marxism). These articles are usually a mishmash of lies, irrelevant
personal attacks, distortions of the anarchist position and the 
ridiculous assumption that anarchists are anarchists because no one
has bothered to inform of us of what "Marxism" is "really" about. We 
do not aim to repeat such "scientific" analysis in our FAQ so we shall 
concentrate on politics and history. By so doing we will indicate that 
anarchists are anarchists because we understand Marxism and reject it 
as being unable to lead to a socialist society.

It is unfortunately common for many Marxists, particularly Leninist 
influenced ones, to concentrate on personalities and not politics 
when discussing anarchist ideas. Albert Meltzer put it well when he
argued that it is "very difficult for Marxist-Leninists to make an 
objective criticism of Anarchism, as such, because by its very nature 
it undermines all the suppositions basic to Marxism. If Marxism is 
held out to be indeed *the* basic working class philosophy, and the 
proletariat cannot owe its emancipation to anyone but itself, it 
is hard to go back on it and say that the working class is not yet 
ready to dispense with authority placed over it. Marxists therefore, 
normally refrain from criticising anarchism as such -- unless driven 
to doing so, when it exposes its own authoritarianism . . . and 
concentrates its attack not on *anarchism*, but on *anarchists*" 
[_Anarchism: Arguments For and Against_, p. 37]

This can be seen, for example, when many Leninists attempt to "refute" 
the whole of anarchism, its theory and history, by pointing out the 
personal failings of specific anarchists. They say that Proudhon was 
anti-jewish and sexist, that Bakunin was racist, that Kropotkin 
supported the Allies in the First World War and so anarchism is 
flawed. All these facts about Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin are 
true and they are all irrelevant to a critique of anarchism. Such a 
"critique" does not address anarchist ideas, all of which are ignored 
by this approach. In other words, they attack anarchists, not anarchism. 

Even taken at face value, you would have to be stupid to assume that 
Proudhon's misogyny or Bakunin's racism had equal weighting with Lenin's 
and the Bolsheviks' behaviour (for example, the creation of a party 
dictatorship, the repression of strikes, free speech, independent 
working class organisation, the creation of a secret police force, 
the attack on Kronstadt, the betrayal of the Makhnovists, the violent
repression of the Russian anarchist movement, etc.) in the league 
table of despicable activity. It seems strange that personal bigotry 
is of equal, or even more, importance in evaluating a political 
theory than its practice during a revolution.

Moreover, such a technique is ultimately dishonest. Looking at 
Proudhon, for example, Proudhon's anti-semitic outbursts remained 
unpublished in his note books until well after his ideas and, as 
Robert Graham points out, "a reading of _General Idea of the 
Revolution_ will show, anti-semitism forms no part of Proudhon's 
revolutionary programme." ["Introduction", _The General Idea of 
the Revolution_, p. xxxvi] Similarly, Bakunin's racism is an 
unfortunate aspect of his life, an aspect which is ultimately
irrelevant to the core principles and ideas he argued for. 
Moreover, Bakunin and his associates totally rejected Proudhon's 
sexism and argued for complete equality between the sexes. Why
mention these aspects of their ideas at all? They are irrelevant
to evaluating anarchism as a viable political theory. To do so
is to dishonestly imply that anarchism is racist and sexist,
which it is not.

If we look at Kropotkin's support for the Allies in the First World 
War we discover a strange hypocrisy on the part of Marxists as well 
as an attempt to distort history. Why hypocrisy? Simply because Marx 
and Engels supported the Prussian during the Franco-Prussian war (in 
contrast, Bakunin argued for a popular uprising and social revolution
to stop the war). As Marx wrote to Engels on July 20th, 1870:

"The French need to be overcome. If the Prussians are victorious, 
the centralisation of the power of the State will be useful for 
the centralisation of the German working class. Moreover, German 
ascendancy will transfer the centre of gravity of the European 
worker's movement from France to Germany . . . On a world scale,
the ascendancy of the German proletariat the French proletariat
will at the same time constitute the ascendancy of *our* theory 
over Proudhon's." [quoted by Arthur Lehning, _Michael Bakunin:
Selected Writings_, p. 284]

Marx, in part, supported the deaths of working class people in war
in order to see *his* ideas become more important than Proudhon's! 
At least Kropotkin supported the allies because he was against the
dangers to freedom implied by the German military state. The hypocrisy
of the Marxists is clear -- if anarchism is to be condemned for
Kropotkin's actions, then Marxism must be equally condemned for
Marx's.

This analysis also rewrites history as the bulk of the Marxist
movement supported their respective states during the conflict.
A handful of the parties of the Second International opposed the
war (and those were the smallest ones as well). The father of
Russian Marxism, George Plekhanov, supported the Allies. The 
German Social Democratic Party (the jewel in the crown of
the Second International) supported the war (a small minority
of it did not). There was just one man in the German Reichstag 
in August 1914 who did not vote for war credits (and he did not
even vote against them, he abstained). And many of the anti-war
minority went along with the majority of party in the name of
"discipline" and "democratic" principles.

In contrast, only a *very* small minority of anarchists supported 
any side during the conflict. The bulk of the anarchist movement 
(including such leading lights as Malatesta, Rocker, Goldman and 
Berkman) opposed the war, arguing that anarchists must "capitalise 
upon every stirring of rebellion, every discontent in order to 
foment insurrection, to organise the revolution to which we look 
for the ending of all of society's iniquities." [_No Gods, No 
Masters_, vol. 2., p. 36] As Malatesta noted at the time, the
"pro-war" anarchists were "not numerous, it is true, but [did
have] amongst them comrades whom we love and respect most."
He stressed that the "almost all" of the anarchists "have
remained faithful to their convictions" namely "to awaken
a consciousness of the antagonism of interests between
dominators and dominated, between exploiters and workers,
and to develop the class struggle inside each country, and
solidarity among all workers across the frontiers, as against
any prejudice and any passion of either race or nationality."
[_Life and Ideas_, p. 243, p. 248 and p. 244]

By pointing to Kropotkin, Marxists hide the fact that it was
the official Marxist movement which betrayed the cause of 
internationalism, not anarchism. Indeed, the betrayal of the
Second International was the natural result of the "ascendancy" 
of Marxism over anarchism that Marx had hoped. The rise of Marxism,
in the form of social-democracy, ended as Bakunin predicted, with the 
corruption of socialism in the quagmire of electioneering and statism.
As Rudolf Rocker correctly argues, "the Great War of 1914 was the 
exposure of the bankruptcy of political socialism." [_Marx and
Anarchism_]

We will not follow this common Marxist approach here as the failings of 
Marxism, particularly in its Leninist form, come not from the personal 
failings of individuals but from their politics and how they would work 
in practice. No one ever lives up totally to their ideals in practice, 
we are all human and pointing out individual faults does not undermine 
the theory they contributed to. If this was the case then Marxism would 
be "refuted" because of Marx and Engel's anti-Slav feelings and their 
support for the German State during the Franco-Prussian war of 1871.

Rather, we will analyse Marxism in terms of its theories and how
these theories worked in practice. Thus we will conduct a scientific
analysis of Marxism, looking at its claims and comparing them to
what they achieved in practice. Few, if any, Marxists present such
an analysis of their own politics, which makes Marxism more a belief 
system rather than analysis. For example, many Marxists point to
the success of the Russian Revolution and argue that while anarchists
attack Trotsky and Lenin for being statists and authoritarians, that
statism and authoritarianism saved the revolution.

In reply, anarchists point out that the Marxist revolution did,
in fact, *fail.* After all, the aim of those revolutions was to create 
a free, democratic, classless society of equals. In fact it created a 
one party dictatorship based around a class system of bureaucrats 
exploiting and dominating working class people and a society lacking 
equality and freedom. As the stated aims of the Marxist revolution 
failed to materialise, anarchists would argue that those revolutions 
failed even though a "Communist" Party remained in power for over 
70 years. And as for statism and authoritarianism "saving" the 
revolution, they saved it for Stalin, not socialism. That is nothing 
to be proud of.

From an anarchist perspective, this makes perfect sense as "[n]o
revolution can ever succeed as factor of liberation unless the
MEANS used to further it be identical in spirit and tendency
with the PURPOSE to be achieved." [Emma Goldman, _Patterns of
Anarchy_, p. 113] In other words, statist and authoritarian means
will result in statist and authoritarian ends. Calling a new state 
a "workers state" will not change the state's nature as a form of 
minority (and so class) rule. It has nothing to do with the ideas
or nature of those who gain power, it has to do with the nature of
the state and the social relationships it generates. The state
structure is an instrument of minority rule, it cannot be used by 
the majority because it is based on hierarchy, centralisation and
the empowerment of the minority at the top at the expense of 
everyone else. States have certain properties *just because they
are states.* They have their own dynamics which place them outside
popular control and are not simply a tool in the hands of the
economically dominant class. Making the minority Socialists 
within a "workers' state" does not change the fundamental nature 
of the state as an instrument of minority rule -- it just
changes the minority in charge, the minority exploiting and
oppressing the majority.

Similarly, in spite of over 100 years of socialists and radicals
using elections to put forward their ideas and the resulting 
corruption of every party which has done so, most Marxists still
call for socialists to take part in elections. For a theory which
calls itself scientific this ignoring of empirical evidence, the
facts of history, is truly amazing. Marxism ranks with economics 
as the "science" which most consistently ignores history and 
evidence. 

Indeed, this refusal to look at factual evidence can be seen from
the common comment Marxists make of anarchists, namely that we
are "petty-bourgeois." For anarchists, such comments indicate that,
for many Marxists, class is more a source of insults than analysis.
This can be seen when Marxists state that, say, Kropotkin or Bakunin
was "petty-bourgeois." As if a member of the Russian ruling class
could be petty-bourgeois! If we look at class as an socio-economic
fact and a social relationship (which it is) rather than an insult, 
then we discover if Bakunin and Kropotkin were "petty-bourgeois" then 
so was Marx, for they both shared the same socio-economic situation! 
Nor can it explain how Marx (a member of the petty-bourgeois, an 
independent journalist, when he worked at all) and Engels (an 
*actual* bourgeois, a factory owner!) could have created a 
"proletarian science." After all, in order to be a "proletarian" 
theory it must be developed by working class people in struggle. 
It was not. Albert Meltzer explains the problems Marxists face when 
they call us "petty-bourgeois":

"This leads them into another difficulty: How can one reconcile the
existence of anarcho-syndicalist unions with 'petty bourgeois' origins
-- and how does one get over the fact that most Marxist-Leninists
of today are professional ladies and gentlemen studying for or
belonging to the professions? The answer is usually given that
*because* anarchism is 'petty bourgeois' those embracing it --
'whatever their occupation or social origins' must also be 
'petty bourgeois.' Thus because 'Marxism is working class', its
adherents must be working class 'at least subjectively.' This is
a sociological absurdity, as if 'working class' meant an
ideological viewpoint. It is also a built in escape clause."
[Op. Cit., p. 39]

As this section of the FAQ will make clear, this name calling
and concentration on the personal failings of individual anarchists
by Marxists is not an accident. If we take the ability of a theory
to predict future events as an indication of its power then it soon 
becomes clear that anarchism is far more useful a tool in working
class struggle than Marxism. After all, anarchists predicted with
amazing accuracy the future development of Marxism. Bakunin argued
that electioneering would corrupt the socialist movement, making it
reformist and just another bourgeois party (see section J.2). This 
is what in fact happened to the Social-Democratic movement across 
the world by the turn of the twentieth century (the rhetoric remained 
radical for a few more years, of course). Murray Bookchin's comments 
about the German Social Democrats are appropriate here:

"[T]he party's preoccupation with parliamentarism was taking it
ever away from anything Marx had envisioned. Instead of working
to overthrow the bourgeois state, the SPD, with its intense
focus on elections, had virtually become an engine for getting
votes and increasing its Reichstag representation within the
bourgeois state . . . The more artful the SPD became in there
realms, the more its membership and electorate increased and,
with the growth of new pragmatic and opportunistic adherents, 
the more it came to resemble a bureaucratic machine for 
acquiring power under capitalism rather than a revolutionary
organisation to eliminate it." [_The Third Revolution_, vol. 2,
p. 300]

The reality of working within the state soon transformed the
party and its leadership, as Bakunin predicted. If we look at
the 1920s, we discover a similar failure to consider the
evidence:

"From the early 1920s on, the Leninist attachment to pre-WWI
social democratic tactics such as electoral politics and political
activity within pro-capitalist labour unions dominated the
perspectives of the so-called Communist. But if these tactics
were correct ones, why didn't they lead to a less dismal
set of results? We must be materialists, not idealists. What
was the actual outcome of the Leninist strategies? Did
Leninist strategies result in successful proletarian revolutions,
giving rise to societies worthy of the human beings that live
in them? The revolutionary movement in the inter-war period
was defeated. . ." [Max Anger, "The Spartacist School of
Falsification", _Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed_, no. 43,
Spring/Summer 1997, pp. 51-2]

As Scottish Anarchist Ethel McDonald argued in 1937, the
tactics urged by Lenin were a disaster in practice:

"At the Second Congress of the Third International, Moscow, a
comrade who is with us now in Spain, answering Zinoview, urged
faith in the syndicalist movement in Germany and the end of
parliamentary communism. He was ridiculed. Parliamentarianism,
communist parliamentarianism, but still parliamentartarianism
would save Germany. And it did. . . Saved it from Socialism.
Saved it for Fascism." ["The Volunteer Ban", _Workers City_,
Farquhar McLay (ed.), p. 74]

When the Nazi's took power in 1933 in Germany the 12 million 
Socialist and Communist voters and 6 million organised workers 
took no action. In Spain, it was the anarcho-syndicalist CNT
which lead the battle against fascism on the streets and helped
create one of the most important social revolutions the world
has seen. The contrast could not be more clear. And many Marxists 
urge us to follow Lenin's advice today!

If we look at the "workers' states" created by Marxists, we
discover, yet again, anarchist predictions proved right. Bakunin
argued that "[b]y popular government they [the Marxists] mean
government of the people by a small under of representatives
elected by the people. . . [That is,] government of the vast
majority of the people by a privileged minority. But this
minority, the Marxists say, will consist of workers. Yes, 
perhaps, of *former* workers, who, as soon as they become
rulers or representatives of the people will cease to be
workers and will begin to look upon the whole workers' world
from the heights of the state. They will no longer represent
the people but themselves and their own pretensions to govern
the people." [_Statism and Anarchy_, p. 178] The history of
every Marxist revolution proves Bakunin was right.

Due to these "workers' states" socialism has become associated
with repressive regimes, with totalitarian regimes the total
opposite of what socialism is actually about. Nor does it
help when self-proclaimed socialists (such as Trotskyites)
"obscenely describe regimes that exploit, imprison and
murder wage labourers in Cuba, North Korea, and China as
'workers' states'" [Max Anger, Op. Cit., p. 52] Little wonder
many anarchists do not use the terms "socialist" or "communist"
and just call themselves "anarchists." They are associated with 
regimes which have nothing in common with our ideas, or, indeed, 
the ideas of socialism as such.

This does not mean that anarchists reject everything Marx wrote. 
Far from it. Much of his analysis of capitalism is acceptable to 
anarchists, for example (both Bakunin and Tucker considered Marx's 
economic analysis as important). Indeed, there are some schools
of Marxism which are very libertarian and are close cousins to
anarchism (for example, council communism and autonomist Marxism
are close to revolutionary anarchism). Unfortunately, these forms
of Libertarian Marxism are a minority current within that movement.

In other words, Marxism is not all bad -- unfortunately the vast
bulk of it is and those elements which are not are found in 
anarchism anyway. For most, Marxism is the school of Marx, Engels,
Lenin and Trotsky, not Marx, Pannekoek, Gorter, Ruhle and Mattick.
The minority libertarian trend of Marxism is based, like anarchism,
on a rejection of party rule, electioneering and creating a "workers'
state." They also, like anarchists, support direct action, self-managed 
class struggle, working class autonomy and a self-managed socialist 
society. These Marxists oppose the dictatorship of the party over 
the proletariat and, in effect, agree with Bakunin when he argued
against Marx that socialists should "not accept, even in the process
of revolutionary transition, either constituent assemblies, 
provisional governments or so-called revolutionary dictatorships;
because we are convinced that revolution is only sincere, honest
and real in the hands of the masses, and that when it is
concentrated in those of a few ruling individuals it inevitably
and immediately becomes reaction." Like Bakunin, they think
that "a free federation of agricultural and industrial associations 
. . . organised from the bottom upwards" will be the basis of a new 
society (Libertarian Marxists usually call these associations workers' 
councils). [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 237 and p. 172]

These libertarian forms of Marxism should be encouraged 
and not tarred with the same brush as Leninism and social 
democracy (indeed Lenin commented upon "the anarchist 
deviation of the German Communist Workers' Party" and other 
"semi-anarchist elements," the very groups we are referring
to here under the term "libertarian Marxism." [_Marx, Engels
and Lenin, _Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 333 and 
p. 338]). Over time, hopefully, such comrades will see that 
the libertarian element of their thought outweighs the 
Marxist legacy. So our comments in this section of the 
FAQ are mostly directed to the majority form of Marxism, 
not to its libertarian wing.

One last point. We should point out that in the past many leading 
Marxists have argued that anarchism and socialism were miles apart: 
indeed, that anarchism was not a form of socialism. The leading American 
Marxist Daniel De Leon took this line, along with many others. This is 
true, in a sense, as anarchists are not *Marxian* socialists -- we reject 
such "socialism" as deeply authoritarian. However, all anarchists *are* 
members of the socialist movement and we reject attempts by Marxists to 
monopolise the term. Be that as it may, sometimes in this section we 
may find it useful to use the term socialist/communist to describe "state 
socialist" and anarchist to describe "libertarian socialist/communist." 
This in no way implies that anarchists are not socialists. It is purely 
a tool to make our arguments easier to read.

In the sections that follow we will discuss Marxism and the practice
of Marxists in power. This will indicate why anarchists reject it in 
favour of a *libertarian* form of socialism. 

H.1 Have anarchists always opposed state socialism?

Yes. Anarchists have always argued that real socialism cannot be
created using a state. The basic core of the argument is simple.
Socialism implies equality, yet the state signifies inequality --
inequality in terms of power. As we argued in section B.2, anarchists
consider one of the defining aspects of the state is its hierarchical
nature. In other words, the delegation of *power* into the hands of
a few. As such, it violates the core idea of socialism, namely
social equality. Those who make up the governing bodies in a state 
have more power than those who have elected them. 

Hence these comments by Malatesta and Hamon:

"It could be argued with much more reason that we are the most
logical and most complete socialists, since we demand for every
person not just his [or her] entire measure of the wealth of
society but also his [or her] portion of social power." [_No Gods,
No Masters_, vol. 2, p. 20]

It is with this perspective that anarchists have combated the idea
of state socialism and Marxism (although we should stress that
libertarian forms of Marxism, such as council communism, have
strong similarities to anarchism). This opposition to authoritarian
socialism is a core aspect of anarchism, an opposition which has
been consistent and strong. While it is sometimes argued by some 
on the right that libertarian socialists and anarchists only 
started voicing their opposition to Marxism and Leninism after 
the Soviet Union collapsed, the truth is totally different. 
Anarchists, we must stress, have been opposed to all forms of 
state socialism from the start (in the case of the Russian
Revolution, the anarchists were amongst the first on the left
to be suppressed by the Bolsheviks). Indeed, the history of Marxism 
is, in part, a history of its struggles against anarchists just
as the history of anarchism is also, in part, a history of its
struggle against the various forms of Marxism and its offshoots.
To state, or imply, that anarchists have only lately opposed
Marxism is false -- we have been arguing against Marxism since
the start. 

While both Stirner and Proudhon wrote many pages against the
evils and contradictions of state socialism, anarchists have
only really been fighting the Marxist form of state socialism
since Bakunin. This is because, until the First International,
Marx and Engels were relatively unknown socialist thinkers.
Proudhon was aware of Marx (they had meant in France in the
1840s and had corresponded) but Marxism was unknown in France
during his life time and so Proudhon did not directly argue
against Marxism (he did, however, critique Louis Blanc and
other French state socialists). Similarly, when Stirner wrote
_The Ego and Its Own_ Marxism did not exist bar a few works
by Marx and Engels. Indeed, it could be argued that Marxism
finally took shape after Marx had read Stirner's classic and
produced his notoriously inaccurate diatribe _The German
Ideology_ against him. However, like Proudhon, Stirner 
attacked *other* state socialists and communists.

Before discussing Bakunin's opposition and critique of Marxism
in the next section, we should consider the thoughts of
Stirner and Proudhon on state socialism. These critiques contain
may important ideas and so are worth summarising. However, 
it is worth noting that when both Stirner and Proudhon were 
writing communist ideas were all authoritarian in nature.
Libertarian communism only developed after Bakunin's death in
1876. This means that when Proudhon and Stirner were critiquing
"communism" they were attacking a specific form of communism,
the form which subordinated the individual to the community.
Anarchist communists like Kropotkin and Malatesta also opposed
such kinds of "communism" (as Kropotkin put it, "before and in 
1848" communism "was put forward in such a shape as to fully
account for Proudhon's distrust as to its effect upon liberty.
The old idea of Communism was the idea of monastic communities
. . . The last vestiges of liberty and of individual energy
would be destroyed, if humanity ever had to go through
such a communism." [_Act for Yourselves_, p. 98]). Of course,
it may be likely that Stirner and Proudhon would have rejected
libertarian communism as well, but bear in mind that not all
forms of "communism" are identical.

For Stirner, the key issue was that communism (or socialism),
like liberalism, looked to the "human" rather than the unique.
"To be looked upon as a mere *part*, part of society," asserted
Striner, "the individual cannot bear -- because he is *more*;
his uniqueness puts from it this limited conception." [_The
Ego and Its Own_, p. 265] As such, his protest against
communism was similar to his protest against liberalism 
(indeed, he drew attention to their similarity by calling
socialism and communism "social liberalism").

Stirner was aware that capitalism was not the great defender
of freedom it was claimed to be by its supporters. "Restless
acquisition," he argued, "does not let us take breath, take
a claim *enjoyment*: we do not get the comfort of our
possessions." Communism, by the "organisation of labour,"
can "bear its fruit" so that "we come to an agreement about
*human* labours, that they may not, as under competition,
claim all our time and toil." However, communism "is silent"
over "for whom is time to be gained." He, in contrast, stresses 
that it is for the individual, "[t]o take comfort in himself as 
the unique." [Op. Cit., pp. 268-9] Thus state socialism does 
not recognise that the purpose of association is to free the 
individual and instead subjects the individual to a new 
tyranny:

"it is not another State (such as a 'people's State') that
men aim at, but their *union,* uniting, this ever-fluid
uniting of everything standing -- A State exists even
without my co-operation . . . the independent establishment
of the State founds my lack of independence; its condition
as a 'natural growth,' its organism, demands that my nature
do not grow freely, but be cut to fit it." [Op. Cit., p. 224]

Similarly, Stirner argued that "Communism, by the abolition 
of all personal property, only presses me back still more 
into dependence on another, to wit, on the generality or
collectivity . . . [which is] a condition hindering my free
movement, a sovereign power over me. Communism rightly revolts
against the pressure that I experience from individual proprietors;
but still more horrible is the might that it puts in the hands of
the collectivity." [_The Ego and Its Own_, p. 257]

History has definitely confirmed this. By nationalising property,
the various state socialist regimes turned the worker from a 
servant of the capitalist into a serf of the state. In contrast, 
communist-anarchists argue for free association and workers' 
self-management as the means of ensuring that socialised 
property does not turn into the denial of freedom rather 
than as a means of ensuring it. As such, Stirner's attack
on what Marx termed "vulgar communism" is still important
and finds echoes in communist-anarchist writings as well as
the best works of Marx and his more libertarian followers.

To show the difference between the "communism" Stirner attacked
and anarchist-communism, we can show that Kropotkin was not 
"silent" on why organising production is essential. Like 
Stirner, he thought that under libertarian communism the 
individual would "discharge his [or her] task in the field, 
the factory, and so on, which he owes to society as his 
contribution to the general production. And he will employ 
the second half of his day, his week, or his year, to 
satisfy his artistic or scientific needs, or his hobbies." 
[_Conquest of Bread_, p. 111] In other words, he considered 
the whole point of organising labour as the means of providing 
the individual the time and resources required to express 
their individuality. As such, anarcho-communism incorporates
Stirner's legitimate concerns and arguments.

Similar arguments to Stirner's can be found in Proudhon's 
works against the various schemes of state socialism that 
existing in France in the middle of the nineteenth century. 
He particularly attacked the ideas of Louis Blanc. Blanc, 
whose most famous book was _Organisation du Travail_ 
(_Organisation of Work_, published in 1840) argued that 
social ills could be solved by means of government initiated 
and financed reforms. More specifically, he argued that it was
"necessary to use the whole power of the state" to ensure the
creation and success of workers' associations (or "social 
workshops"). Since that "which the proletarians lack to free 
themselves are the tools of labour," the government "must 
furnish them" with these. "The state," in short, "should place
itself resolutely at the head of industry." Capitalists would
be encouraged to invest money in these workshops, for which
they would be guaranteed interest. Such state-initiated workshops
would soon force privately owned industry to change itself
into social workshops, so eliminating competition. [quoted by 
K. Steven Vincent, _Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise
of French Republican Socialism_, p. 139]

Proudhon objected to this scheme on many levels. Firstly, he
argued that Blanc's scheme appealed "to the state for its silent
partnership; that is, he gets down on his knees before the
capitalists and recognises the sovereignty of monopoly."
Given that Proudhon saw the state as an instrument of the
capitalist class, asking that state to abolish capitalism
was illogical and impossible. Moreover, by getting the funds
for the "social workshop" from capitalists, Blanc's scheme
was hardly undermining their power. "Capital and power,"
Proudhon argued, "secondary organs of society, are always
the gods whom socialism adores; if capital and power did
not exist, it would invent them." [quoted by Vincent,
Op. Cit., p. 157] He stressed the authoritarian nature of
Blanc's scheme:

"M. Blanc is never tired of appealing to authority, and 
socialism loudly declares itself anarchistic; M. Blanc 
places power above society, and socialism tends to 
subordinate it to society; M. Blanc makes social life 
descend from above, and socialism maintains that it 
springs up and grows from below; M. Blanc runs after 
politics, and socialism is in quest of science. No more 
hypocrisy, let me say to M. Blanc: you desire neither 
Catholicism nor monarchy nor nobility, but you must 
have a God, a religion, a dictatorship, a censorship, a 
hierarchy, distinctions, and ranks. For my part, I deny 
your God, your authority, your sovereignty, your judicial 
State, and all your representative mystifications."
[_System of Economical Contradictions_]

Equally, Proudhon opposed the "top-down" nature of Blanc's
ideas. Instead of reform from above, Proudhon stressed the 
need for working class people to organise themselves for their
own liberation. As he put it, the "problem before the labouring 
classes . . . [is] not in capturing, but in subduing both 
power and monopoly, -- that is, in generating from the bowels 
of the people, from the depths of labour, a greater authority, 
a more potent fact, which shall envelop capital and the state 
and subjugate them." For, "to combat and reduce power, to 
put it in its proper place in society, it is of no use to 
change the holders of power or introduce some variation into 
its workings: an agricultural and industrial combination must 
be found by means of which power, today the ruler of society, 
shall become its slave." [_System of Economical Contradictions_, 
p. 398 and p. 397] Proudhon stressed in 1848 that "the 
proletariat must emancipate itself without the help of 
the government." [quoted by George Woodcock, _Pierre-Joseph 
Proudhon: A Biography_, p. 125] This was because the state 
"finds itself inevitably enchained to capital and directed 
against the proletariat." [Proudhon, _System of Economical 
Contradictions_, p. 399] In addition, by guaranteeing interest 
payments, Blanc's scheme insured the continued exploitation of 
labour by capital. 

Proudhon, in contrast, argued for a two-way approach to 
undermining capitalism from below: the creation of workers 
associations and the organisation of credit. By creating mutual 
banks, which provided credit at cost, workers could create 
associations to compete with capitalist firms, drive them
out of business and so eliminate exploitation once and for 
all by workers' self-management. In this way, the working class
would emancipate itself from capitalism and build a socialist
society from below upwards by their own efforts and activities.
Proudhon, as Marxist Paul Thomas notes, "believed fervently
. . . in the salvation of working men, by their own efforts,
through economic and social action alone . . . Proudhon
advocated, and to a considerable extent inspired, the
undercutting of this terrain [of the state] from without
by means of autonomous working-class associations." [_Karl
Marx and the Anarchists_, pp. 177-8]

Rejecting violent revolution (and, indeed, strikes as counter
productive) he argued for economic means to end economic
exploitation and, as such, he saw anarchism come about by
reform via competition by workers' associations displacing
capitalist industry (unlike later anarchists, who were 
revolutionaries that argued that capitalism cannot be 
reformed away and so supported strikes and other forms of
collective working class direct action, struggle and 
combative organisation). Given that the bulk of the French 
working class was artisans and peasants, such an approach 
reflected the social context in which it was proposed. 

It was this social context, this predominance of peasants
and artisans in French society which informed Proudhon's
ideas. He never failed to stress that association would be 
tyranny if imposed upon peasants and artisans (rather, he
thought that associations would be freely embraced by these
workers if they thought it was in their interests to). He also 
stressed that state ownership of the means of production 
was a danger to the liberty of the industrial worker and,
moreover, the continuation of capitalism with the state as
the new boss. As he put it in 1848, he "did not want to see
the State confiscate the mines, canals and railways; that
would add to monarchy, and more wage slavery. We want the
mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically
organised workers' associations . . . these associations
[will] be models for agriculture, industry and trade,
the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies
and societies woven into the common cloth of the
democratic social Republic." [_No Gods, No Masters_,
vol. 1, p. 62] Workers' associations would be applied for 
those industries which objectively needed it (i.e. 
capitalist industry) and for those other toilers who 
desired it. 

Marx, of course, had replied to Proudhon's work _System of 
Economic Contradictions_ with his _Poverty of Philosophy_. 
Marx's work aroused little interest when published, although 
Proudhon did carefully read and annotate his copy of Marx's 
work, claiming it to be "a libel" and a "tissue of abuse, 
calumny, falsification and plagiarism" (he even called Marx
"the tapeworm of Socialism.") [quoted by George Woodcock, 
_Proudhon_, p. 102] Sadly, Proudhon did not reply to Marx's 
work due to an acute family crisis and then the start of 
the 1848 revolution in France. However, given his views of 
Louis Blanc and other socialists who saw socialism being 
introduced after the seizing of state power, he would hardly 
have been supportive of Marx's ideas. 

So while none of Proudhon's and Stirner's arguments are 
directly aimed at Marxism, their ideas are applicable
to much of mainstream Marxism as this inherited many of
the ideas of the state socialism they attacked. Thus they 
both made forceful critiques of the socialist and communist 
ideas that existed during their lives. Much of their analysis 
was incorporated in the collectivist and communist ideas of 
the anarchists that followed them (some directly, as from 
Proudhon, some by co-incidence as Stirner's work was quickly 
forgotten and only had an impact on the anarchist movement 
when George Henry MacKay rediscovered it in the 1890s). This
can be seen from the fact that Proudhon's ideas on the management 
of production by workers' associations, opposition to 
nationalisation as state-capitalism and the need for action 
from below, by working people themselves, all found their place 
in communist-anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism and in their
critique of mainstream Marxism (such as social democracy) and 
Leninism.

Echoes of these critiques can be found Bakunin's comments of
1868:

"I hate Communism because it is the negation of liberty
and because for me humanity is unthinkable without 
liberty. I am not a Communist, because Communism 
concentrates and swallows up in itself for the benefit
of the State all the forces of society, because it
inevitably leads to the concentration of property in
the hands of the State . . . I want to see society
and collective or social property organised from below
upwards, by way of free associations, not from above
downwards, by means of any kind of authority whatsoever
. . . That is the sense in which I am a Collectivist
and not a Communist." [quoted by K.J. Kenafick,
_Michael Bakunin and Karl Marx_, pp. 67-8]

It is with Bakunin that Marxism and Anarchism came into direct
conflict. It was Bakunin who lead the struggle against Marx 
in the _International Workingmen's Association_ between 1868 
and 1872. It was in these exchanges that the two schools of
socialism (the libertarian and the authoritarian) clarified
themselves. With Bakunin, the anarchist critique of Marxism 
(and state socialism in general) starts to reach its finalised
form. Needless to say, this critique continued to develop
after Bakunin's death (particularly after the experiences
of actual Marxist movements and revolutions). However, much
of this involved expanding upon many of Bakunin's original
predictions and analyses.

We will discuss Bakunin's critique in the next section.

H.1.1 What was Bakunin's critique of Marxism?

Bakunin and Marx famously clashed in the first _International
Working Men's Association_ between 1868 and 1872. This 
conflict helped clarify the anarchist opposition to the ideas
of Marxism and can be considered as the first major theoretical
analysis and critique of Marxism by anarchists. Later critiques
followed, of course, particularly after the degeneration of
Social Democracy into reformism and the failure of the Russian 
Revolution (both of which allowed the theoretical critiques to 
be enriched by empirical evidence) but the Bakunin/Marx conflict 
laid the ground for what came after. As such, an overview of
Bakunin's critique is essential.

First, however, we must stress that Marx and Bakunin had many
similar ideas. They both stressed the need for working people
to organise themselves to overthrow capitalism. They both argued
for a socialist revolution from below. They argued for collective
ownership of the means of production. They both constantly stressed
that the emancipation of the workers must be the task of the
workers themselves. They differed, of course, in exactly how
these common points should be implemented in practice. Both,
moreover, had a tendency to misrepresent the opinions of the
other on certain issues (particularly as the struggle reached
its climax). Anarchists, unsurprisingly, argue Bakunin has been 
proved right by history, so confirming the key aspects of his 
critique of Marx.

So what was Bakunin's critique of Marxism? There are five main
areas. Firstly, there is the question of current activity (i.e. 
whether the workers' movement should participate in "politics"
and the nature of revolutionary working class organisation).
Secondly, there is the issue of the form of the revolution (i.e.
whether it should be a political *then* an economic one, or
whether it should be both at the same time). Thirdly, there 
is the issue of the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Fourthly, 
there is the question of whether political power *can* be seized 
by the working class as a whole or whether it can only be 
exercised by a small minority. Fifthly, there was the issue 
of whether the revolution be centralised or decentralised in 
nature. We shall discuss each in turn.

On the issue of current struggle, the differences between Marx
and Bakunin were clear. For Marx, the proletariat had to take
part in bourgeois elections as an organised political party.
As the resolution of the (gerrymandered) Hague Congress of
First International put it, "[i]n its struggle against the
collective power of the possessing classes the proletariat
can act as a class only by constituting itself a distinct
political party, opposed to all the old parties formed by
the possessing classes . . . the conquest of political
power becomes the great duty of the proletariat." [Marx,
Engels, Lenin, _Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 85]

This political party must stand for elections and win 
votes. As Marx argued in the preamble of the French Workers' 
Party, the workers must turn the franchise "from a means of 
deception . . . into an instrument of emancipation." This 
can be considered as part of the process outlined in the 
_Communist Manifesto_, where it was argued that the 
"immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of 
all the other proletarian parties," namely the "conquest 
of political power by the proletariat," the "first step
in the revolution by the working class" being "to raise
the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win
the battle of democracy." Engels latter stressed (in 1895) 
that the "_Communist Manifesto_ had already proclaimed the 
winning of universal suffrage, of democracy, as one of the 
first and most important tasks of the militant proletariat" 
and that German Social Democracy had showed workers of all 
countries "how to make use of universal suffrage." [_Marx 
and Engels Reader_, p. 566, p. 484, p. 490 and p. 565]

With this analysis in mind, Marxist influenced political
parties have consistently argued for and taken part in
election campaigns, seeking office as a means of spreading
socialist ideas and as a means of pursuing the socialist
revolution. The Social Democratic parties which were the
first Marxist parties (and which developed under Marx
and Engels watchful eyes) saw revolution in terms of 
winning a majority within Parliamentary elections and 
using this political power to abolish capitalism (once
this was done, the state would "wither away" as classes
would no longer exist). In effect, these parties aimed to 
reproduce Marx's account of the forming of the Paris 
Commune on the level of the national Parliament. Marx 
in his justly famous work _The Civil War in France_ 
reported how the Commune "was formed of the municipal 
councillors" who had been "chosen by universal suffrage 
in the various wards of the town" in the municipal 
elections held on March 26th, 1871. This new Commune 
then issued a series of decrees which reformed the 
existing state (for example, by suppressing the 
standing army and replacing it with the armed people,
and so on). This Marx summarised by stating that "the
working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made
state machinery, and wield it for its own purposed."
[Marx and Engels, _Selected Works_, p. 287 and p. 285]

As Engels put it in a latter letter, it was "simply a 
question of showing that the victorious proletariat 
must first refashion the old bureaucratic, 
administratively centralised state power before 
it can use it for its own purposes." [quoted by 
David P. Perrin, _The Socialist Party of Great Britain_, 
p. 64] He repeated this elsewhere, arguing that "after the
victory of the Proletariat, the only organisation
the victorious working class finds *ready-made* for
use is that of the State. It may require adaptation to
the new functions. But to destroy that at such a moment
would mean to destroy the only organism by means of which
the victorious working class can exert its newly conquered
power, keep down its capitalist enemies and carry out . . .
economic revolution." [our emphasis, Marx, Engels and 
Lenin, _Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 173]

Bakunin, in contrast, argued that while the communists
"imagine they can attain their goal by the development
and organisation of the political power of the working
classes . . . aided by bourgeois radicalism" anarchists
"believe they can succeed only through the development
and organisation of the non-political or anti-political
power of the working classes." The Communists "believe 
it necessary to organise the workers' forces in order 
to seize the political power of the State," while
anarchists "organise for the purpose of destroying 
it." Bakunin saw this in terms of creating new organs
of working class power in opposition to the state,
organised "from the bottom up, by the free association
or federation of workers, starting with the associations,
then going on to the communes, the region, the nations,
and, finally, culminating in a great international
and universal federation." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_,
pp. 262-3 and p. 270] In other words, a system of
workers' councils. As such, he constantly argued for 
workers, peasants and artisans to organise into unions 
and join the _International Workingmen's Association_, 
so becoming "a real force . . . which knows what to do 
and is therefore capable of guiding the revolution in 
the direction marked out by the aspirations of the 
people: a serious international organisation of workers' 
associations of all lands capable of replacing this 
departing world of *states.*" [Op. Cit., p. 174] 

To Marx's argument that workers should organise politically,
and send their representations to Parliament, Bakunin argued 
that when "the workers . . . send common workers . . . to 
Legislative Assemblies . . . The worker-deputies, transplanted 
into a bourgeois environment, into an atmosphere of purely 
bourgeois ideas, will in fact cease to be workers and, 
becoming Statesmen, they will become bourgeois . . . For men 
do not make their situations; on the contrary, men are made 
by them." [_The Basic Bakunin_, p. 108]

As far as history goes, the experience of Social Democracy
confirmed Bakunin's analysis. A few years after Engels death
in 1895, German Social Democracy was racked by the "revisionism"
debate. This debate did not spring from the minds of a few
leaders, isolated from the movement, but rather expressed 
developments *within* the movement itself. In effect, the
revisionists wanted to adjust the party rhetoric to what the 
party was actually doing and so the battle against the revisionists
basically represented a battle between what the party said it
was doing and its actual practice. As one of the most distinguished 
historians of this period put it, the "distinction between the 
contenders remained largely a subjective one, a difference of 
ideas in the evaluation of reality rather than a difference in 
the realm of action." [C. Schorske, _German Social Democracy_, 
p. 38] Even Rosa Luxemburg (one of the fiercest critics of 
revisionism) acknowledged in _Reform or Revolution_ that it 
was "the final goal of socialism [that] constitutes the only 
decisive factor distinguishing the social democratic movement 
from bourgeois democracy and bourgeois radicalism." [_Rosa 
Luxemburg Speaks_, p. 36] As such, the Marxist critics of 
"revisionism" failed to place the growth in revisionist ideas
in the tactics being used, instead seeing it in terms of a 
problem in ideas. By the start of the First World War, the 
Social Democrats had become so corrupted by its activities in
bourgeois institutions it supported its state (and ruling class)
and voted for war credits rather than denounce the war as 
Imperialist slaughter for profits (see also section J.2.6 for 
more discussion on the effect of electioneering on radical
parties). Clearly, Bakunin was proved right.

However, we must stress that because Bakunin rejected 
participating in bourgeois politics, it did not mean 
that he rejected "politics" or "political struggle" in 
general (also see section J.2.10). As he put it, "it is 
absolutely impossible to ignore political and philosophical 
questions" and "the proletariat itself will pose them" in 
the International. He argued that political struggle will 
come from the class struggle, as "[w]ho can deny that out 
of this ever-growing organisation of the militant 
solidarity of the proletariat against bourgeois 
exploitation there will issue forth the political 
struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie?" 
Anarchists simply thought that the "policy of the 
proletariat" should be "the destruction of the State" 
rather than working within it. [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, 
p. 301, p. 302 and p. 276] As such, the people "must 
organise their powers apart from and against the State." 
[_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 376] 

As should be obvious by now, the difference between Marx
and Bakunin on the nature of working class organisation
in the struggle reflected these differences on political
struggle. Bakunin clearly advocated what would later
by termed a syndicalist strategy based on direct action 
(in particular strikes) and workers' unions which would 
"bear in themselves the living seeds of the new society 
which is to replace the old world. They are creating not 
only the ideas, but also the facts of the future itself." 
[_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 255] This union movement would 
be complemented by a specific anarchist organisation which 
would work within it to influence it towards anarchist aims 
by the "natural influence" of its members (see section 
J.3.7 for a fuller discussion of this). Marx argued for 
political parties, utilising elections, which, as the 
history of Social Democracy indicates, did not have quite 
the outcome Marx would have liked. Section J.2 discusses
direct action, electioneering and whether anarchist
abstentionism implies disinterest in politics in more
detail.

Which brings us to the second issue, namely the nature
of the revolution itself. For Bakunin, a revolution meant 
a *social* revolution from below. This involved both the 
abolition of the state *and* the expropriation of capital. 
In his words, "the revolution must set out from the first
[to] radically and totally to destroy the State." The 
"natural and necessary consequences" of which will be
the "confiscation of all productive capital and means
of production on behalf of workers' associations, who
are to put them to collective use . . . the federative
Alliance of all working men's associations . . . will
constitute the Commune." There "can no longer be any
successful political . . . revolution unless the 
political revolution is transformed into social
revolution." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_,
p. 170 and p. 171] 

Which, incidentally, disproves Engels' claims that Bakunin 
considered "the *state* as the main evil to be abolished." 
[_Marx and Engels Reader_, p. 728] Clearly, Engels assertions 
misrepresent Bakunin's position, as Bakunin always stressed 
that economic and political transformation should occur at 
the same time during the revolutionary process. Given that 
Bakunin thought the state was the protector of capitalism, 
no economic change could be achieved until such time as it 
was abolished. This also meant that Bakunin considered a 
political revolution before an economic one to mean the 
continued slavery of the workers. As he argued, "[t]o win
political freedom first can signify no other thing but to
win this freedom only, leaving for the first days at least
economic and social relations in the same old state, --
that is, leaving the proprietors and capitalists with
their insolent wealth, and the workers with their poverty."
[_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 294] With
capitalists' economic power intact, could the workers' 
*political* power remain strong? As such, "every political
revolution taking place prior to and consequently without
a social revolution must necessarily be a bourgeois 
revolution, and a bourgeois revolution can only be 
instrumental in bringing about bourgeois Socialism 
-- that is, it is bound to end in a new, more hypocritical
and more skilful, but no less oppressive, exploitation
of the proletariat by the bourgeois." [Op. Cit., p. 289]

Did Marx and Engels hold this position? Apparently so. Discussing 
the Paris Commune, Marx noted that it was "the political form
at last discovered under which to work out the economic
emancipation of labour," and as the "political rule of the
producer cannot coexist with the perpetuation of his social
slavery" the Commune was to "serve as a lever for uprooting the
economic foundations upon which rests the existence of classes." 
[Marx and Engels, _Selected Writings_, p. 290] Engels argued 
that the "proletariat seizes the public power, and by means 
of this transforms the . . . means of production . . . into
public property." [_The Marx-Engels Reader_, p. 717] In the 
_Communist Manifesto_ they argued that "the first step in 
the revolution by the working class" is the "rais[ing] the 
proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the 
battle of democracy." The proletariat "will use its political 
supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeois, 
to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of 
the State, i.e. of the proletariat organised as the ruling 
class." [_Manifesto of the Communist Party_, p. 52]

Similarly, when Marx discussed what the "dictatorship of the 
proletariat" meant, he argued (in reply to Bakunin's question 
of "over whom will the proletariat rule") that it simply meant 
"that so long  as other classes continue to exist, the 
capitalist class in particular, the proletariat fights it 
(for with the coming of the proletariat to power, its 
enemies will not yet have disappeared), it must use 
measures of *force*, hence governmental measures; if it
itself still remains a class and the economic conditions on
which the class struggle and the existence of classes have not
yet disappeared, they must be forcibly removed or transformed,
and the process of their transformation must be forcibly
accelerated." [_The Marx-Engels Reader_, pp. 542-3] Note, 
"capitalists," not "former capitalists," so implying that 
the members of the proletariat are, in fact, still 
proletariats after the "socialist" revolution and so still
subject to wage slavery by capitalists. 
 
Clearly, then, Marx and Engels considered the seizing of 
state power as the key event and, later, the expropriation 
of the expropriators would occur. Thus the economic power of 
the capitalists would remain, with the proletariat utilising 
political power to combat and reduce it. Anarchists argue that
if the proletariat did not hold economic power, its political 
power would at best be insecure and would in fact degenerate. 
Would the capitalists just sit and wait while their economic 
power was gradually eliminated by political action? And what 
of the proletariat during this period? Will they patiently
obey their bosses, continue to be oppressed and exploited 
by them until such time as the end of their "social slavery"
has been worked out (and by whom)? As the experience of the 
Russian Revolution showed, Marx and Engels position proved to
be untenable. 

As we discuss in more detail in section H.6, the Russian
workers initially followed Bakunin's path. After the 
February revolution, they organised factory committees 
and raised the idea and practice of workers self-management 
of production. The Russian anarchists supported this movement 
whole-heartedly, arguing that it should be pushed as far as
it would go. In contrast, Lenin argued for "workers' control 
over the capitalists." [_Will the Bolsheviks Maintain Power?_, 
p. 52] This was, unsurprisingly, the policy applied immediately 
after the Bolshevik seizure of power. However, as one Leninist 
writer admits, "[t]wo overwhelmingly powerful forces obliged 
the Bolsheviks to abandon this 'reformist' course." One was 
the start of the civil war, the other "was the fact that the 
capitalists used their remaining power to make the system 
unworkable. At the end of 1917 the All Russian Congress of 
employers declared that those 'factories in which the control 
is exercised by means of active interference in the administration 
will be closed.' The workers' natural response to the wave of 
lockouts which followed was to demand that their [sic!] state 
nationalise the factories." [John Rees, "In Defence of 
October", pp. 3-82, _International Socialism_, no. 52,
p. 42] By July 1918, only one-fifth of nationalised firms 
had been nationalised by the central government (which,
incidentally, shows the unresponsiveness of centralised
power). Clearly, the idea that a social revolution can come
after a political was shown to be a failure -- the capitalist
class used its powers to disrupt the economic life of Russia.

Faced with the predictable opposition by capitalists to their
system of "control" the Bolsheviks nationalised the means of
production. Sadly, *within* the nationalised workplace the 
situation of the worker remained essentially unchanged. 
Lenin had been arguing for one-man management (appointed
from above and armed with "dictatorial" powers) since late 
April 1918. This aimed at replacing the capitalist managers
with state managers, *not* workers self-management:

"On three occasions in the first months of Soviet power, 
the [factory] committees leaders sought to bring their 
model [of workers' self-management of the economy] into 
being. At each point the party leadership overruled them. 
The Bolshevik alternative was to vest both managerial *and* 
control powers in organs of the state which were subordinate 
to the central authorities, and formed by them." [Thomas F. 
Remington, _Building Socialism in Bolshevik Russia_, p. 38] 

Bakunin's fear of what would happen if a political revolution 
preceded a social one came true. The working class continued 
to be exploited and oppressed as before, first by the 
bourgeoisie and then by the new bourgeoisie of state appointed 
managers armed with all the powers of the old ones (plus a few 
more). Russia confirmed Bakunin's analysis that a revolution 
must immediately combine political and economic goals in order 
for it to be successful. 

Which brings us to the "dictatorship of the proletariat." While 
many Marxists basically use this term to describe the defence 
of the revolution and so argue that anarchists do not see the
need to defend a revolution, this is incorrect. Anarchists 
from Bakunin onwards have argued that a revolution would have 
to defend itself from counter revolution and yet we reject the 
term totally (see sections H.2.1, I.5.14 and J.7.6 for a 
refutation of claims that anarchists think a revolution does 
not need defending). So why did Bakunin reject the concept? To 
understand why, we must provide some historical context -- 
namely the fact that at the time he was writing the 
proletariat was a minority of the working masses. 

Simply put, anarchists in the nineteenth century rejected
the idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" simply
because the proletariat was a *minority* of working
people at the time. As such, to argue for a dictatorship 
of the proletariat meant to argue for the dictatorship 
of a *minority* class, a class which excluded the majority 
of toiling people. When Marx and Engels wrote the _Communist 
Manifesto_, for example, over 80% of the population of France 
and Germany were peasants or artisans -- what Marx termed 
the "petit-bourgeois" and his followers termed the 
"petty-bourgeois." This fact meant that the comment in 
the _Communist Manifesto_ that the "proletarian movement
is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense
majority, in the interests of the immense majority" was
simply not true. Rather, for Marx's life-time (and for
many decades afterwards) the proletarian movement was
like "[a]ll previous movements," namely "movements of
minorities, or in the interests of minorities." [_The
Marx-Engels Reader_, p. 482]

Not that Marx and Engels were unaware of this. In the
Manifesto they note that "[i]n countries like France" 
the peasants "constitute far more than half of the
population." In his famous 1875 work "Critique of the 
Gotha Program," Marx noted that "the majority of the 
'toiling people' in Germany consists of peasants, and 
not of proletarians." He stressed elsewhere around the 
same time that "the peasant . . . forms a more of less 
considerable majority . . . in the countries of the West 
European continent." [Op. Cit., p. 493, p. 536 and p. 543] 

Clearly, then, Marx and Engels vision of proletarian
revolution was one which involved a minority dictating
to the majority. As such, Bakunin rejected the concept.
He was simply pointing out the fact that a "dictatorship 
of the proletariat," at the time, actually meant a 
dictatorship by a *minority* of working people and 
so a "revolution" which excluded the majority of 
working people (i.e. artisans and peasants). As he
argued in 1873:

"If the proletariat is to be the ruling class . . .
then whom will it rule? There must be yet another
proletariat which will be subject to this new rule,
this new state. It may be the peasant rabble . . .
which, finding itself on a lower cultural level,
will probably be governed by the urban and factory
proletariat." [_Statism and Anarchy_, pp. 177-8]

Bakunin continually stressed that the peasants "will
join cause with the city workers as soon as they
become convinced that the latter do not pretend to
impose their will or some political or social order
invented by the cities for the greater happiness of
the villages; they will join cause as soon as they
are assured that the industrial workers will not
take their lands away." As such, as noted above,
while the Marxists aimed for the "development and 
organisation of the political power of the working 
classes, and chiefly of the city proletariat," 
anarchists aimed for "the social (and therefore 
anti-political) organisation and power of the 
working masses of the cities and villages." 
[_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 401 
and p. 300]

For Bakunin, to advocate the "dictatorship of the
proletariat" in an environment where the vast majority
of working people were peasants would be a disaster.
It is only when we understand this social context that 
we can understand Bakunin's opposition to Marx's 
"dictatorship of the proletariat" -- it would be a 
dictatorship of a minority class over the rest of
the working population (he took it as a truism
that the capitalist and landlord classes should 
be expropriated and stopped from destroying the
revolution!). For Bakunin, when the industrial
working class was a minority, it was essential to 
"[o]rganise the city proletariat in the name of 
revolutionary Socialism, and in doing this, unite it 
into one preparatory organisation together with the 
peasantry. An uprising by the proletariat alone would 
not be enough; with that we would have only a political
revolution which would necessarily produce a natural 
and legitimate reaction on the part of the peasants, 
and that reaction, or merely the indifference of the 
peasants, would strangle the revolution of the cities." 
[Op. Cit., p. 378] 

This explains why the anarchists at the St. Imier
Congress argued that "every political state can
be nothing but organised domination for the benefit
of one class, to the detriment of the masses, and
that should the proletariat itself seize power, it
would in turn become a new dominating and exploiting
class." As the proletariat was a minority class at 
the time, their concerns can be understood. For
anarchists then, and now, a social revolution has
to be truly popular and involve the majority of
the population in order to succeed. Unsurprisingly,
the congress stressed the role of the proletariat
in the struggle for socialism, arguing that "the
proletariat of all lands . . . must create the
solidarity of revolutionary action . . . independently
of and in opposition to all forms of bourgeois
politics." Moreover, the aim of the workers'
movement was "free organisations and federations
. . . created by the spontaneous action of the
proletariat itself, [that is, by] the trade
bodies and the autonomous communes." [as cited in 
_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 438, p. 439 and p. 438]

Hence Bakunin's comment that "the designation of
the proletariat, the world of the workers, as 
*class* rather than as *mass*" was "deeply 
antipathetic to us revolutionary anarchists who
unconditionally advocate full popular emancipation."
To do so, he argued, meant "[n]othing more or less than
a new aristocracy, that of the urban and industrial
workers, to the exclusion of the millions who make
up the rural proletariat and who . . . will in effect
become subjects of this great so-called popular
State." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, 
pp. 253-4]

Again, the experiences of the Russian Revolution tend
to confirm Bakunin's worries. The Bolsheviks implemented
the dictatorship of the city over the countryside, with
disastrous results (see section H.6 for more details).

One last point on this subject. While anarchists reject 
the "dictatorship of the proletariat" we clearly do not 
reject the key role the proletariat must play in any social 
revolution (see section H.2.2 on why the Marxist assertion 
anarchists reject class struggle is false). We only reject 
the idea that the proletariat must dictate over other 
working people like peasants and artisans. We do not reject
the need for working class people to defend a revolution,
nor the need for them to expropriate the capitalist class
nor for them to manage their own activities and so society.

Then there is the issue of whether, even if the proletariat 
*does* seize political power, whether the whole proletariat 
can actually exercise it. Bakunin raising the obvious
questions: 

"For, even from the standpoint of that urban proletariat
who are supposed to reap the sole reward of the seizure
of political power, surely it is obvious that this power
will never be anything but a sham? It is bound to be
impossible for a few thousand, let alone tens or hundreds
of thousands of men to wield that power effectively. It
will have to be exercised by proxy, which means entrusting
it to a group of men elected to represent and govern them,
which in turn will unfailingly return them to all the
deceit and subservience of representative or bourgeois
rule. After a brief flash of liberty or orgiastic 
revolution, the citizens of the new State will wake up
slaves, puppets and victims of a new group of ambitious
men." [Op. Cit., pp. 254-5]

He repeated this argument in _Statism and Anarchy_, where
he asked "[w]hat does it mean, 'the proletariat raised to
a governing class?' Will the entire proletariat head the
government? The Germans number about 40 million. Will all
40 millions be members of the government? The entire nation
will rule, but no one will be ruled. Then there will be
no government, no state; but if there is a state, there
will also be those who are ruled, there will be slaves."
Bakunin argued that Marxism resolves this dilemma "in a
simple fashion. By popular government they mean government
of the people by a small number of representatives elected
by the people. So-called popular representatives and rulers
of the state elected by the entire nation on the basis
of universal suffrage -- the last word of the Marxists,
as well as the democratic school -- is a lie behind which
lies the despotism of a ruling minority is concealed, a
lie all the more dangerous in that it represents itself
as the expression of a sham popular will." [_Statism and
Anarchy_, p. 178]

So where does Marx stand on this question. Clearly, the 
self-proclaimed followers of Marx support the idea of 
"socialist" governments (indeed, many, including Lenin and 
Trotsky, went so far as to argue that party dictatorship 
was essential for the success of a revolution -- see next 
section). Marx, however, is less clear. He argued, in 
reply to Bakunin's question if all Germans would be 
members of the government, that "[c]ertainly, because the 
thing starts with the self-government of the township." 
However, he also commented that "[c]an it really be 
that in a trade union, for example, the entire union forms 
its executive committee," suggesting that there *will* be 
a division of labour between those who govern and those who 
obey in the Marxist system of socialism. [_The Marx-Engels 
Reader_, p. 545 and p. 544] Elsewhere he talks about "a 
socialist government . . . com[ing] into power in a country." 
["Letter to F. Domela-Nieuwenhuis," Eugene Schulkind (ed.),
_The Paris Commune of 1871: The View from the Left_, p. 244]

As such, Bakunin's critique holds, as Marx and Engels clearly 
saw the "dictatorship of the proletariat" involving a socialist
government having power. For Bakunin, like all anarchists, 
if a political party is the government, then clearly they 
are in power, not the mass of working people they claim 
to represent. Anarchists have, from the beginning, argued 
that Marx made a grave mistake confusing workers' power 
with the state. This is because the state is the means 
by which the management of people's affairs is taken 
from them and placed into the hands of a few. It 
signifies delegated *power.* As such, the so-called 
"workers' state" or "dictatorship of the proletariat" 
is a contradiction in terms. Instead of signifying the 
power of the working class to manage society it, in 
fact, signifies the opposite, namely the handing over 
of that power to a few party leaders at the top of a 
centralised structure. This is because "all State rule,
all governments being by their very nature placed outside
the people, must necessarily seek to subject it to customs
and purposes entirely foreign to it. We therefore declare
ourselves to be foes . . . of all State organisations as
such, and believe that the people can be happy and free,
when, organised from below upwards by means of its own
autonomous and completely free associations, without the
supervision of any guardians, it will create its own life."
[_Marxism, Freedom and the State_, p. 63] Hence Bakunin's 
constant arguments for decentralised, federal system of 
workers councils organised from the bottom-up. Again,
the transformation of the Bolshevik government into a
dictatorship *over* the proletariat during the early
stages of the Russian Revolution supports Bakunin's
critique of Marxism.

Which brings us to the last issue, namely whether the revolution
will be decentralised or centralised. For Marx, the issue is
somewhat confused by his support for the Paris Commune and its
federalist programme (written, we must note, by a follower of 
Proudhon). However, in 1850, Marx stood for extreme 
centralisation of power. As he put it, the workers "must not
only strive for a single and indivisible German republic, but
also within this republic for the most determined centralisation
of power in the hands of the state authority." He argued that
in a nation like Germany "where there is so many relics of the
Middle Ages to be abolished" it "must under no circumstances
be permitted that every village, every town and every province
should put a new obstacle in the path of revolutionary activity,
which can proceed with full force from the centre." He stressed
that "[a]s in France in 1793 so today in Germany it is the
task of the really revolutionary party to carry through the
strictest centralisation." [_The Marx-Engels Reader_, 
p. 509-10] Lenin followed this aspect of Marx's ideas,
arguing that "Marx was a centralist" and applying this
perspective both in the party and once in power [_The 
Essential Works of Lenin_, p. 310]

Ironically, it is Engels note to the 1885 edition of Marx's work
which shows the fallacy of this position. As he put it, "this
passage is based on a misunderstanding" and it "is now . . . 
[a] well known fact that throughout the whole revolution . . . 
the whole administration of the departments, arrondissements
and communes consisted of authorities elected by the respective
constituents themselves, and that these authorities acted with
complete freedom . . . that precisely this provincial and
local self-government . . . became the most powerful lever
of the revolution." [_The Marx-Engels Reader_, p. 510f] Marx's 
original comments imply the imposition of freedom by the centre 
on a population not desiring it (and in such a case, how could
the centre be representative of the majority in such a case?).
Moreover, how could a revolution be truly social if it was
not occurring in the grassroots across a country? Unsurprisingly,
local autonomy has played a key role in every real revolution.

As such, Bakunin has been proved right. Centralism has always
killed a revolution and, as he always argued, real socialism 
can only be worked from below, by the people of every village, 
town, and city. The problems facing the world or a revolution 
cannot be solved by a few people at the top issuing decrees. 
They can only be solved by the active participation of the 
mass of working class people, the kind of participation 
centralism and government by their nature exclude. As such,
this dove-tails into the question of whether the whole class
exercises power under the "dictatorship of the proletariat."
In a centralised system, obviously, power *has to be* exercised
by a few (as Marx's argument in 1850 showed). Centralism, by 
its very nature excludes the possibility of extensive 
participation in the decision making process. Moreover, 
the decisions reached by such a body could not reflect 
the real needs of society. In the words of Bakunin:

"What man, what group of individuals, no matter how great their
genius, would dare to think themselves able to embrace and 
understand the plethora of interests, attitudes and activities
so various in every country, every province, locality and
profession." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 240]

He stressed that "the revolution should be and should everywhere
remain independent of the central point, which must be its
expression and product -- not its source, guide and cause . . .
the awakening of all local passions and the awakening of
spontaneous life at all points, must be well developed in 
order for the revolution to remain alive, real and powerful." 
[Op. Cit., pp. 179-80] This, we must stress, does not imply 
isolation. Bakunin always stressed the importance of federal 
organisation to co-ordinate struggle and defence of the revolution. 
As he put it, all revolutionary communes would need to federate 
in order "to organise the necessary common services and
arrangements for production and exchange, to establish the
charter of equality, the basis of all liberty -- a charter
utterly negative in character, defining what has to be
abolished for ever rather than the positive forms of
local life which can be created only by the living 
practice of each locality -- and to organise common
defence against the enemies of the Revolution." [Op. Cit.,
p. 179]

In short, anarchists should "not accept, even in the 
process of revolutionary transition, either constituent 
assemblies, provisional governments or so-called revolutionary 
dictatorships; because we are convinced that revolution 
is only sincere, honest and real in the hands of the masses, 
and that when it is concentrated in those of a few ruling 
individuals it inevitably and immediately becomes reaction." 
Rather, the revolution "everywhere must be created by the
people, and supreme control must always belong to the people
organised into a free federation of agricultural and 
industrial associations . . . organised from the bottom 
upwards by means of revolutionary delegation". [Op. Cit., 
p. 237 and p. 172]

Given Marx's support for the federal ideas of the Paris Commune, 
it can be argued that Marxism is not committed to a policy of 
strict centralisation (although Lenin, of course, argued that
Marx *was* a firm supporter of centralisation). What is true 
is, to quote Daniel Guerin, that Marx's comments on the Commune 
differ "noticeably from Marx's writings of before and after
1871" while Bakunin's were "in fact quite consistent with
the lines he adopted in his earlier writings." [_No Gods,
No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 167] Indeed, as Bakunin himself
noted, while the Marxists "saw all their ideas upset by
the uprising" of the Commune, they "found themselves 
compelled to take their hats off to it." [_Michael Bakunin:
Selected Writings_, p. 261] This modification of ideas by 
Marx was not limited just to federalism. Marx also praised 
the commune's system of mandating recallable delegates, a 
position which Bakunin had been arguing for a number of 
years previously.  In 1868, for example, he was talked about 
a "Revolutionary Communal Council" composed of "delegates . . . 
vested with plenary but accountable and removable mandates." 
[Op. Cit., pp. 170-1] As such, the Paris Commune was a 
striking confirmation of Bakunin's ideas on many levels, 
*not* Marx's (who adjusted his ideas to bring them in line 
with Bakunin's!).

In summary, Bakunin argued that decentralisation of power was
essential for a real revolution that achieves more than changing
who the boss it. A free society could only be created and run
from below, by the active participation of the bulk of the
population. Centralisation would kill this participation and
so kill the revolution. Marx and Engels, on the other hand, 
while sometimes supporting federalism and local self-government,
had a centralist streak in their politics which Bakunin thought
undermined the success of any revolution.

Since Bakunin, anarchists have deepen this critique of Marxism
and, with the experience of Bolshevism, argue that he predicted
key failures in Marx's ideas. Given that his followers, particularly
Lenin and Trotsky, have emphasised (although, in many ways, changed 
them) the centralisation and "socialist government" aspects of 
Marx's thoughts, anarchists argue that Bakunin's critique is 
as relevant as ever. Real socialism can only come from below.
 
H.1.2 What are the key differences between Anarchists and Marxists?

There are, of course, important similarities between anarchism and
Marxism. Both are socialists, oppose capitalism and the current
state, support and encourage working class organisation and action
and see class struggle as the means of creating a social revolution
which will transform society into a new one. However, the differences
between these socialist theories are equally important. In the
words of Errico Malatesta:

"The important, fundamental dissension [between anarchists and 
Marxists] is [that] . . . [Marxist] socialists are authoritarians, 
anarchists are libertarians.

"Socialists want power . . . and once in power wish to impose 
their programme on the people. . . Anarchists instead maintain, 
that government cannot be other than harmful, and by its very 
nature it defends either an existing privileged class or creates 
a new one; and instead of inspiring to take the place of the
existing government anarchists seek to destroy every organism
which empowers some to impose their own ideas and interests on
others, for they want to free the way for development towards
better forms of human fellowship which will emerge from
experience, by everyone being free and, having, of course,
the economic means to make freedom possible as well as a
reality." [_Life and Ideas_, p. 142]

The other differences derive from this fundamental one. 
So while there are numerous ways in which anarchists and 
Marxists differ, their root lies in the question of power. 
Socialists seek power (in the name of the working class 
and usually hidden under rhetoric arguing that party and 
class power are the same). Anarchists seek to destroy 
hierarchical power in all its forms and ensure that 
everyone is free to manage their own affairs (both 
individually and collectively). From this comes the 
differences on the nature of a revolution, the way the 
working class movement such organise and the tactics it 
should apply and so on. A short list of these differences 
would include the question of the "dictatorship of the 
proletariat", the standing of revolutionaries in elections, 
centralisation versus federalism, the role and organisation 
of revolutionaries, whether socialism can only come "from 
below" or whether it is possible for it come "from below" 
and "from above" and a host of others (i.e. some of the 
differences we indicated in the last section during our 
discussion of Bakunin's critique of Marxism). Indeed, there
are so many it is difficult to address them all here. As
such, we can only concentrate on a few in this and the 
following sections.

One of the key issues is on the issue of confusing party power
with popular power. The logic of the anarchist case is simple. 
In any system of hierarchical and centralised power (for example, 
in a state or governmental structure) then those at the top are 
in charge (i.e. are in positions of power). It is *not* "the 
people," nor "the proletariat," nor "the masses," it is those 
who make up the government who have and exercise real power. As 
Malatesta argued, government means "the delegation of power, 
that is the abdication of initiative and sovereignty of all 
into the hands of a few" and "if . . . , as do the 
authoritarians, one means government action when one talks 
of social action, then this is still the resultant of 
individual forces, but only of those individuals who form 
the government." [_Anarchy_, p. 40 and p. 36] Therefore, 
anarchists argue, the replacement of party power for working 
class power is inevitable because of the nature of the state. 
In the words of Murray Bookchin:

"Anarchist critics of Marx pointed out with considerable effect 
that any system of representation would become a statist interest 
in its own right, one that at best would work against the interests 
of the working classes (including the peasantry), and that at worst 
would be a dictatorial power as vicious as the worst bourgeois state 
machines. Indeed, with political power reinforced by economic power 
in the form of a nationalised economy, a 'workers' republic' might 
well prove to be a despotism (to use one of Bakunin's more favourite 
terms) of unparalleled oppression."

He continues:

"Republican institutions, however much they are intended to express 
the interests of the workers, necessarily place policy-making in the 
hands of deputies and categorically do not constitute a 'proletariat 
organised as a ruling class.' If public policy, as distinguished from 
administrative activities, is not made by the people mobilised into 
assemblies and confederally co-ordinated by agents on a local, regional, 
and national basis, then a democracy in the precise sense of the term 
does not exist. The powers that people enjoy under such circumstances 
can be usurped without difficulty. . . [I]f the people are to acquire 
real power over their lives and society, they must establish -- and in 
the past they have, for brief periods of time established -- well-ordered 
institutions in which they themselves directly formulate the policies of 
their communities and, in the case of their regions, elect confederal 
functionaries, revocable and strictly controllable, who will execute 
them.  Only in this sense can a class, especially one committed to 
the abolition of classes, be mobilised as a class to manage society."
[_The Communist Manifesto: Insights and Problems_]

This is why anarchists stress direct democracy (self-management)
in free federations of free associations. It is the only way to
ensure that power remains in the hands of the people and is not
turned into an alien power above them. Thus Marxist support for
statist forms of organisation will inevitably undermine the
liberatory nature of the revolution. 

Thus the *real* meaning of a workers state is simply
that the *party* has the real power, not the workers. After
all, that is nature of a state. Marxist rhetoric tends to
hide this reality. As an example, we can point to Lenin's
comments in October, 1921. In an essay marking the fourth
anniversary of the 1917 October Revolution, Lenin stated
that the Soviet system "provides the maximum of democracy 
for the workers and peasants; at the same time, it marks a 
break with *bourgeois* democracy and the rise of a new, 
epoch-making type of democracy, namely, proletarian 
democracy, or the dictatorship of the proletariat."
["Fourth Anniversary of the October Revolution," 
_Collected Works_, vol. 33, p. 55] Yet this was written
years after Lenin had argued that "[w]hen we are reproached
with having established a dictatorship of one party . . .
we say, 'Yes, it is a dictatorship of one party! This is
what we stand for and we shall not shift from that position
. . .'" [Op. Cit., vol. 29, p. 535] And, of course, they
did not shift from that position! Indeed, Lenin's comments
came just a few months after all opposition parties and 
factions within the Communist Party had been banned and 
after the Kronstadt rebellion and a wave of strikes calling 
for free soviet elections had been repressed. Clearly, the 
term "proletarian democracy" had a drastically different 
meaning to Lenin than to most people!

Indeed, the identification of party power and working class
power reaches its height (or, more correctly, depth) in the
works of Lenin and Trotsky. Lenin, for example, argued that
"the correct understanding of a Communist of his tasks" lies
in "correctly gauging the conditions and the moment when the
vanguard of the proletariat can successfully seize power,
when it will be able during and after this seizure of power
to obtain support from sufficiently broad strata of the
working class and of the non-proletarian toiling masses,
and when, thereafter, it will be able to maintain, 
consolidate, and extend its rule, educating, training and
attracting ever broader masses of the toilers." Note, the
vanguard (the party) seizes power, *not* the masses. Indeed, 
he stressed that the "very presentation of the question --
'dictatorship of the Party *or* dictatorship of the class,
dictatorship (Party) of the leaders *or* dictatorship 
(Party) of the masses?' is evidence of the most incredible
and hopeless confusion of mind" and "[t]o go so far . . . 
as to draw a contrast in general between the dictatorship 
of the masses and the dictatorship of the leaders, is 
ridiculously absurd and stupid." [_Left-Wing Communism: 
An Infantile Disorder_, p. 35, p. 27 and p. 25]

Lenin stressed this idea numerous times. For example, in
1920 he argued that "the dictatorship of the proletariat 
cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the 
whole of the class, because in all capitalist countries 
(and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the 
proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so 
corrupted in parts . . . that an organisation taking in 
the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian 
dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard
. . . Such is the basic mechanism of the dictatorship
of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the essentials
of transitions from capitalism to communism . . . for 
the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised 
by a mass proletarian organisation." [_Collected Works_, 
vol. 32, p. 21]

Trotsky agreed with this lesson and argued it to the end
of his life:

"The revolutionary dictatorship of a proletarian party is for 
me not a thing that one can freely accept or reject: It is an 
objective necessity imposed upon us by the social realities -- 
the class struggle, the heterogeneity of the revolutionary 
class, the necessity for a selected vanguard in order to 
assure the victory. The dictatorship of a party belongs to the 
barbarian prehistory as does the state itself, but we can not 
jump over this chapter, which can open (not at one stroke) 
genuine human history. . . The revolutionary party 
(vanguard) which renounces its own dictatorship surrenders 
the masses to the counter-revolution . . . Abstractly 
speaking, it would be very well if the party dictatorship 
could be replaced by the 'dictatorship' of the whole toiling 
people without any party, but this presupposes such a high 
level of political development among the masses that it can 
never be achieved under capitalist conditions. The reason 
for the revolution comes from the circumstance that 
capitalism does not permit the material and the moral 
development of the masses." [_Writings 1936-37_, pp. 513-4]

This point is reiterated in his essay, "Stalinism and 
Bolshevism" (again, written in 1937) when he argued that:

"Those who propose the abstraction of Soviets to the 
party dictatorship should understand that only thanks to 
the party dictatorship were the Soviets able to lift 
themselves out of the mud of reformism and attain the
state form of the proletariat." [_Stalinism and 
Bolshevism_]

How soviet democracy can exist within the context of
a party dictatorship is left to the imagination of the
reader! Rather than the working class as a whole seizing 
power, it is the "vanguard" which takes power -- "a 
revolutionary party, even after seizing power . . . is 
still by no means the sovereign ruler of society." 
[Op. Cit.] Needless to say, he was just repeating
the same arguments he had made while in power during the
Russian Revolution (see section H.6 for details). Nor
was he the only one. Zinoviev, another leading Bolshevik, 
argued in 1920 along the same lines:

"soviet rule in Russia could not have been maintained for 
three years -- not even three weeks -- without the iron 
dictatorship of the Communist Party. Any class conscious 
worker must understand that the dictatorship of the 
working class can by achieved only by the dictatorship 
of its vanguard, i.e., by the Communist Party . . . All 
questions of economic reconstruction, military organisation, 
education, food supply -- all these questions, on which 
the fate if the proletarian revolution depends absolutely, 
are decided in Russia before all other matters and mostly 
in the framework of the party organisations . . . Control 
by the party over soviet organs, over the trade unions, 
is the single durable guarantee that any measures taken 
will serve not special interests, but the interests of 
the entire proletariat." [quoted by Oskar Anweiler, 
_The Soviets_, pp. 239-40]

How these positions, clearly argued as inevitable for *any*
revolution, can be reconciled with workers' democracy,
power or freedom is not explained. As such, the idea that
Leninism (usually considered as mainstream Marxism) is 
inherently democratic or a supporter of power to the people
is clearly flawed. The leading lights of Bolshevism argued
that the dictatorship of the proletariat could only be
achieved by the dictatorship of the party. Indeed, the
whole rationale for party dictatorship came from the 
fundamental rationale for democracy, namely that any
government should reflect the changing opinions of the 
masses. In the words of Trotsky:

"The very same masses are at different times inspired 
by different moods and objectives. It is just for this 
reason that a centralised organisation of the vanguard 
is indispensable. Only a party, wielding the authority 
it has won, is capable of overcoming the vacillation 
of the masses themselves." [_The Moralists and Sycophants_,
p. 59]

This position has its roots in the uneven political 
development within the working class (i.e. that the
working class contains numerous political perspectives
within it). As the party (according to Leninist theory)
contains the most advanced ideas (and, again according
to Leninist theory, the working class cannot reach 
beyond a trade union consciousness by its own efforts), 
the party must take power to ensure that the masses do not 
make "mistakes" or "waver" ("vacillation") during a 
revolution. From such a perspective to the position
of party dictatorship is not far (and a journey that
all the leading Bolsheviks, including Lenin and Trotsky, 
we must note, did in fact take).

In contrast, anarchists argue that precisely because of 
political differences we need the fullest possible democracy 
and freedom to discuss issues and reach agreements. Only 
by discussion and self-activity can the political 
perspectives of those in struggle develop and change. In 
other words, the fact Bolshevism uses to justify its 
support for party power is the strongest argument against 
it. For anarchists, the idea of a revolutionary government 
is a contradiction. As Italian anarchist Malatesta put it, 
"if you consider these worthy electors as unable to look 
after their own interests themselves, how is it that they 
will know how to choose for themselves the shepherds who 
must guide them? And how will they be able to solve this 
problem of social alchemy, of producing a genius from the 
votes of a mass of fools?" [_Anarchy_, p. 53]

As such, anarchists think that power should be in the 
hands of the masses themselves. Only freedom or the 
struggle for freedom can be the school of freedom. That 
means that, to quote Bakunin, "since it is the people 
which must make the revolution everywhere . . . the ultimate 
direction of it must at all times be vested in the people 
organised into a free federation of agricultural and 
industrial organisations . . . organised from the bottom up 
through revolutionary delegation." [_No God, No Masters_,
vol. 1, pp. 155-6]

Clearly, then, the question of state/party power is one dividing
anarchists and most Marxists. These arguments by leading 
Bolsheviks confirm Bakunin's fear that the Marxists aimed
for "a tyranny of the minority over a majority in the name
of the people -- in the name of the stupidity of the many
and the superior wisdom of the few." [_Marxism, Freedom
and the State_, p. 63] Again, though, we must stress that
libertarian Marxists like the council communists agree with
anarchists on this subject and reject the whole idea that
dictatorship of a party equals the dictatorship of the
working class. As such, the Marxist tradition as a whole
does not confuse this issue, although the majority of it
does. We must stress that not all Marxists are Leninists. 
A few (council communists, situationists, autonomists, and 
so on) are far closer to anarchism. They also reject the idea 
of party power/dictatorship, the use of elections, for direct 
action, argue for the abolition of wage slavery by workers'
self-management of production and so on. They represent 
the best in Marx's work and should not be lumped with the 
followers of Bolshevism. Sadly, they are in the minority.

Finally, we should indicate other important areas of difference. 
Some are summarised by Lenin in his work _The State and 
Revolution_:

"The difference between the Marxists and the anarchists is 
this: 1) the former, while aiming at the complete abolition
of the state, recognise that this aim can only be achieved
after classes have been abolished by the socialist revolution,
as the result of the establishment of socialism which leads
to the withering away of the state. The latter want to abolish
the state completely overnight, failing to understand the
conditions under which the state can be abolished 2) the 
former recognise that after the proletariat has conquered 
political power it must utterly destroy the old state machine 
and substitute it for it a new one consisting of the 
organisation of armed workers, after the type of the 
Commune. The latter, while advocating the destruction of 
the state machine, have absolutely no idea of *what* the 
proletariat will put in its place and *how* it will use 
its revolutionary power; the anarchists even deny that 
the revolutionary proletariat should utilise its state 
power, its revolutionary dictatorship; 3) the former demand 
that the proletariat be prepared for revolution by utilising 
the present state; the latter reject this." [_Essential 
Works of Lenin_, p. 358]

We will discuss each of these points in the next three
sections. Point one will be discussed in section H.1.3,
the second in section H.1.4 and the third and final one in
section H.1.5. 

H.1.3 Why do anarchists wish to abolish the state "overnight"?

As indicated at the end of the last section, Lenin argued that
while Marxists aimed "at the complete abolition of the state"
they "recognise that this aim can only be achieved after 
classes have been abolished by the socialist revolution"
while anarchists "want to abolish the state completely 
overnight." This issue is usually summarised by Marxists
arguing that a new state is required to replace the destroyed 
bourgeois one. This new state is called by Marxists "the 
dictatorship of the proletariat" or a workers' state. Anarchists 
reject this transitional state while Marxists embrace it. Indeed, 
according to Lenin "a Marxist is one who *extends* the acceptance 
of the class struggle to the acceptance of the *dictatorship
of the proletariat*." [_Essential Works of Lenin_, p. 358
and p. 294]

So what does the "dictatorship of the proletariat" actually 
mean? Generally, Marxists seem to imply that this term 
simply means the defence of the revolution and so the
anarchist rejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat 
means the rejection of the defence of a revolution. Anarchists, 
they argue, differ from Marxist-communists in that we reject 
the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat, where the 
formerly oppressed use coercion to ensure that remnants of 
the oppressing classes do not resurrect the old society. This
particular straw man was used by Lenin in _State and Revolution_
when he quoted Marx to suggest that anarchists would "lay down
their arms" after a successful revolution. Such a "laying down
of arms" would mean the "abolition of the state" while defending
the revolution by violence would mean "giv[ing] the state a
revolutionary and transitory form." [Op. Cit., p. 315]

That such an argument can be made, never mind repeated, suggests
a lack of honesty. It assumes that the Marxist and Anarchist
definitions of "the state" are identical. They are not. As such,
it is pretty meaningless to argue, as Lenin did, that when 
anarchists talk about abolishing the state they mean that they
will not defend a revolution. As Malatesta put it, some "seem 
almost to believe that after having brought down government 
and private property we would allow both to be quietly built 
up again, because of respect for the *freedom* of those who 
might feel the need to be rulers and property owners. A 
truly curious way of interpreting our ideas." [_Anarchy_, 
p. 41]

For anarchists the state, government, means "the delegation
of power, that is the abdication of initiative and sovereignty
of all into the hands of a few." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 40] 
For Marxists, the state is "an organ of class *rule*, an organ 
for the *oppression* of one class by another." [Lenin, Op. Cit., 
p. 274] That these definitions are in conflict is clear and
unless this difference is made explicit, anarchist opposition
to the "dictatorship of the proletariat" cannot be clearly
understood.

Anarchists, of course, agree that the current state is the
means by which the bourgeois class enforces its rule over
society. In Bakunin's words, "the political state has no
other mission but to protect the exploitation of the people
by the economically privileged classes." [_The Political
Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 221] Under capitalism, as Malatesta
succulently put, the state is "the bourgeoisie's servant and
*gendarme*." [Op. Cit., p. 20] The reason why the state is
marked by centralised power is due to its role as the protector
of (minority) class rule. As such, a state cannot be anything but 
a defender of minority power as its centralised and hierarchical
structure is designed for that purpose. If the working class
really was running society, as Marxists claim they would be in
the "dictatorship of the proletariat," then it would not be
a state. As Bakunin argued, "[w]here all rule, there are no 
more ruled, and there is no State." [Op. Cit., p. 223]

As such, the idea that anarchists, by rejecting the "dictatorship
of the proletariat," also reject defending a revolution is false.
We do not equate the "dictatorship of the proletariat" with the 
need to defend a revolution or expropriating the capitalist 
class, ending capitalism and building socialism. Anarchists 
from Bakunin onwards have taken both of these necessities 
for granted (also see sections H.2.1, I.5.14 and J.7.6). As 
he stressed, "the sole means of opposing the reactionary forces 
of the state" was the "organising of the revolutionary force of 
the people." This revolution involve "the free construction of 
popular life in accordance with popular needs . . . from below 
upward, by the people themselves . . . [in] a voluntary
alliance of agricultural and factory worker associations, 
communes, provinces, and nations." [_Statism and Anarchy_, 
p. 156 and p. 33]

As we discuss this particular Marxist straw man in section H.2.1,
we will leave our comments at this. Clearly, then, anarchists do
not reject defending a revolution. We argue that the state must
be abolished "overnight" as any state is marked by hierarchical
power and can only empower the few at the expense of the many.
The state will not "wither away" as Marxists claim simply because
it excludes, by its very nature, the active participation of the
bulk of the population and ensures a new class division in society:
those in power (the party) and those subject to it (the working
class). 

Georges Fontenis sums up anarchist concerns on this issue:

"The formula 'dictatorship of the proletariat' has been used 
to mean many different things. If for no other reason it 
should be condemned as a cause of confusion. With Marx it 
can just as easily mean the centralised dictatorship of 
the party which claims to represent the proletariat as it 
can the federalist conception of the Commune.

"Can it mean the exercise of political power by the victorious 
working class? No, because the exercise of political power in 
the recognised sense of the term can only take place through 
the agency of an exclusive group practising a monopoly of 
power, separating itself from the class and oppressing it. 
And this is how the attempt to use a State apparatus can 
reduce the dictatorship of the proletariat to the dictatorship 
of the party over the masses.

"But if by dictatorship of the proletariat is understood 
collective and direct exercise of 'political power', this 
would mean the disappearance of 'political power' since its 
distinctive characteristics are supremacy, exclusivity and 
monopoly. It is no longer a question of exercising or seizing 
political power, it is about doing away with it all together!

"If by dictatorship is meant the domination of the majority 
by a minority, then it is not a question of giving power to 
the proletariat but to a party, a distinct political group. 
If by dictatorship is meant the domination of a minority by 
the majority (domination by the victorious proletariat of 
the remnants of a bourgeoisie that has been defeated as a 
class) then the setting up of dictatorship means nothing 
but the need for the majority to efficiently arrange for 
its defence its own social organisation.

[...]

"The terms 'domination', 'dictatorship' and 'state' are as 
little appropriate as the expression 'taking power' for the 
revolutionary act of the seizure of the factories by the workers.

We reject then as inaccurate and causes of confusion the 
expressions 'dictatorship of the proletariat', 'taking political 
power', 'workers state', 'socialist state' and 'proletarian state'."
[_Manifesto of Libertarian Communism_, pp. 22-3]

In summary, anarchists argue that the state has to be abolished
"overnight" simply because a state is marked by hierarchical
power and the exclusion of the bulk of the population from
the decision making process. It cannot be used to implement
socialism simply because it is not designed that way. To extend
and defend a revolution a state is not required. Indeed, it is
a hindrance:

"The mistake of authoritarian communists in this connection is the 
belief that fighting and organising are impossible without 
submission to a government; and thus they regard anarchists . . . 
as the foes of all organisation and all co-ordinated struggle. We, 
on the other hand, maintain that not only are revolutionary 
struggle and revolutionary organisation possible outside and in 
spite of government interference but that, indeed, that is the 
only effective way to struggle and organise, for it has the active 
participation of all members of the collective unit, instead of 
their passively entrusting themselves to the authority of the 
supreme leaders.

"Any governing body is an impediment to the real organisation of 
the broad masses, the majority. Where a government exists, then 
the only really organised people are the minority who make up the 
government; and . . . if the masses do organise, they do so 
against it, outside it, or at the very least, independently of it. 
In ossifying into a government, the revolution as such would fall 
apart, on account of its awarding that government the monopoly of 
organisation and of the means of struggle." [Luigi Fabbri, "Anarchy 
and 'Scientific' Communism", in _The Poverty of Statism_, pp. 13-49, 
Albert Meltzer (ed.), p. 27]

For anarchists, the abolition of the state does not mean rejecting
the need to extend or defend a revolution (quite the reverse!). It
means rejecting a system of organisation designed by and for minorities
to ensure their rule. To create a state (even a "workers' state") 
means to delegate power away from the working class and eliminate
their power in favour of party power. In place of a state anarchists'
argue for a free federation of workers' organisations as the means
of conducting a revolution (and the framework for its defence). 

As we discuss in the next section, anarchists see this federation of
workers' associations and communes (the framework of a free society)
as being based on the organisations working class people create in 
their struggle against capitalism. These self-managed organisations,
by refusing to become part of a centralised state, will ensure the
success of a revolution.

H.1.4 Do anarchists have "absolutely no idea" of what the proletariat 
      will put in place of the state?

Lenin's second claim is that anarchists, "while advocating the 
destruction of the state machine, have absolutely no idea of 
*what* the proletariat will put in its place" and compares 
this to the Marxists who argue for a new state machine 
"consisting of armed workers, after the type of the Commune." 
[_Essential Works of Lenin_, p. 358] For anarchists, Lenin's 
assertion simply shows his unfamiliarity with anarchist 
literature and need not be taken seriously -- anyone 
familiar will anarchist theory would simply laugh at such 
comments. Sadly, most Marxists are *not* familiar with 
that theory, so we need to explain two things. Firstly, 
anarchists have very clear ideas on what to "replace" 
the state with (namely a federation of communes based 
on working class associations). Secondly, that this idea 
is based on the idea of armed workers, inspired by the 
Paris Commune (although predicted by Bakunin). 

Moreover, for anarchists Lenin's comment seems somewhat 
incredulous. As George Barrett puts it, in reply to the 
question "if you abolish government, what will you put it 
its place," this "seems to an Anarchist very much as if a 
patient asked the doctor, 'If you take away my illness, 
what will you give me in its place?' The Anarchist's 
argument is that government fulfils no useful purpose 
. . . It is the headquarters of the profit-makers, the 
rent-takers, and of all those who take from but who do 
not give to society. When this class is abolished by 
the people so organising themselves to run the factories 
and use the land for the benefit of their free communities, 
i.e. for their own benefit, then the Government must also 
be swept away, since its purpose will be gone. The only 
thing then that will be put in the place of government 
will be the free organisation of the workers. When 
Tyranny is abolished, Liberty remains, just as when 
disease is eradicated health remains." [_Objections
to Anarchism_]

However, Barrett's answer does contain the standard anarchist
position on what will be the basis of a revolutionary society,
namely that the "only thing then that will be put in the place 
of government will be the free organisation of the workers." This
is a concise summary of anarchist theory and cannot be bettered.
This vision, as we discussed in section I.2.3 in some detail, 
can be found in the work of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta and
a host of other anarchist thinkers. Since anarchists from Bakunin 
onwards have stressed that a federation of workers' associations 
would constitute the framework of a free society, to assert 
otherwise is little more than a joke or a slander. To quote
Bakunin:

"the federative alliance of all working men's associations . . . 
[will] constitute the Commune . . . [the] Communal Council [will 
be] composed of . . . delegates  . . . vested with plenary but
accountable and removable mandates. . . all provinces, communes 
and associations . . . by first reorganising on revolutionary lines 
. . . [will] constitute the federation of insurgent associations, 
communes and provinces . . . [and] organise a revolutionary force 
capable defeating reaction . . . [and for] self-defence . . . 
[The] revolution everywhere must be created by the people, and 
supreme control must always belong to the people organised into a 
free federation of agricultural and industrial associations . . . 
organised from the bottom upwards by means of revolutionary 
delegation. . ." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, pp. 170-2]

And:

"The future social organisation must be made solely from the 
bottom up, by the free association or federation of workers, 
firstly in their unions, then in the communes, regions, 
nations and finally in a great federation, international 
and universal." [Op. Cit., p. 206]

Similar ideas can easily be found in the works of other anarchists.
While the actual names and specific details of these federations
of workers' associations may change (for example, the factory
committees and soviets in the Russian Revolution, the collectives
in Spain, the section assemblies in the French Revolution are
a few of them) the basic ideas are the same. Bakunin also pointed
to the means of defence, a workers' militia (the people armed,
as per the Paris Commune):

"While it [the revolution] will be carried out locally everywhere,
the revolution will of necessity take a federalist format. 
Immediately after established government has been overthrown,
communes will have to reorganise themselves along revolutionary
lines . . . In order to defend the revolution, their volunteers 
will at the same time form a communal militia. But no commune can 
defend itself in isolation. So it will be necessary for each of 
them to radiate outwards, to raise all its neighbouring communes 
in revolt . . . and to federate with them for common defence." 
[_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 142]

A major difference between anarchism and Marxism which Lenin 
points to is, clearly, false. Anarchists are well aware of what
should "replace" the bourgeois state and have always been so.
The *real* difference is simply that anarchists say what they
mean while Lenin's "new" state did not, in fact, mean working
class power but rather party power. We discussed this issue in
more detail in section H.1.2, so we will not do so here.

As for Lenin's comment that we have "absolutely no ideas" of how 
the working class "will use its revolutionary power" suggests 
more ignorance, as we have urged working people to expropriate 
the expropriators, reorganise production under workers' 
self-management and start to construct society from the bottom 
upwards (a quick glance at Kropotkin's _Conquest of Bread_,
for example, would soon convince any reader of the inaccuracy 
of Lenin's comment). This summary by the anarchist Jura Federation 
(written in 1880) gives a flavour of anarchist ideas on this
subject:

"The bourgeoisie's power over the popular masses springs from
economic privileges, political domination and the enshrining
of such privileges in the laws. So we must strike at the 
wellsprings of bourgeois power, as well as its various
manifestations.

"The following measures strike us as essential to the welfare
of the revolution, every bit as much as armed struggle against
its enemies:

"The insurgents must confiscate social capital, landed estates,
mines, housing, religious and public buildings, instruments of
labour, raw materials, gems and precious stones and manufactured
products:

"All political, administrative and judicial authorities are
to be abolished.

". . . What should the organisational measures of the revolution
be?

"Immediate and spontaneous establishment of trade bodies:
provisional assumption by those of . . . social capital . . .:
local federation of a trades bodies and labour organisation:

"Establishment of neighbourhood groups and federations of same . . .

[. . .]

"[T]he federation of all the revolutionary forces of the insurgent
Communes . . . Federation of Communes and organisation of the
masses, with an eye to the revolution's enduring until such
time as all reactionary activity has been completely eradicated.

[. . .]

"Once trade bodies have been have been established, the next step
is to organise local life. The organ of this life is to be the
federation of trades bodies and it is this local federation which
is to constitute the future Commune." [_No Gods, No Masters_, 
vol. 1, pp. 246-7]

Clearly, anarchists do have some ideas on what the working 
class will "replace" the state with and how it will use its 
"revolutionary power"!

Similarly, Lenin's statement that "the anarchists even deny 
that the revolutionary proletariat should utilise its state 
power, its revolutionary dictatorship" again distorts the
anarchist position. As we argued in section H.1.2, our 
objection to the "state power" of the proletariat is
precisely *because* it cannot, by its very nature as a
state, actually allow the working class to manage society
directly (and, of course, it automatically excludes other
sections of the working masses, such as the peasantry and
artisans). We argued that, in practice, it would simply
mean the dictatorship of a few party leaders. This position, 
we must stress, was one Lenin himself was arguing in the 
year after completing _State and Revolution_. Ironically,
the leading Bolsheviks (as we have seen in section H.1.2) 
confirmed the anarchist argument that the "dictatorship 
of the proletariat" would, in fact, become a dictatorship 
*over* the proletariat by the party.

Italian anarchist Camillo Berneri sums up the differences well:

"The Marxists . . . foresee the natural disappearance of the State 
as a consequence of the destruction of classes by the means of 
'the dictatorship of the proletariat,' that is to say State 
Socialism, whereas the Anarchists desire the destruction of the 
classes by means of a social revolution which eliminates, with the 
classes, the State. The Marxists, moreover, do not propose the 
armed conquest of the Commune by the whole proletariat, but the 
propose the conquest of the State by the party which imagines that 
it represents the proletariat. The Anarchists allow the use of 
direct power by the proletariat, but they understand by the organ 
of this power to be formed by the entire corpus of systems of 
communist administration-corporate organisations [i.e. industrial 
unions], communal institutions, both regional and national-freely 
constituted outside and in opposition to all political monopoly by 
parties and endeavouring to a minimum administrational 
centralisation." ["Dictatorship of the Proletariat and State 
Socialism", _Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review_, no. 4, p. 52]

Clearly, Lenin's assertions are little more than straw men.

H.1.5 Why do anarchists reject "utilising the present state"?

Lastly, there is the question of Marxists demanding (in 
the words of Lenin) "that the proletariat be prepared for 
revolution by utilising the present state" while anarchists 
"reject this." Today, of course, this has changed. 
Libertarian Marxists, such as council communists, also 
reject "utilising the present state" to train the 
proletariat for revolution (i.e. for socialists to stand 
for elections). For anarchists, the use of elections does
not "prepare" the working class for revolution (i.e. managing
their own affairs and society). Rather, it prepares them to
follow leaders and let others act for them. In the words of
Rudolf Rocker:

"Participation in the politics of the bourgeois States has not 
brought the labour movement a hair's-breadth nearer to Socialism, 
but thanks to this method, Socialism has almost been completely 
crushed and condemned to insignificance. . . Participation in 
parliamentary politics has affected the Socialist Labour movement 
like an insidious poison. It destroyed the belief in the necessity 
of constructive Socialist activity, and, worse of all, the impulse 
to self-help, by inoculating people with the ruinous delusion 
that salvation always comes from above." [_Anarcho-Syndicalism_, 
p. 49] 

While electoral ("political") activity ensures that the masses
become accustomed to following leaders and letting them act
on their behalf, anarchists' support direct action as "the
best available means for preparing the masses to manage their
own personal and collective interests; and besides, anarchists
feel that even now the working people are fully capable of
handling their own political and administrative interests."
[Luigi Galleani, _The End of Anarchism?_, pp. 13-4]

Anarchists, therefore, argue that we need to reclaim the power 
which has been concentrated into the hands of the state. That 
is why we stress direct action. Direct action means action by 
the people themselves, that is action directly taken by those 
directly affected. Through direct action, the people dominate 
their own struggles, it is they who conduct it, organise it, 
manage it. They do not hand over to others their own acts and 
task of self-liberation. That way, we become accustomed to 
managing our own affairs, creating alternative, libertarian, 
forms of social organisation which can become a force to 
resist the state, win reforms and, ultimately, become the 
framework of a free society. In other words, direct action 
creates organs of self-activity (such as community assemblies, 
factory committees, workers' councils, and so on) which, to
use Bakunin's words, are "creating not only the ideas but 
also the facts of the future itself."

In other words, the idea that socialists standing for elections
somehow prepares working class people for revolution is simply 
wrong. Utilising the state, standing in elections, only prepares 
people for following leaders -- it does not encourage the 
self-activity, self-organisation, direct action and mass 
struggle required for a social revolution. Moreover, as we
noted in the section H.1.1, use of elections has a corrupting
effect on those who use it. The history of radicals using
elections has been a long one of betrayal and the transformation
of revolutionary parties into reformist ones (see section J.2.6
for more discussion). Thus using the existing state ensures
that the division at the heart of existing society (namely a
few who govern and the many who obey) is reproduced in the
movements trying to abolish it. It boils down to handing effective
leadership to special people, to "leaders," just when the
situation requires working people to solve their own problems
and take matters into their own hands. Only the struggle for
freedom (or freedom itself) can be the school for freedom,
and by placing power into the hands of leaders, utilising 
the existing state ensures that socialism is postponed rather
than prepared for.

Moreover, Marxist support for electioneering is somewhat at odds 
with their claims of being in favour of collective, mass action. 
There is nothing more isolated, atomised and individualistic than 
voting. It is the act of one person in a box by themselves. 
It is the total opposite of collective struggle. The individual 
is alone before, during and after the act of voting. Indeed, 
unlike direct action, which, by its very nature, throws up 
new forms of organisation in order to manage and co-ordinate 
the struggle, voting creates no alternative organs of working 
class self-management. Nor can it as it is not based on nor 
does it create collective action or organisation. It simply 
empowers an individual (the elected representative) to act on 
behalf of a collection of other individuals (the voters). Such 
delegation will hinder collective organisation and action as 
the voters expect their representative to act and fight for 
them -- if they did not, they would not vote for them in the 
first place!

Given that Marxists usually slander anarchists as "individualists" 
the irony is delicious!

If we look at the Poll-Tax campaign in the UK in the late 1980s
and early 1990s, we can see what would happen to a mass movement 
which utilised electioneering. The various left-wing parties, 
particularly Militant (now the Socialist Party) spent a lot of 
time and effort lobbying Labour Councillors not to implement 
the tax (with no success). Let us assume they had succeeded 
and the Labour Councillors had refused to implement the tax 
(or "socialist" candidates had been elected to stop it). What 
would have happened? Simply that there would not have been 
a mass movement or mass organisation based on non-payment, 
nor self-organised direct action to resist warrant sales, 
nor community activism of any form.  Rather, the campaign 
would have consisted to supporting the councillors in their 
actions, mass rallies in which the leaders would have 
informed us of their activities on our behalf and, perhaps, 
rallies and marches to protest any action the government had 
inflicted on them. The leaders may have called for some form 
of mass action but this action would not have come from below 
and so not a product of working class self-organisation, 
self-activity and self-reliance. Rather, it would have been 
purely re-active and a case of follow the leader, without 
the empowering and liberating aspects of taking action by 
yourself, as a conscious and organised group. It would have
replaced the struggle of millions with the actions of a
handful of leaders.

Of course, even discussing this possibility indicates how 
remote it is from reality. The Labour Councillors were not 
going to act -- they were far too "practical" for that. 
Years of working within the system, of using elections, 
had taken their toll decades ago. Anarchists, of course, 
saw the usefulness of picketing the council meetings, of 
protesting against the Councillors and showing them a 
small example of the power that existed to resist them 
if they implemented the tax. As such, the picket would 
have been an expression of direct action, as it was based 
on showing the power of our direct action and class 
organisations. Lobbying, however, was building illusions 
in "leaders" acting for us to and based on pleading rather 
than defiance. But, then again, Militant desired to replace 
the current leaders with themselves and so would not object 
to such tactics. 

Unfortunately, the Socialists never really questioned *why* 
they had to lobby the councillors in the first place -- 
if utilising the existing state *was* a valid radical 
or revolutionary tactic, why has it always resulted in 
a de-radicalising of those who use it? This would be 
the inevitable results of any movement which "complements" 
direct action with electioneering. The focus of the 
movement will change from the base to the top, from 
self-organisation and direct action from below to 
passively supporting the leaders. This may not happen 
instantly, but over time, just as the party degenerates
by working within the system, the mass movement will be 
turned into an electoral machine for the party -- even 
arguing against direct action in case it harms the 
election chances of the leaders. Just as the trade 
union leaders have done again and again.

All in all, the history of socialists actually using elections
has been a dismal failure. Rather than prepare the masses
for revolution, it has done the opposite. As we argue in
section J.2, this is to be expected. That Lenin could still
argue along these lines even after the betrayal of social
democracy indicates a lack of desire to learn the lessons
of history.

H.1.6 Why do anarchists try to "build the new world in the 
      shell of the old"?

Another key difference between anarchists and Marxists is on 
how the movement against capitalism should organise in the 
here and now. Anarchists argue that it should prefigure the 
society we desire -- namely it should be self-managed, 
decentralised, built and organised from the bottom-up in 
a federal structure. This perspective can be seen from the 
justly famous "Circular of the Sixteen":

"The future society should be nothing but a universalisation 
of the organisation which the International will establish for 
itself. We must therefore take care to bring this organisation 
as near as possible to our ideal . . . How could one expect an 
egalitarian and free society to grow out of an authoritarian 
organisation? That is impossible. The International, embryo of 
the future human society, must be, from now on, the faithful 
image of our principles of liberty and federation." [quoted by
Marx, _Fictitious Splits in the International_]

This simply echoes Bakunin's argument that the "organisation 
of the trade sections, their federation in the International, 
and their representation by the Chambers of Labour, not only 
create a great academy, in which the workers of the International, 
combining theory and practice, can and must study economic science, 
they also bear in themselves the living germs of *the new social 
order,* which is to replace the bourgeois world. They are creating 
not only the ideas but also the facts of the future itself." 
[quoted by Rocker, _Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 45] Anarchists apply
this insight to all organisations they take part in, stressing
that the only way we can create a self-managed society is by
self-managing our own struggles and organisations today. In this
way we turn our class organisations (indeed, the class struggle 
itself) into practical and effective "schools of anarchism" in 
which we learn to manage our own affairs without hierarchy and 
bosses.

Marxists reject this argument. Instead they stress the importance
of centralisation and consider the anarchist argument as utopian.
For effective struggle, strict centralisation is required as the
capitalist class and state is also centralised. In other words, to 
fight for socialism there is a need to organise in a way which the
capitalists have utilised -- to fight fire with fire. Unfortunately
they forget to extinguish a fire you have to use water. Adding more
flame will only increase the combustion, *not* put it out!

Of course, Marx misrepresented the anarchist position. He argued
that the Paris Communards "would not have failed if they had 
understood that the Commune was 'the embryo of the future human 
society' and had cast away all discipline and all arms -- that is, 
the things which must  disappear when there are no more wars!"
[Ibid.] Needless to say this is simply a slander on the anarchist
position. Anarchists, as the Circular makes clear, recognise that
we cannot totally reflect the future and so the current movement
can only be "as near as possible to our ideal." Thus we have to
do things, such as fighting the bosses, rising in insurrection,
smashing the state or defending a revolution, which we would not 
have to do in a socialist society. Such common sense, unfortunately,
is lacking in Marx who instead decides to utter nonsense for a
cheap polemical point. He never answered the basic point -- how do
people become able to manage society if they do not directly manage 
their own organisations and struggles? How can a self-managed
society come about unless people practice it in the here and
now? Can people create a socialist society if they do not implement
its basic ideas in their current struggles and organisations?

Ironically enough, given his own and his followers claims of 
his theory's proletarian core, it is Marx who was at odds with 
the early labour movement, *not* Bakunin and the anarchists. 
Historian Gwyn A. Williams notes in the early British labour 
movement there were "to be no leaders" and the organisations 
were "consciously modelled on the civil society they wished 
to create." [_Artisans and Sans-Culottes_, p. 72] Lenin, 
unsurprisingly, dismissed the fact that the British workers 
"thought it was an indispensable sign of democracy for all 
the members to do all the work of managing the unions" as 
"primitive democracy" and "absurd." He also complained about 
"how widespread is the 'primitive' conception of democracy 
among the masses of the students and workers" in Russia. 
[_Essential Works of Lenin_, pp. 162-3] Clearly, the anarchist
perspective reflects the ideas the workers' movement before it
degenerates into reformism and bureaucracy while Marxism reflects
it during this process of degeneration. Needless to say, the 
revolutionary nature of the early union movement compared to 
the reformism and bureaucratic control of the ones with 
"full-time professional officers" clearly shows who was correct!

Related to this is the fact that Marxists (particularly Leninists)
favour centralisation while anarchists favour decentralisation
within a federal organisation. As such, anarchists do not think
that decentralisation implies isolation or narrow localism. We 
have always stressed the importance of *federalism* to 
co-ordinate decisions. Power would be decentralised, but 
federalism ensures collective decisions and action. Under
centralised systems, anarchists argue, power is placed into
the hands of a few leaders. Rather than the real interests 
and needs of the people being co-ordinated, centralism simply
means the imposition of the will of a handful of leaders,
who claim to "represent" the masses. Co-ordination, in other
words, is replaced by coercion in the centralised system and
the needs and interests of all are replaced by those of a few
leaders at the centre. 

Similarly, anarchists and Marxists disagree on the nature of the
future economic and social system of socialism. While it is a
commonplace assumption that anarchists and Marxists seek the
same sort of society but disagree on the means, in actuality
there are substantial differences in their vision of a socialist
society. While both aim for a stateless communist society, the
actual structure of that society is different. Anarchists see it
as fundamentally decentralised and federal while Marxists tend
to envision it as fundamentally centralised. Moreover, Marxists 
such as Lenin saw "socialism" as being compatible with one-man 
management of production by state appointed "directors," armed 
with "dictatorial" powers (see section H.6.10 for further discussion). 
As such, anarchists argue that the Bolshevik vision of "socialism" 
is little more than state capitalism -- with the state replacing 
the boss as exploiter and oppressor of the working class. As we 
discuss this issue in sections H.3.13 and H.6, we will not do so 
here.

By failing to understand the importance of applying a vision of
a free society to the current class struggle, Marxists help ensure
that society never is created. By copying bourgeois methods within
their "revolutionary" organisations (parties and unions) they ensure
bourgeois ends (inequality and oppression).

H.1.7 Haven't you read Lenin's "State and Revolution"?

This question is often asked of people who critique Marxism,
particularly its Leninist form. Lenin's _State and Revolution_
is often considered his most democratic work and Leninists
are quick to point to it as proof that Lenin and those who
follow his ideas are not authoritarian. As such, its an
important question. So how do anarchists reply when people 
point them to Lenin's work as evidence of the democratic 
(even libertarian) nature of Marxism? Anarchists reply 
in two ways. 

Firstly, we argue many of the essential features of Lenin's 
ideas are to be found in anarchist theory. These features 
had been aspects of anarchism for decades *before* Lenin 
put pen to paper. Bakunin, for example, talked about 
mandated delegates from workplaces federating into 
workers' councils as the framework of a (libertarian)
socialist society in the 1860s. In the same period he also 
argued for popular militias to defend a revolution. Hence 
Murray Bookchin:

"much that passes for 'Marxism' in _State and Revolution_ 
is pure anarchism -- for example, the substitution of 
revolutionary militias for professional armed bodies and 
the substitution of organs of self-management for parliamentary 
bodies. What is authentically Marxist in Lenin's pamphlet is 
the demand for 'strict centralism,' the acceptance of a 'new' 
bureaucracy, and the identification of soviets with a state." 
[_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_, p. 213]

That this is the case is hidden in Lenin's work as he 
deliberately distorts anarchist ideas in it (see 
sections H.1.3 and H.1.4 for examples). Therefore, 
when Marxists ask whether anarchist have read Lenin's
_State and Revolution_ we reply by arguing that most
of Lenin's ideas were first expressed by anarchists
(while Lenin hide this fact). All in all, Lenin's work just 
strikes anarchists as little more than a re-hash of many 
their own ideas but placed in a statist context which 
totally and utterly undermines them in favour of party rule.

Secondly, anarchists argue that regardless of what Lenin
argued for in _State and Revolution_, he did not apply 
those ideas in practice (indeed, he did the exact opposite).
Therefore, the question of whether we have read Lenin's work
simply drives how the ideological nature and theoretical
bankruptcy of Leninism in all its many forms. This is because
the person asking this kind of question is asking you to 
evaluate their politics based on what they say rather than
on what they do, like any politician.

To use an analogy, what would you say to a politician who 
has cut welfare spending by 50% and increased spending on
the military and who argues that this act is irrelevant and
that you should look at their manifesto which states that 
they were going to do the opposite? Simply put, you would
consider this argument as laughable and them as liars as
you would evaluate them by their actions, not by what they 
say. Yet supporters of Leninism cannot do this (and, ironically 
enough, often quote Marx's words that it is impossible to 
judge either parties or peoples by what they say or think 
about themselves, you have to look at what they do). 
Leninists, by urging you to read Lenin's "State and 
Revolution" are asking you to evaluate them by what 
their manifesto says and ignore what they did. Anarchists, 
on the other hand, ask you to evaluate the Leninist manifesto 
by comparing it to what they actually did in power. Such an 
evaluation is the only means by which we can judge the 
validity of Leninist claims and politics.

As we discuss the Russian Revolution in more depth in
section H.6.4, we will not provide a summary of Lenin's 
claims in his famous work _State and Revolution_ and what
he did in practice here. However, we will say here that the 
difference between reality and rhetoric was extremely large 
and, therefore, it is a damning indictment of Bolshevism. 
Simply put, if the _State and Revolution_ is the manifesto 
of Bolshevism, then not a single promise in that work was 
kept by the Bolsheviks when they got into power. As such, 
Lenin's work cannot be used to evaluate Bolshevism ideology 
as Bolshevism paid no attention to it once it had taken state 
power. While Lenin and his followers chant rhapsodies about
the Soviet State (this 'highest and most perfect system of
democracy") they quickly turned its democratic ideas into a 
fairy-tale, and an ugly fairy-tale at that, by simply ignoring 
it in favour of party power (and party dictatorship). 

To state the obvious, to quote theory and not relate 
it to the practice of those who claim to follow it is 
a joke. It is little more than sophistry. If you look 
at the actions of the Bolsheviks after the October
Russian Revolution you cannot help draw the conclusion that 
Lenin's _State and Revolution_ has nothing to do with Bolshevik 
policy and presents a false image of what Leninists desire.
As such, we must present a comparison between rhetoric and
realty.

It will be objected in defence of Leninism that it is unfair
to hold Lenin responsible for the failure to apply his ideas
in practice. The terrible Civil War, in which Soviet Russia
was attacked by numerous armies, and the resulting economic
chaos meant that the objective circumstances made it impossible
to implement his democratic ideas. This argument contains
three flaws. Firstly, as we indicate in section H.8.3, the 
undemocratic policies of the Bolsheviks started *before* 
the start of the Civil War (so suggesting that the hardships 
of the Civil War were not to blame). Secondly, Lenin at no 
time indicated in _State and Revolution_ that it was 
impossible or inapplicable to apply those ideas during 
a revolution in Russia (quite the reverse!). Given that 
Marxists, including Lenin, argue that a "dictatorship of the 
proletariat" is required to defend the revolution against
capitalist resistance it seems incredulous to argue that Lenin's
major theoretical work on that regime was impossible to
apply in precisely the circumstances it was designed for.
Lastly, of course, Lenin himself in 1917 mocked those who 
argued that revolution was out of the question because 
"the circumstances are exceptionally complicated." He 
noting that any revolution, "in its development, would 
give rise to exceptionally complicated circumstances" 
and that it was "the sharpest, most furious, desperate 
class war and civil war. Not a single great revolution 
in history has escaped civil war. No one who does not 
live in a shell could imagine that civil war is conceivable 
without exceptionally complicated circumstances. If there 
were no exceptionally complicated circumstances there 
would be no revolution." [_Will the Bolsheviks Maintain 
Power?_, p. 80 and p. 81] As such, to blame difficult
objective circumstances for the failure of Bolshevism
to apply the ideas in _State and Revolution_ means to
argue that those ideas are inappropriate for a revolution
(which, we must stress, is what the leading Bolsheviks
actually *did* end up arguing by their support for party
dictatorship).

All in all, discussing Lenin's _State and Revolution_ without 
indicating that the Bolsheviks failed to implement its ideas
(indeed, did the exact opposite) suggests a lack of honesty.
It also suggests that the libertarian ideas Lenin appropriated
in that work could not survive being grafted onto the statist
ideas of mainstream Marxism. As such, _The State and Revolution_ 
laid out the foundations and sketched out the essential features 
of an alternative to Leninist ideas -- namely anarchism. Only the 
pro-Leninist tradition has used Lenin's work, almost to quiet 
their conscience, because Lenin, once in power, ignored it 
totally. The Russian Revolution shows that a workers state, 
as anarchists have long argued, means minority power, not
working class self-management of society. As such, Lenin's
work indicates the contradictory nature of Marxism -- while
claiming to support democratic/libertarian ideals they 
promote structures (such as centralised states) which undermine
those values in favour of party rule. The lesson is clear, only
libertarian means can ensure libertarian ends and they have
to be applied consistently within libertarian structures to
work. To apply them to statist ones will simply fail.

H.2 What parts of anarchism do Marxists particularly misrepresent?

Many people involved in politics will soon discover that Marxist
groups (particularly Leninist and Trotskyist ones) organise
"debates" about anarchism. These meetings are usually entitled
"Marxism and Anarchism" and are usually organised after anarchists
have been active in the area or have made the headlines somewhere.

These meetings, contrary to common sense, are usually not 
a debate as (almost always) no anarchists are invited to 
argue the anarchist viewpoint and, therefore, they present 
a one-sided account of "Marxism and Anarchism" in a 
manner which benefits the organisers. Usually, the format 
is a speaker distorting anarchist ideas and history for a 
long period of time (both absolutely in terms of the length 
of the meeting and relatively in terms of the boredom 
inflicted on the unfortunate attendees). It will soon 
become obvious to those attending that any such meeting is 
little more than an unprincipled attack on anarchism with 
little or no relationship to what anarchism is actually 
about. Those anarchists who attend such meetings usually 
spend most of their allotted (usually short) speaking time 
refuting the nonsense that is undoubtedly presented. Rather 
than a *real* discussion between the differences between
anarchism and "Marxism" (i.e. Leninism), the meeting simply
becomes one where anarchists correct the distortions and
misrepresentations of the speaker in order to create the
basis of a real debate. If the reader does not believe 
this summary we would encourage them to attend such a 
meeting and see for themselves.

Needless to say, we cannot hope to reproduce the many distortions
produced in such meetings. However, when anarchists do hit the
headlines (such as in the 1990 poll tax riot in London and the
in current anti-globalisation movement), various Marxist papers 
will produce articles on "Anarchism" as well. Like the meetings,
the articles are full of so many elementary errors that it 
takes a lot of effort to think they are the product of ignorance
rather than a conscious desire to lie (the appendix "Anarchism
and Marxism" contains a few replies to such articles and other
Marxist diatribes on anarchism). In addition, many of the 
founding fathers of Marxism (and Leninism) also decided to
attack anarchism in similar ways, so this activity does have
a long tradition in Marxist circles (particularly in Leninist
and Trotskyist ones). Sadly, Max Nettlau's comments on Marx
and Engels are applicable to many of their followers today.
He argued that they "acted with that shocking lack of honesty
which was characteristic of *all* their polemics. They worked
with inadequate documentation, which, according to their custom,
they supplemented with arbitrary declarations and conclusions
-- accepted as truth by their followers although they were 
exposed as deplorable misrepresentations, errors and unscrupulous
perversions of the truth." [_A Short History of Anarchism_, p. 132]
As the reader will discover, this summary has not lost its
relevance today. If they read Marxist "critiques" of anarchism
they will soon discover the same repetition of "accepted" truths,
the same inadequate documentation, the same arbitrary declarations
and conclusions as well as an apparent total lack of familiarity
with the source material they claim to be analysing.

This section of the FAQ lists and refutes many of the most
common distortions Marxists make with regards to anarchism. As 
will become clear, many of the most common Marxist attacks
on anarchism have little or no basis in fact but have simply
been repeated so often by Marxists that they have entered 
the ideology (the idea that anarchists think the capitalist
class will just disappear being, probably, the most famous
one, closely followed by anarchism being in favour of 
"small-scale" production). We will not bother to refute the 
more silly Marxist assertions (such as anarchists are against 
organisation or are not "socialists"). Instead, we will 
concentrate on the more substantial and most commonly 
repeated ones. Of course, many of these distortions and 
misrepresentations coincide and flow into each other, but 
there are many which can be considered distinct issues and 
will be discussed in turn.

Moreover, Marxists make many major and minor distortions of
anarchist theory in passing. For example, Engels asserted in his
infamous diatribe "The Bakuninists at work" that Bakunin "[a]s
early as September 1870 (in his *Lettres a un francais* [Letters
to a Frenchman]) . . . had declared that the only way to drive
the Prussians out of France by a revolutionary struggle was to
do away with all forms of centralised leadership and leave
each town, each village, each parish to wage war on its own."
[Marx, Engels and Lenin, _Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism_, 
p. 141] In fact, the truth is totally different. 

Bakunin does, of course, reject "centralised leadership" as it 
would be "necessarily very circumscribed, very short-sighted, 
and its limited perception cannot, therefore, penetrate the 
depth and encompass the whole complex range of popular life." 
However, it is a falsehood to state that he denies the need for 
co-ordination of struggles and federal organisations from the 
bottom up. As he puts it, the revolution must "foster the 
self-organisation of the masses into autonomous bodies, 
federated from the bottom upwards." With regards to the 
peasants, he thinks they will "come to an understanding, and 
form some kind of organisation . . . to further their mutual 
interests . . . the necessity to defend their homes, their 
families, and their own lives against unforeseen attack . . . 
will undoubtedly soon compel them to contract new and mutually 
suitable arrangements." The peasants would be "freely organised 
from the bottom up." ["Letters to a Frenchman on the present
crisis", _Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 196, p. 206 and p. 207] In 
this he repeated his earlier arguments concerning social revolution 
-- arguments that Engels was well aware of. In other words, Engels 
deliberately misrepresented Bakunin's political ideas.

Similarly, we find Trotsky asserting in 1937 that anarchists are
"willing to replace Bakunin's patriarchal 'federation of free 
communes' by the more modern federation of free soviets." 
[_Stalinism and Bolshevism_] It is hard to know where to start 
in this incredulous rewriting of history. Firstly, Bakunin's 
federation of free communes was, in fact, based on workers' 
councils ("soviets"). As he put it, "the federative Alliance of 
all working men's associations . . . will constitute the Commune"
and "revolution everywhere must be created by the people, and 
supreme control must always belong to the people organised
into a free federation of agricultural and industrial
associations . . . organised from the bottom upwards by
means of revolutionary delegation." [_Michael Bakunin: 
Selected Writings_, p. 170 and p. 172] The similarities 
with workers councils are clear. Little wonder historian
Paul Avrich summarised as follows:

"As early as the 1860's and 1870's, the followers of
Proudhon and Bakunin in the First International were
proposing the formation of workers' councils designed
both as a weapon of class struggle against capitalists 
and as the structural basis of the future libertarian
society." [_The Russian Anarchists_, p. 73]

As for the charge of supporting "patriarchal" communes,
nothing could be further from the truth. In his discussion
of the Russian peasant commune (the mir) Bakunin argued
that "patriarchalism" was one of its "three dark features,"
indeed "the main historical evil . . . against which we are
obliged to struggle with all our might." [_Statism and
Anarchy_, p. 206 and pp. 209-10] 

As can be seen Trotsky's summary of Bakunin's ideas is
totally wrong. Not only did his ideas on the organisation
of the free commune as a federation of workers' associations
predate the soviets by decades (and so much more "modern"
than Marxist conceptions), he also argued against patriarchal
relationships and urged their destruction in the Russian 
peasant commune (and elsewhere). Indeed, if any one fits
Trotsky's invention it is Marx, not Bakunin. After all,
Marx came round (eventually) to Bakunin's position that
the peasant commune could be the basis for Russia to jump 
straight to socialism (and so by-passing capitalism) but 
without Bakunin's critical analysis of that institution
and its patriarchal and other "dark" features. Similarly,
Marx never argued that the future socialist society would 
be based on workers' associations and their federation (i.e. 
workers' councils). His vision of revolution was formulated 
in typically bourgeois structures such as the Paris Commune's 
municipal council.

We could go on, but space precludes discussing every example.
Suffice to say, it is not wise to take any Marxist assertion
of anarchist thought or history at face value. A common technique
is to quote anarchist writers out of context or before they
become anarchists. For example, Marxist Paul Thomas argues
that Bakunin favoured "blind destructiveness" and yet quotes
more from Bakunin's pre-anarchist works (as well as Russian
nihilists) than Bakunin's anarchist works to prove his claim.
[_Karl Marx and the Anarchists_, pp. 288-90] Similarly, he
claims that Bakunin "defended the *federes* of the Paris 
Commune of 1871 on the grounds that they were strong enough
to dispense with theory altogether," yet his supporting quote
does not, in fact say this. [Op. Cit., p. 285] What Bakunin 
was, in fact, arguing was simply that theory must progress 
from experience and that any attempt to impose a theory on 
society would be doomed to create a "Procrustean bed" as no 
government could "embrace the infinite multiplicity and 
diversity of the real aspirations, wishes and needs whose 
sum total constitutes the collective will of a people." He
explicitly contrasted the Marxist system of "want[ing] to
impose science upon the people" with the anarchist desire
"to diffuse science and knowledge among the people, so that
the various groups of human society, when convinced by
propaganda, may organise and spontaneously combine into
federations, in accordance with their natural tendencies
and their real interests, but never according to a plan
traced in advance and *imposed upon the ignorant masses*
by a few 'superior' minds." [_The Political Theory of
Bakunin_, p. 300] A clear misreading of Bakunin's argument 
but one which fits nicely into Marxist preconceptions of 
Bakunin and anarchism in general.

This tendency to quote out of context or from periods when
anarchists were not anarchists probably explains why so
many of these Marxist accounts of anarchism are completely
lacking in references. Take, for example, the British SWP's
Pat Stack who wrote one of the most inaccurate diatribes
against anarchism the world has had the misfortunate to
see (namely "Anarchy in the UK?" which was published in
issue no. 246 of _Socialist Review_). There is not a single 
reference in the whole article, which is just as well, given
the inaccuracies contained in it. Without references, the
reader would not be able to discover for themselves the
distortions and simple errors contained in it. For example,
Stack asserts that Bakunin "claimed a purely 'instinctive 
socialism.'" However, the truth is different and this quote 
from Bakunin is one by him comparing himself and Marx in 
the 1840s! 

In fact, the *anarchist* Bakunin argued that "instinct 
as a weapon is not sufficient to safeguard the proletariat 
against the reactionary machinations of the privileged 
classes," as instinct "left to itself, and inasmuch as 
it has not been transformed into consciously reflected, 
clearly determined thought, lends itself easily to 
falsification, distortion and deceit." [_The Political 
Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 215] Bakunin saw the process of
class struggle as the means of transforming instinct into
conscious thought. As he put it, the "goal, then, is to make
the worker fully aware of what he [or she] wants, to unjam
within him [or her] a steam of thought corresponding to
his [or her] instinct." This is done by "a single path,
that of *emancipation through practical action*," by
"workers' solidarity in their struggle against the bosses,"
of "collective struggle of the workers against the bosses."
This would be complemented by socialist organisations
"propagandis[ing] its principles." [_The Basic Bakunin_,
p. 102, p. 103 and p. 109] Clearly, Stack is totally
distorting Bakunin's ideas on the subject.

This technique of quoting Bakunin when he spoke about (or when
wrote in) his pre-anarchist days in the 1840s, i.e. nearly 
20 years *before* he became an anarchist, or from Proudhon's 
posthumously published work on property (in which Proudhon saw
small-scale property as a bulwark against state tyranny) to
attack anarchism is commonplace. As such, it is always wise to 
check the source material and any references (assuming that they 
are provided). Only by doing this can it be discovered whether
a quote reflects the opinions of individuals when they were 
anarchists or whether they are referring to periods when they
were no longer, or had not yet become, anarchists.

Ultimately, though, these kinds of articles by Marxists
simply show the ideological nature of their own politics
and say far more about Marxism than anarchism. After all,
if their politics were so strong they would not need to
distort anarchist ideas! In addition, these essays are
usually marked by a lot of (usually inaccurate) attacks on
the ideas (or personal failings) of individual anarchists 
(usually Proudhon and Bakunin and sometimes Kropotkin). No 
modern anarchist theorist is usually mentioned, never mind 
discussed. Obviously, for most Marxists, anarchists must 
repeat parrot-like the ideas of these "great men." However, 
while Marxists may do this, anarchists have always rejected 
this approach. We deliberately call ourselves *anarchists* 
rather than Proudhonists, Bakuninists, Kropotkinists, or 
after any other person. As Malatesta argued in 1876 (the
year of Bakunin's death) "[w]e follow ideas and not men, 
and rebel against this habit of embodying a principle in 
a man." [_Life and Ideas_, p. 198]

Therefore, anarchists, unlike many (most?) Marxists do not 
believe that some prophet wrote down the scriptures in past 
centuries and if only we could reach a correct understanding 
of these writings today we would see the way forward. Chomsky 
put it extremely well when he argued that: 

"The whole concept of Marxist or Freudian or anything like 
that is very odd. These concepts belong to the history of 
organised religion. Any living person, no matter how gifted, 
will make some contributions intermingled with error and 
partial understanding. We try to understand and improve on 
their contributions and eliminate the errors. But how can you 
identify yourself as a Marxist, or a Freudian, or an X-ist,
whoever X may be? That would be to treat the person as a God 
to be revered, not a human being whose contributions are to be 
assimilated and transcended. It's a crazy idea, a kind of 
idolatry." [_The Chomsky Reader_, pp. 29-30]

This means that anarchists recognise that any person, no matter
how great or influential, are just human. They make mistakes,
they fail to live up to all the ideals they express, they are
shaped by the society they live in, and so on. Anarchists 
recognise this fact and extract the positive aspects of past
anarchist thinkers, reject the rest and develop what we consider 
the living core of their ideas. We develop the ideas and analyses
of these pioneers of the anarchist ideal, reject the rubbish
and embrace the good, learn from history and constantly try 
to bring anarchist ideas up-to-date (after all, a lot has
changed since the days of Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin
and this has to be taken into account). As Max Nettlau put it
with regards to Proudhon, "we have to extract from his work
useful teachings that would be of great service to our modern
libertarians, who nevertheless have to find their own way
from theory to practice and to the critique of our present-day
conditions, as Proudhon did in his time. This does not call
for a slavish imitation; it implies using his work to inspire
us and enable us to profit by his experience." [_A Short
History of Anarchism_, pp. 46-7] Similarly for other anarchists
-- we see them as a source of inspiration upon which to build
rather than a template which to copy. This means to attack
anarchism by, say, attacking Bakunin's or Proudhon's personal
failings is to totally miss the point. While anarchists may be
inspired by the ideas of, say, Bakunin or Proudhon it does
not mean we blindly follow all of their ideas. Far from it!
We critically analysis their ideas and keep what is living
and reject what is useless or dead. Sadly, such common sense
is lacking in many who critique anarchism.

However, the typical Marxist approach does have its benefits 
from a political perspective. As Albert Meltzer pointed out, 
"[i]t is very difficult for Marxist-Leninists to make an 
objective criticism of Anarchism, as such, because by its 
nature it undermines all the suppositions basic to Marxism. 
If Marxism is held out to be indeed *the* basic working class 
philosophy, and the proletariat cannot owe its emancipation to 
anyone but itself, it is hard to go back on it and say that the 
working class is not yet ready to dispense with authority placed
over it. Marxism therefore normally tries to refrain from
criticising anarchism as such -- unless driven to doing so,
when it exposes its own authoritarian . . . and concentrates
its attacks not on *anarchism,* but on *anarchists.*" 
[_Anarchism: Arguments for and Against_, p. 37] Needless to
say, this technique is the one usually applied by Marxists 
(although, we must stress that often their account of the 
ideas of Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin are so distorted 
that they fail even to do this!).

So anarchist theory has developed since Proudhon, Bakunin and
Kropotkin. At each period in history anarchism advanced in its 
understanding of the world, the anarchism of Bakunin was a 
development of that of Proudhon, these ideas were again 
developed by the anarcho-communists of the 1880s and by
the syndicalists of the 1890's, by the Italian Malatesta,
the Russian Kropotkin, the Mexican Flores Magon and many other 
individuals and movements. Today we stand on their shoulders, 
not at their feet.

As such, to concentrate on the ideas of a few "leaders" misses 
the point totally. Ideas change and develop and anarchism has 
changed as well. While it contains many of the core insights 
of, say, Bakunin, it has also developed them and added to them. 
It has, concretely, taken into account, say, the lessons of the 
Russian and Spanish revolutions and so on. As such, even assuming 
that Marxist accounts of certain aspects of the ideas of Proudhon, 
Bakunin and Kropotkin were correct, they would have to be shown to 
be relevant to modern anarchism to be of any but historical interest.
Sadly, Marxists generally fail to do this and, instead, we are
subject to a (usually inaccurate) history lesson.

In order to understand, learn from and transcend previous theorists 
we must honestly present their ideas. Unfortunately many Marxists 
do not do this and so this section of the FAQ involves correcting 
the many mistakes, distortions, errors and lies that Marxists have
subjected anarchism to. Hopefully, with this done, a real dialogue
can develop between Marxists and anarchists. Indeed, this has 
happened between libertarian Marxists (such as council communists
and Situationists) and anarchists and both tendencies have benefited
from it. Perhaps this dialogue between libertarian Marxists and
anarchists is to be expected, as the mainstream Marxists have often
misrepresented the ideas of libertarian Marxists as well!

H.2.1 Do anarchists reject defending a revolution?

According to many Marxists anarchists either reject the idea 
of defending a revolution or think that it is not necessary.

The Trotskyists of _Workers' Power_ present a typical Marxist
account of what *they* consider as anarchist ideas on this
subject:

"the anarchist conclusion is not to build any sort of state
in the first place -- not even a democratic workers' state.
But how could we stop the capitalists trying to get their 
property back, something they will definitely try and do?

"Should the people organise to stop the capitalists raising
private armies and resisting the will of the majority? If
the answer is yes, then that organisation - whatever you
prefer to call it -- is a state: an apparatus designed to
enable one class to rule over another.

"The anarchists are rejecting something which is necessary
if we are to beat the capitalists and have a chance of
developing a classless society." ["What's wrong with 
anarchism?", _World Revolution: PragueS26 2000_, pp. 12-13,
p. 13]

It would be simple to quote Malatesta on this issue and leave
it at that. As he argued in 1891, some people "seem almost to 
believe that after having brought down government and private 
property we would allow both to be quietly built up again, 
because of respect for the *freedom* of those who might feel 
the need to be rulers and property owners. A truly curious way 
of interpreting our ideas." [_Anarchy_, p. 41] Pretty much
common sense, so you would think! Sadly, this appears to not 
be the case. As Malatesta pointed out 30 years latter, the 
followers of Bolshevism "are incapable of conceiving freedom 
and of respecting for all human beings the dignity they expect,
or should expect, from others. If one speaks of freedom they
immediately accuse one of wanting to respect, or at least
tolerate, the freedom to oppress and exploit one's fellow
beings." [_Life and Ideas_, p. 145] As such, we have to 
explain anarchist ideas on the defence of a revolution and 
why this necessity need not imply a state and, if it does,
then it signifies the end of the revolution.

The argument by _Workers' Power_ is very common with the Leninist
left and contains numerous fallacies and so we shall base our
discussion on it. This discussion, of necessity, implies three
issues. Firstly, we have to show that anarchists have always
seen the necessity of defending a revolution. This shows that
the anarchist opposition to the "democratic workers' state"
(or "dictatorship of the proletariat") has nothing to do with
beating the ruling class and stopping them regaining their
positions of power. Secondly, we have to discuss the anarchist
and Marxist definitions of what constitutes a "state" and
show what they have in common and how they differ. Thirdly,
we must summarise why anarchists oppose the idea of a "workers'
state" in order for the *real* reasons why anarchists oppose it
to be understood. Each issue will be discussed in turn.

For revolutionary anarchists, it is a truism that a revolution
will need to defend itself against counter-revolutionary threats.
Bakunin, for example, while strenuously objecting to the idea
of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" (see section H.1.1 for
details) also thought a revolution would need to defend itself.
In his words:

"Immediately after established governments have been overthrown, 
communes will have to reorganise themselves along revolutionary 
lines . . . In order to defend the revolution, their volunteers 
will at the same time form a communal militia. But no commune
can defend itself in isolation. So it will be necessary to
radiate revolution outward, to raise all of its neighbouring
communes in revolt . . . and to federate with them for common
defence." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 142]

And:

"the Alliance of all labour associations . . . will constitute
the Commune . . . there will be a standing federation of the
barricades and a Revolutionary Communal Council . . . [made
up of] delegates . . . invested with binding mandates and
accountable and revocable at all times . . . all provinces,
communes and associations . . . [will] delegate deputies
to an agreed place of assembly (all . . . invested with 
binding mandated and accountable and subject to recall), in 
order to found the federation of insurgent associations,
communes and provinces . . . and to organise a revolutionary
force with the capacity of defeating the reaction . . . it
is through the very act of extrapolation and organisation of
the Revolution with an eye to the mutual defences of insurgent
areas that the universality of the Revolution . . . will
emerge triumphant." [Op. Cit., vol. 1, pp. 155-6]

Malatesta agreed, arguing for the "creation of voluntary
militia, without powers to interfere as militia in the
life of the community, but only to deal with any armed
attacks by the forces of reaction to re-establish themselves,
or to resist outside intervention." The workers must "take
possession of the factories" and "federate amongst themselves"
and only "the people in arms, in possession of the land, the
factories and all the natural wealth" could defend a revolution 
[_Life and Ideas_, p. 166, p. 165 and p. 170] Alexander
Berkman concurred: "The armed workers and peasants are the
only effective defence of the revolution. By means of their
unions and syndicates they must always be on guard against
counter-revolutionary attack." [_ABC of Anarchism_, p. 82]
Emma Goldman clearly and unambiguously stated that she
had "always insisted that an armed attack on the Revolution
must be met with armed force" and that "an armed 
counter-revolutionary and fascist attack can be met in
no way except by an armed defence." [_Vision on Fire_,
p. 222 and p. 217]

Clearly, anarchism has always recognised the necessity of
defending a revolution and proposed ideas to ensure it (ideas
applied with great success by, for example, the Makhnovists
in the Ukrainian Revolution and the C.N.T militias during
the Spanish). As such, any assertion that anarchism rejects
the necessity of defending a revolution are simply false.

Which, of course, brings us to the second assertion, namely
that any attempt to defend a revolution means that a state
has been created (regardless of what it may be called). For 
anarchists, such an argument simply shows that Marxists do 
not really understand what a state is. While the Trotskyist 
definition of a "state" is "an apparatus designed to enable 
one class to rule another," the anarchist definition is 
somewhat different. Anarchists, of course, do not deny
that the modern state is (to use Malatesta's excellent
expression) "the bourgeoisie's servant and *gendarme*." 
[_Anarchy_, p. 20] Every state that has ever existed has
defended the power of a minority class and, unsurprisingly,
has developed certain features to facilitate this. The
key one is centralisation of power. This ensures that the
working people are excluded from the decision making process
and power remains a tool of the ruling class. As such, the
centralisation of power (while it may take many forms) is
the key means by which a class system is maintained and,
therefore, a key aspect of a state. As Kropotkin put, the
"state idea . . . includes the existence of a power 
situated above society . . . a territorial concentration
as well as the concentration of many functions of the
life of societies in the hands of a few." [_Selected
Writings on Anarchism and Revolution_, p. 213] This was 
the case with representative democracy:

"To attack the central power, to strip it of its prerogatives,
to decentralise, to dissolve authority, would have been to abandon
to the people the control of its affairs, to run the risk of a
truly popular revolution. That is why the bourgeoisie sought to
reinforce the central government even more. . ." [Kropotkin,
_Words of a Rebel_, p. 143]

This meant that the "representative system was organised by 
the bourgeoisie to ensure their domination, and it will 
disappear with them. For the new economic phase that is about 
to begin we must seek a new form of political organisation, 
based on a principle quite different from that of representation. 
The logic of events imposes it." [Op. Cit., p. 125] So while 
we agree with Marxists that the main function of the state is 
to defend class society, we also stress the structure of the 
state has evolved to execute that role. In the words of Rudolf 
Rocker:

"[S]ocial institutions . . . do not arise arbitrarily, but
are called into being by special needs to serve definite
purposes . . . The newly arisen possessing classes had
need of a political instrument of power to maintain their
economic and social privileges over the masses of their
own people . . . Thus arose the appropriate social conditions
for the evolution of the modern state, as the organ of
political power of privileged castes and classes for the
forcible subjugation and oppression of the non-possessing
classes . . . Its external forms have altered in the course
of its historical development, but its functions have always
been the same . . . And just as the functions of the bodily
organs of . . . animals cannot be arbitrarily altered, so
that, for example, one cannot at will hear  with his eyes 
and see with his ears, so also one cannot at pleasure
transform an organ of social oppression into an instrument
for the liberation of the oppressed. The state can only
be what it is: the defender of mass-exploitation and 
social privileges, and creator of privileged classes." 
[_Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 20]

As such, a new form of society, one based on the participation 
of all in the affairs of society (and a classless society can be 
nothing else) means the end of the state. This is because it has
been designed to *exclude* the participation a classless society
needs in order to exist. In anarchist eyes, it is an abuse of
the language to call the self-managed organisations by which 
the former working class manage (and defend) a free society a 
state. If it *was* simply a question of consolidating a revolution
and its self-defence then there would be no argument:

"But perhaps the truth is simply this: . . . [some] take the 
expression 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to mean simply 
the revolutionary action of the workers in taking possession 
of the land and the instruments of labour, and trying to 
build a society and organise a way of life in which there 
will be no place for a class that exploits and oppresses the 
producers.

"Thus constructed, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' would 
be the effective power of all workers trying to bring down 
capitalist society and would thus turn into Anarchy as soon 
as resistance from reactionaries would have ceased and no one 
can any longer seek to compel the masses by violence to obey 
and work for him. In which case, the discrepancy between us 
would be nothing more than a question of semantics. Dictatorship 
of the proletariat would signify the dictatorship of everyone,
which is to say, it would be a dictatorship no longer, just as 
government by everybody is no longer a government in the 
authoritarian, historical and practical sense of the word.

"But the real supporters of 'dictatorship of the proletariat'
do not take that line, as they are making quite plain in 
Russia. Of course, the proletariat has a hand in this, just
as the people has a part to play in democratic regimes,
that is to say, to conceal the reality of things. In reality,
what we have is the dictatorship of one party, or rather,
of one' party's leaders: a genuine dictatorship, with its
decrees, its penal sanctions, its henchmen and above all its
armed forces, which are at present [1919] also deployed in
the defence of the revolution against its external enemies,
but which will tomorrow be used to impose the dictator's
will upon the workers, to apply a break on revolution,
to consolidate the new interests in the process of emerging
and protect a new privileged class against the masses." 
[Malatesta, _No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 2, pp. 38-9]

The question is, therefore, one of *who* "seizes power" -- will 
it be the mass of the population or will it be a party claiming 
to represent the mass of the population. The difference is vital 
and it confuses the issue to use the same word "state" to describe 
two such fundamentally different structures as a "bottom-up" 
self-managed communal federation and a "top-down" hierarchical
centralised organisation (such as has been every state that has
existed). This explains why anarchists reject the idea of 
a "democratic workers' state" as the means by which a revolution
defends itself. Rather than signify working class power or
management of society, it signifies the opposite -- the seizure
of power of a minority (in this case, the leaders of the 
vanguard party).

Anarchists argue that the state is designed to exclude the
mass of the population from the decision making process. This, 
ironically for Trotskyism, was one of the reasons why leading
Bolsheviks (including Lenin and Trotsky) argued for a workers 
state. The centralisation of power implied by the state was
essential so that the vanguard party could ignore the "the 
will of the majority." This particular perspective was clearly 
a lesson they learned from their experiences during the Russian 
Revolution. 

As noted in section H.1.2, Lenin was arguing in 1920 that "the 
dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an 
organisation embracing the whole of the class, because in all 
capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the 
most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, 
and so corrupted in parts . . . that an organisation taking 
in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian 
dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard . . . 
Such is the basic mechanism of the dictatorship of the 
dictatorship of the proletariat, and the essentials of 
transitions from capitalism to communism . . . for the 
dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised by a 
mass proletarian organisation." [_Collected Works_, vol. 32, 
p. 21]

This argument, as can be seen, was considered of general
validity and, moreover, was merely stating mainstream Bolshevik 
ideology. It was repeated in March 1923 by the Central Committee 
of the Communist Party in a statement issued to mark the 25th 
anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party. This
statement summarised the lessons gained from the Russian 
revolution. It stated that "the party of the Bolsheviks 
proved able to stand out fearlessly against the vacillations 
within its own class, vacillations which, with the slightest 
weakness in the vanguard, could turn into an unprecedented 
defeat for the proletariat." Vacillations, of course, are 
expressed by workers' democracy. Little wonder the statement 
rejects it: "The dictatorship of the working class finds 
its expression in the dictatorship of the party." ["To the 
Workers of the USSR" in G. Zinoviev, _History of the Bolshevik 
Party_, p. 213, p. 214] It should be noted that this Central
Committee included Trotsky who, in the same year, was stating 
that "[i]f there is one question which basically not only does 
not require revision but does not so much as admit the thought 
of revision, it is the question of the dictatorship of the 
Party." [_Leon Trotsky Speaks_, p. 158]

Needless to say, _Workers' Power_ (like most Trotskyists) blame
the degeneration of the Russian revolution on the Civil War
and its isolation. However, as these statements make clear,
the creation of a party dictatorship was not seen in these
terms. Rather, it was considered a necessity to suppress
democracy and replace it by party rule. Indeed, as noted in
section H.1.2, Trotsky was still arguing in 1937 for the 
"objective necessity" for the "dictatorship of a party" due 
to the "heterogeneity" of the working class. [_Writings 
1936-37_, pp. 513-4] Moreover, as we discuss in detail in 
section H.6, the Bolshevik undermining of working class 
autonomy and democracy started *well* before the outbreak 
of civil war, thus confirming anarchist theory. These 
conclusions of leading Leninists simply justified the
actions undertaken by the Bolsheviks from the start.

This is why anarchists reject the idea of a "democratic workers'
state." Simply put, as far as it is a state, it cannot be
democratic and in as far as it is democratic, it cannot be a
state. The Leninist idea of a "workers' state" means, in fact,
the seizure of power by the party. This, we must stress, naturally
follows from the idea of the state. It is designed for minority
rule and excludes, by its very nature, mass participation. As can
be seen, this aspect of the state is one which the leading lights
of Bolshevik agreed with. Little wonder, then, that in practice 
the Bolshevik regime suppressed of any form of democracy which 
hindered the power of the party (see section H.6). Maurice 
Brinton sums up the issue well when he argued that "'workers' 
power' cannot be identified or equated with the power of the 
Party -- as it repeatedly was by the Bolsheviks . . . What 
'taking power' really implies is that the vast majority of the 
working class at last realises its ability to manage both 
production and society -- and organises to this end." [_The 
Bolsheviks and Workers' Control_, p. xiv] 

In summary, therefore, anarchists reject the idea that the
defence of a revolution can be conducted by a state. As
Bakunin once put it, there is the "Republic-State" and
there is "the system of the Republic-Commune, the
Republic-Federation, i.e. the system of *Anarchism.* This 
is the politics of the Social Revolution, which aims at 
the abolition of the *State* and establishment of the 
economic, entirely free organisation of the people -- 
organisation from bottom to top by means of federation." 
[_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 314] Indeed, 
creating a new state will simply destroy the most important
gain of any revolution -- working class autonomy -- and its
replacement by another form of minority rule (by the party).
Anarchists have always argued that the defence of a revolution
must not be confused with the state and so argue for the
abolition of the state *and* the defence of a revolution 
(also see section H.1.3 for more discussion). Only when 
working class people actually run themselves society will 
a revolution be successful. For anarchists, this means 
that "effective emancipation can be achieved only by the 
*direct, widespread, and independent action* . . . *of 
the workers themselves*, grouped . . . in their own 
class organisations . . . on the basis of concrete action 
and self-government, *helped but not governed*, by 
revolutionaries working in the very midst of, and not above 
the mass and the professional, technical, defence and other 
branches." [Voline, _The Unknown Revolution_, p. 197] This 
means that anarchists argue that the capitalist state cannot 
be transformed or adjusted, but has to be smashed by a 
social revolution and replaced with organisations and 
structures created by working class people during their 
own struggles (see section H.1.4 for details).

For a further discussion of anarchist ideas on defending a 
revolution, please consult sections I.5.14 and J.7.6.

H.2.2 Do anarchists reject "class conflict" as "the motor 
      of change" and "collective struggle" as the "means"? 

Of course not. Anarchists have always taken a keen interest in
the class struggle, in the organisation, solidarity and actions
of working class people. Indeed, class struggle plays a key
role in anarchist theory and to assert otherwise is simply to 
lie about anarchism. Sadly, Marxists have been known to make
such an assertion.

For example, Pat Stack of the British SWP argued that anarchists
"dismiss . . .  the importance of the collective nature of
change" and so "downplays the centrality of the working class" 
in the revolutionary process. This, he argues, means that for
anarchism the working class "is not the key to change." He 
stresses that for Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin "revolutions 
were not about . . . collective struggle or advance." Indeed,
that anarchism "despises the collectivity." Amazingly he 
argues that for Kropotkin, "far from seeing class conflict 
as the dynamic for social change as Marx did, saw co-operation 
being at the root of the social process." Therefore, "[i]t follows 
that if class conflict is not the motor of change, the working 
class is not the agent and collective struggle not the means. 
Therefore everything from riot to bomb, and all that might 
become between the two, was legitimate when ranged against 
the state, each with equal merit." ["Anarchy in the UK?",
_Socialist Review_, no. 246] Needless to say, he makes the
usual exception for anarcho-syndicalists, thereby showing
his total ignorance of anarchism *and* syndicalism (see 
section H.2.8).

Indeed, these assertions are simply incredible. It is hard to believe
that anyone who is a leading member of a Leninist party could write
such nonsense which suggests that Stack is aware of the truth and
simply decides to ignore it. All in all, it is *very* easy to refute 
these assertions. All we have to do is, unlike Stack, to quote from 
the works of Bakunin, Kropotkin and other anarchists. Even the
briefest familiarity with the writings of revolutionary anarchism
would soon convince the reader that Stack really does not know 
what he is talking about.

Take, for example, Bakunin. Rather than reject class conflict,
collective struggle or the key role of the working class, Bakunin
based his political ideas on all three. As he put it, there was,
"between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, an irreconcilable 
antagonism which results inevitably from their respective stations
in life." He stressed "war between the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie is unavoidable" and would only end with the "abolition
of the bourgeoisie as a distinct class." In order the worker to
"become strong" they "must unite" with other workers in "the
union of all local and national workers' associations into a
world-wide association, *the great International Working-Men's
Association.*" It was only "through practice and collective
experience . . . [and] the progressive expansion and development
of the economic struggle [that] will bring [the worker] more
to recognise his [or her] true enemies: the privileged classes,
including the clergy, the bourgeoisie, and the nobility; and the
State, which exists only to safeguard all the privileges of those
classes." There was "but a single path, that of *emancipation
through practical action* . . . [which] has only one meaning.
It means workers' solidarity in their struggle against the
bosses. It means *trades-unions, organisation, and the
federation of resistance funds.*" Then, "when the revolution 
-- brought about by the force of circumstances -- breaks out, 
the International will be a real force and know what it has to 
do . . . take the revolution into its own hands . . . [and
become] an earnest international organisation of workers'
associations from all countries [which will be] capable of
replacing this departing political world of States and
bourgeoisie." ["The Policy of the International", _The Basic 
Bakunin_, pp. 97-8, p. 103 and p. 110]

Hardly the words of a man who rejected class conflict, the 
working class and the collective nature of change! Nor is
this an isolated argument from Bakunin, they recur continuously
throughout Bakunin's works. For example, he argued that
socialists must "[o]rganise the city proletariat in the
name of revolutionary Socialism, and in doing this unite
it into one preparatory organisation together with the
peasantry." [_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 378] 
Similarly, he argued that "equality" was the "aim" of the
International Workers' Association and "the organisation
of the working class its strength, the unification of the
proletariat the world over . . . its weapon, its only
policy." He stressed that "to create a people's force
capable of crushing the military and civil force of the
State, it is necessary to organise the proletariat." 
[quoted by K.J. Kenafick, _Michael Bakunin and Karl Marx_, 
p. 95 and p. 254] 

Strikes played a very important role in Bakunin's ideas (as 
they do in all revolutionary anarchist thought). He saw the 
strike as "the beginnings of the social war of the proletariat 
against the bourgeoisie . . . Strikes are a valuable instrument 
from two points of view. Firstly, they electrify the masses 
. . . awaken in them the feeling of the deep antagonism which 
exists between their interests and those of the bourgeoisie
. . . secondly they help immensely to provoke and establish 
between the workers of all trades, localities and countries 
the consciousness and very fact of solidarity: a twofold 
action, both negative and positive, which tends to constitute 
directly the new world of the proletariat, opposing it almost 
in an absolute way to the bourgeois world." [cited in Caroline 
Cahm, _Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism
1872-1886_, pp. 216-217] 

Indeed, for Bakunin, strikes train 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." [Bakunin, _The 
Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, pp. 384-5] Moreover, when
"strikes spread from one place to another, they come close
to turning into a general strike. And with the ideas of
emancipation that now hold sway over the proletariat, a
general strike can result only in a great cataclysm which
forces society to shed its old skin." The very process of
strikes, as noted, would create the framework of a socialist
society as "strikes indicate a certain collective strength
already" and "because each strike becomes the point of
departure for the formation of new groups." [_The Basic
Bakunin_, pp. 149-50] Thus the revolution would be "an 
insurrection of all the people and the voluntary organisation 
of the workers from below upward." [_Statism and Anarchy_,
p. 179] 

As we argue in sections H.1.4 and I.2.3, the very process 
of collective class struggle would, for Bakunin and other
anarchists, create the basis of a free society. Thus, in
Bakunin's eyes, 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." He saw the free 
society as being based on "the land, the instruments of work 
and all other capital [will] become the collective property 
of the whole of society and be utilised only by the workers, 
in other words by the agricultural and industrial 
associations." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_,
p. 206 and p. 174] In other words, the basic structure 
created by the revolution would be based on the working 
classes own combat organisations, as created in their
struggles within, but against, oppression and exploitation.

The link between present and future would be labour unions 
(workers' associations) created by working people in their
struggle against exploitation and oppression.  These played 
the key role in Bakunin's politics both as the means to abolish 
capitalism and the state and as the framework of a socialist 
society (this support for workers' councils predates Marxist 
support by five decades, incidentally). When he became an
anarchist, Bakunin always stressed that it was essential to 
"[o]rganise always more and more the practical militant 
international solidarity of the toilers of all trades and 
of all countries, and remember . . . you will find an immense, 
an irresistible force in this universal collectivity." [quoted 
by Kenafick, Op. Cit., p. 291] Quite impressive for someone 
who was a founding father of a theory which, according to 
Stack, downplayed the "centrality of the working class," 
argued that the working class was "not the key to change,"
dismissed "the importance of the collective nature of change"
as well as "collective struggle or advance" and "despises 
the collectivity"! Clearly, to argue that Bakunin held any
of these views simply shows that the person making such 
statements does not have a clue what they are talking about. 

The same, needless to say, applies to all revolutionary anarchists.
Kropotkin built upon Bakunin's arguments and, like him, based
his politics on collective working class struggle and organisation.
He consistently stressed that "the Anarchists have always advised 
taking an active part in those workers' organisations which carry 
on the *direct* struggle of Labour against Capital and its protector
-- the State." Such struggle, "better than any other indirect means, 
permits the worker to obtain some temporary improvements in the 
present conditions of work, while it opens his eyes to the evil done 
by Capitalism and the State that supports it, and wakes up his 
thoughts concerning the possibility of organising consumption, 
production, and exchange without the intervention of the capitalist 
and the State." [_Evolution and Environment_, pp. 82-3] In his
article on "Anarchism" for the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, he
stressed that anarchists "have endeavoured to promote their
ideas directly amongst the labour organisations and to induce
those unions to a direct struggle against capital, without
placing their faith in parliamentary legislation." [_Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 287]

Far from denying the importance of collective class struggle, he 
actually stressed it again and again. As he once wrote, "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." He argued that it was "a question
of organising societies of resistance for all trades in each
town, of creating resistance funds against the exploiters, of
giving more solidarity to the workers' organisations of each
town and of putting them in contact with those of other towns,
of federating them . . . Workers' solidarity must no longer
be an empty word by practised each day between all trades and
all nations." [quoted by Caroline Cahm, Op. Cit., pp. 255-6]
Kropotkin could not have been clearer.

Clearly, Kropotkin was well aware of the importance of popular,
mass, struggles. As he put it, anarchists "know very well that 
any popular movement is a step towards the social revolution. It 
awakens the spirit of revolt, it makes men [and women] accustomed 
to seeing the established order (or rather the established 
disorder) as eminently unstable." [_Words of a Rebel_, p. 203]
As regards the social revolution, he argues that "a decisive
blow will have to be administered to private property: from
the beginning, the workers will have to proceed to take over
all social wealth so as to put it into common ownership. This
revolution can only be carried out by the workers themselves."
In order to do this, the masses have to build their own
organisation as the "great mass of workers will not only have 
to constitute itself outside the bourgeoisie . . . it will have
to take action of its own during the period which will precede
the revolution . . . and this sort of action can only be
carried out when a strong *workers' organisation* exists."
This meant, of course, it was "the mass of workers we have to
seek to organise. We . . . have to submerge ourselves in the
organisation of the people . . . When the mass of workers is
organised and we are with it to strengthen its revolutionary
idea, to make the spirit of revolt against capital germinate
there . . . then it will be the social revolution." [quoted
by Caroline Cahm, Op. Cit., pp. 153-4]

He saw the class struggle in terms of "a multitude of acts
of revolt in all countries, under all possible conditions:
first, individual revolt against capital and State; then
collective revolt -- strikes and working-class insurrections
-- both preparing, in men's minds as in actions, a revolt
of the masses, a revolution." Clearly, the mass, collective
nature of social change was not lost on Kropotkin who pointed
to a "multitude of risings of working masses and peasants"
as a positive sign. Strikes, he argued, "were once 'a war
of folded arms'" but now were "easily turning to revolt, and
sometimes taking the proportions of vast insurrections."
[_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 144] 

And Pat Stack argues that Kropotkin did not see "class conflict 
as the dynamic for social change," nor "class conflict" as "the 
motor of change" and the working class "not the agent and 
collective struggle not the means"! Truly incredible and a
total and utter distortion of Kropotkin's ideas on the subject.

As for other anarchists, we discover the same concern over
class conflict, collective struggle and organisation and the
awareness of a mass social revolution by the working class.
Emma Goldman, for example, argued that anarchism "stands for
direct action" and that "[t]rade unionism, the economic
area of the modern gladiator, owes its existence to direct
action . . . In France, in Spain, in Italy, in Russian, nay
even in England (witness the growing rebellion of English
labour unions), direct, revolutionary economic action has
become so strong a force in the battle for industrial
liberty as to make the world realise the tremendous 
importance of labour's power. The General Strike [is]
the supreme expression of the economic consciousness of
the workers . . . Today every great strike, in order to
win, must realise the importance of the solidaric general
protest." [_Anarchism and Other Essays_, pp. 65-6] She
places collective class struggle at the centre of her
ideas and, crucially, she sees it as the way to create an
anarchist society:

"It is this war of classes that we must concentrate upon,
and in that connection the war against false values, against
evil institutions, against all social atrocities. Those who
appreciate the urgent need of co-operating in great struggles
. . . must organise the preparedness of the masses for the
overthrow of both capitalism and the state. Industrial and
economic preparedness is what the workers need. That alone
leads to revolution at the bottom . . . That alone will give
the people the means to take their children out of the slums,
out of the sweat shops and the cotton mills . . . That alone
leads to economic and social freedom, and does away with all
wars, all crimes, and all injustice." [_Red Emma Speaks_, 
pp. 309-10]

For Malatesta, "the most powerful force for social transformation
is the working class movement . . . Through the organisations
established for the defence of their interests, workers
acquire an awareness of the oppression under which they
live and of the antagonisms which divide them from their
employers, and so begin to aspire to a better life, get
used to collective struggle and to solidarity." This meant
that anarchists "must recognise the usefulness and importance
of the workers' movement, must favour its development, and
make it one of the levers of their action, doing all they
can so that it . . . will culminate in a social revolution."
Anarchists must "deepen the chasm between capitalists and
wage-slaves, between rulers and ruled; preach expropriation
of private property and the destruction of State." The new
society would be organised "by means of free association
and federations of producers and consumers." [_Life and 
Ideas_, p. 113, pp. 250-1 and p. 184] Alexander Berkman,
unsurprisingly, argued the same thing. As he put it,
only "the worst victims of present institutions" could
abolish capitalism as "it is to their own interest to
abolish them. . . labour's emancipation means at the same
time the redemption of the whole of society." He stressed
that "*only the right organisation of the workers* can
accomplish what we are striving for . . . Organisation from
the bottom up, beginning with the shop and factory, on the
foundation of the joint interests of the workers everywhere
. . . alone can solve the labour question and serve the
true emancipation of man[kind]." [_The ABC of Anarchism_,
p. 44 and p. 60

As can be seen, the claim that Kropotkin or Bakunin, or 
anarchists in general, ignored the class struggle and 
collective working class struggle and organisation is 
either a lie or indicates ignorance. Clearly, anarchists
have placed working class struggle, organisation and
collective direct action and solidarity at the core of
their politics (and as the means of creating a libertarian
socialist society) from the start.

Also see section H.2.8 for a discussion of the relationship 
of anarchism to syndicalism.

H.2.3 Does anarchism "yearn for what has gone before"?

Pat Stack states that one of the "key points of divergence"
between anarchism and Marxism is that the former, "far from 
understanding the advances that capitalism represented, tended 
to take a wistful look back. Anarchism shares with Marxism an 
abhorrence of the horrors of capitalism, but yearns for what 
has gone before." ["Anarchy in the UK?", _Socialist Review_, 
no. 246]

Like his other "key point" (namely the rejection of class 
struggle -- see last section), Stack is simply wrong. Even 
the quickest look at the works of Proudhon, Bakunin and 
Kropotkin would convince the reader that this is simply 
distortion. Rather than look backwards for their ideas of 
social life, anarchism has always been careful to base its 
ideas on the current state of society and what anarchist
thinkers considered positive current trends within society. 

The dual element of progress is important to remember. Capitalism 
is a class society, marked by exploitation, oppression and various 
social hierarchies. In such a society progress can hardly be neutral. 
It will reflect vested interests, the needs of those in power, the 
rationales of the economic system (e.g. the drive for profits) and 
those who benefit from it, the differences in power between nations 
and companies and so on. Equally, it will be shaped by the class 
struggle, the resistance of the working classes to exploitation 
and oppression, the objective needs of production, etc. As such, 
trends in society will reflect the various class conflicts, social 
hierarchies, power relationships and so on which exist within it.

This is particularly true of the economy. The development of
the industrial structure of a capitalist economy will be based
on the fundamental need to maximise the profits and power of
the capitalists. As such, it will develop (either by market
forces or by state intervention) in order to ensure this.
This means that various tendencies apparent in capitalist
society exist specifically to aid the development of capital.
This means that it does not follow that because a society which 
places profits above people has found a specific way of organising
production "efficient" it means that a socialist society will do.
As such, anarchist opposition to specific tendencies within
capitalism (such as the increased concentration and centralisation
of companies) does not mean a "yearning" for the past. Rather,
it shows an awareness that capitalist methods are precisely that
and that they need not be suited for a society which replaces 
the profit system with human and ecological need as the criteria 
for decision making.

For anarchists, this means questioning the assumptions of 
capitalist progress. This means that the first task of a 
revolution after the expropriation of the capitalists and
the destruction of the state will be to transform the 
industrial structure and how it operates, not keep it as 
it is. Anarchists have long argued that that capitalist methods 
cannot be used for socialist ends. In our battle to democratise 
and socialise the workplace, in our awareness of the importance 
of collective initiatives by the direct producers in transforming 
their work situation, we show that factories are not merely 
sites of production, but also of reproduction -- the reproduction 
of a certain structure of social relations based on the division 
between those who give orders and those who take them, between 
those who direct and those who execute. Equally, the structure of
industry has developed to maximise profits. Why assume that this
structure will be equally as efficient in producing useful products
by meaningful work which does not harm the environment?

A further aspect of this is that many of the struggles today, from 
the Zapatistas in Chiapas to those against Genetically Modified (GM) 
food and nuclear power are precisely based on the understanding that 
capitalist 'progress' can not be uncritically accepted. To resist 
the expulsion of people from the land in the name of progress or 
the introduction of terminator seeds is not to look back to "what 
had gone", although this is also precisely what the proponents of 
capitalist globalisation often accuse us of. It is to put "people 
before profit." 

As such, only a sophist would confuse a critical evaluation of
trends within capitalism with a yearning for the past. It means
to buy into the whole capitalist notion of "progress" which has
always been part of justifying the inhumanities of the status
quo. Simply put, just because a process is rewarded by the
profit driven market it does not mean that it makes sense from
a human or ecological perspective. For example, as we argue in
section J.5.11, the capitalist market hinders the spread of
co-operatives and workers' self-management in spite of their 
well documented higher efficiency and productivity. From the 
perspective of the needs of the capitalists, this makes perfect 
sense. In terms of the workers and efficient allocation of 
resources, it does not. Would Marxists argue that because 
co-operatives and workers' self-management of production are
marginal aspects of the capitalist economy it means that they 
will play no part in a sane society or that if a socialist
expresses interest in them it means that are "yearning" for
a past mode of production? We hope not. 

This common Marxist failure to understand anarchist investigations 
of the future is, ironically enough, joined with a total failure
to understand the social conditions in which anarchists have
put forward their ideas. Ironically, for all his claims that 
anarchists ignore "material conditions," it is Pat Stack (and
others like him) who does so in his claims against Proudhon. 
Stack argues that Proudhon (like all anarchists) was "yearning 
for the past" when he advanced his mutualist ideas. Nothing,
however, could be further from the truth. This is because the 
society in which the French anarchist lived was predominately 
artisan and peasant in nature. This was admitted by Marx and 
Engels in the _Communist Manifesto_ ("[i]n countries like 
France" the peasants "constitute far more than half of the 
population." [_The Marx-Engels Reader_, p. 493]). As such, 
for Proudhon to incorporate the aspirations of the majority 
of the population is not to "yearn for what has gone before" 
but rather an extremely sensible position to take. 

Therefore, it is hardly an example of Proudhon "yearning for
the past" for Stack to mention that Marx dubbed Proudhon ("the 
founder of modern anarchism") as "the socialist of the small 
peasant or master craftsman." It is simply unsurprising, a
simple statement of fact, as the French working classes were, 
at the time, predominately small peasants or master craftsmen 
(or artisans). As K. Steven Vincent points out Proudhon's 
"social theories may not be reduced to a socialism for only 
the peasant class, nor was it a socialism only for the petite 
bourgeois; it was a socialism of and for French workers. And 
in the mid-nineteenth century . . . most French workers were 
still artisans." Indeed, "[w]hile Marx was correct in 
predicting the eventual predominance of the industrial 
proletariat vis-a-vis skilled workers, such predominance was 
neither obvious nor a foregone conclusion in France during 
the nineteenth century. The absolute number of small 
industries even increased during most of the century."
[_Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican 
Socialism_, p. 5 and p. 282] Proudhon himself noted in 1851
that of a population of 36 million, 24 million were peasants
and 6 million were artisans. Of the remaining 6 million,
these included wage-workers for whom "workmen's associations"
would be essential as "a protest against the wage system,"
the "denial of the rule of capitalists" and for "the 
management of large instruments of labour." [_The General
Idea of the Revolution_, pp. 97-8]

To summarise, if the society in which you live is predominately 
made-up of peasants and artisans then it is hardly an insult to 
be called "the socialist of the small peasant or master 
craftsman." Equally, it can hardly represent a desire for "what 
has gone before" to tailor your ideas to the actual conditions 
in the country in which you live! And Stack accuses *anarchists* 
of ignoring "material conditions"! 

Neither can it be said that Proudhon ignored the development 
of industrialisation in France during his lifetime. Quite the 
reverse, in fact, as indicated above. Proudhon did *not*
ignore the rise of large-scale industry. He argued that
such industry should be managed by the workers' themselves
via workers associations. As he put it, "certain industries"
required "the combined employment of a large number of
workers" and so the producer is "a collectivity." In such
industries "we have no choice" and so "it is necessary to
form an *association* among the workers" because "without
that they would remain related as subordinates and superiors,
and there would ensue two industrial castes of masters and
wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic
society." [Op. Cit., pp. 215-6]

All in all, Stack is simply showing his ignorance of both 
Proudhon's ideas *and* the society (the "material conditions") 
in which they were shaped and were aimed for. As can be seen,
Proudhon incorporated the development of large-scale industry
within his mutualist ideas and so the need to abolish wage
labour by workers' associations and workers' control of
production. Perhaps Stack can fault Proudhon for seeking the 
end of capitalism too soon and for not waiting patiently will 
it developed further (if he does, he will also have to attack 
Marx, Lenin and Trotsky as well for the same failing!), but 
this has little to do with "yearn[ing] for what has gone before."

After distorting Proudhon's ideas on industry, Stack does the same
with Bakunin. He asserts the following:

"Similarly, the Russian anarchist leader Bakunin argued that it 
was the progress of capitalism that represented the fundamental 
problem. For him industrialisation was an evil. He believed it 
had created a decadent western Europe, and therefore had held 
up the more primitive, less industrialised Slav regions as the 
hope for change."

Now, it would be extremely interesting to find out where, exactly,
Stack discovered that Bakunin made these claims. After all, they
are at such odds with Bakunin's anarchist ideas that it is temping 
to conclude that Stack is simply making it up. This, we suggest, 
explains the total lack of references for such an outrageous 
claim. Looking at his main source, we discover Paul Avrich 
writing that "[i]n 1848" (i.e. nearly 20 years *before* Bakunin 
became an anarchist!) Bakunin "spoke of the decadence of Western 
Europe and saw hope in the primitive, less industrialised Slavs 
for the regeneration of the Continent." [Op. Cit., p. 8] The
plagiarism, again, is obvious, as are the distortions. Given
that Bakunin became an anarchist in the mid-1860s, how his
pre-anarchist ideas are relevant to an evaluation of anarchism
escapes logic. It makes as much sense as quoting Marx to refute
fascism as Mussolini was originally the leader of the left-wing
of the Italian Socialist Party! 

It is, of course, simple to refute Stack's claims. We simply 
need to do that which he does not, namely quote Bakunin. For 
someone who thought "industrialisation was an evil," a key
aspect of Bakunin's ideas on social revolution was the seizing
of industry and its placing under social ownership. As he put
it, "capital and all tools of labour belong to the city 
workers -- to the workers associations. The whole organisation
of the future should be nothing but a free federation of workers
-- agricultural workers as well as factory workers and 
associations of craftsmen." [_The Political Philosophy of
Bakunin_, p. 410] Bakunin argued that "to destroy . . . all the 
instruments of labour . . . would be to condemn all humanity -- 
wwhich is infinity too numerous today to exist. . . on the simple 
gifts of  nature. . . -- to. . . death by starvation. Thus
capital cannot and must not be destroyed. It must be preserved." 
Only when workers "obtain not individual but *collective* 
property in capital" and when capital is no longer 
"concentrated in the hands of a separate, exploiting class" 
will they be able "to smash the tyranny of capital." [_The 
Basic Bakunin_, pp. 90-1] He stressed that only "associated
labour, this is labour organised upon the principles of
reciprocity and co-operation, is adequate to the task of
maintaining the existence of a large and somewhat civilised
society." Moreover, the "whole secret of the boundless 
productivity of human labour consists first of all in
applying . . . scientifically developed reason . . . and
then in the division of that labour." [_The Political
Philosophy of Bakunin_, pp. 341-2] Hardly the thoughts of
someone opposed to industrialisation!

Rather than oppose industrialisation and urge the destruction
of industry, Bakunin considered one of the first acts of the 
revolution would be workers' associations taking over the means 
of production and turning them into collective property managed 
by the workers themselves. Hence Daniel Guerin's comment: 

"Proudhon and Bakunin were 'collectivists,' which is to say they 
declared themselves without equivocation in favour of the common 
exploitation, not by the State but by associated workers of the 
large-scale means of production and of the public services. 
Proudhon has been quite wrongly presented as an exclusive 
enthusiast of private property." ["From Proudhon to Bakunin", 
_The Radical Papers_, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.), p.32]

Clearly, Stack does not have the faintest idea of what he is
talking about! Nor is Kropotkin any safer than Proudhon or 
Bakunin from Stack's distortions. He claims that:

"Peter Kropotkin, another famous anarchist leader to emerge in 
Russia, also looked backwards for change. He believed the ideal 
society would be based on small autonomous communities, devoted 
to small scale production. He had witnessed such communities 
among Siberian peasants and watchmakers in the Swiss mountains."

First, we must note the plagiarism. Stack is summarising Paul 
Avrich's summary of Kropotkin's ideas. [_Anarchist Portraits_,
p. 62] Rather than go to the source material, Stack provides an
interpretation of someone else's interpretation of someone else's
ideas! Clearly, the number of links in the chain means that
something is going to get lost in the process and, of course,
it does. The something which "gets lost" is, unfortunately, 
Kropotkin's ideas.
 
Ultimately, Stack is simply showing his total ignorance of Kropotkin's 
ideas by making such a statement. At least Avrich expanded upon his
summary to mention that Kropotkin's positive evaluation of using
modern technology and the need to apply it on an appropriate level 
to make work and the working environment as pleasant as possible. 
As Avrich summarises, "[p]laced in small voluntary workshops, 
machinery would rescue human beings from the monotony and toil
of large-scale capitalist enterprise, allow time for leisure
and cultural pursuits, and remove forever the stamp of inferiority
traditionally borne by manual labour." [Op. Cit., p. 63] Hardly
"backward looking" to desire the application of science and
technology to transform the industrial system into one based on
the needs of people rather than profit!

Stack must be hoping that the reader has, like himself, not read 
Kropotkin's classic work _Fields, Factories and Workshops_ for if 
they have then they would be aware of the distortion Stack subjects 
Kropotkin's ideas to. While Avrich does present, in general, a
reasonable summary of Kropotkin's ideas, he does place it into 
a framework of his own making. Kropotkin while stressing the
importance of decentralising industry within a free society
did not look backward for his inspiration. Rather, he looked
to trends within existing society, trends he thought pointed
in an anti-capitalist direction. This can be seen from the fact
he based his classic work _Field, Factories and Workshops_ on 
detailed analysis of current developments in the economy and 
came to the conclusion that industry would spread across the 
global (which has happened) and that small industries will 
continue to exist side by side with large ones (which also 
has been confirmed). From these facts he argued that a 
socialist society would aim to decentralise production, 
combining agriculture with industry and both using modern 
technology to the fullest. 

As we discuss the fallacy that Kropotkin (or anarchists in
general) have argued for "small autonomous communities, 
devoted to small scale production" in section I.3.8, we
will not do so here. Suffice to say, Kropotkin's vision 
was one of federations of decentralised communities in
which production would be based on the "scattering of 
industries over the country -- so as to bring the factory 
amidst the fields . . . agriculture . . . combined with 
industry . . . to produce a combination of industrial with 
agricultural work." He considered this as "surely the next 
step to be made, as soon as a reorganisation of our present 
conditions is possible." Indeed, he though that this step
"is imposed by the very necessity of *producing for the
producers themselves.*" Kropotkin attempted to show, based 
on a detailed analysis of modern economic statistics and 
trends, a vision of a decentralised, federated communal 
society  where "the workers" were "the real managers of 
industries" and what this would imply once society was
free of capitalism. Needless to say, he did not think
that this "next step" would occur until "a reorganisation
of our present conditions [was] possible." [_Fields, 
Factories and Workshops Tomorrow_, pp. 157-8] In other
words, until after a social revolution which expropriated 
industry and the land and placed social wealth into the 
hands of the producers. Until then, the positive trends he 
saw in modern society would remain circumcised by the 
workings of the capitalist market. 

He did not, as is often asserted, argue for "small-scale 
production" (he still saw the need for factories, for 
example) but rather for production geared to *appropriate*
levels, based on the objective needs of production (without
the distorting effects generated by the needs of capitalist
profits and power) and, of necessity, the needs of those
who work in and live alongside industry (and today we
would add, the needs of the environment). In other words, 
the transformation of capitalism into a society human 
beings could live full and meaningful lives in. Part of 
this would involve creating an industry based on human 
needs. "Have the factory and the workshop at the gates 
of your fields and gardens and work in them," he argued. 
"Not those large establishments, of course, in which huge 
masses of metals have to be dealt with and which are better 
placed at certain spots indicated by Nature, but the countless
variety of workshops and factories which are required to
satisfy the infinite diversity of tastes among civilised
men [and women]." The new factories and workplaces would
be "airy and hygienic, and consequently economical, . . .
in which human life is of more account than machinery and
the making of extra profits." [Op. Cit., p. 197] Under 
capitalism, he argued, the whole discourse of economics 
(like industrial development itself) was based on the 
logic and rationale of the profit motive:

"Under the name of profits, rent and interest upon capital,
surplus value, and the like, economists have eagerly
discussed the benefits which the owners of land or capital,
or some privileged nations, can derive, either from the
under-paid work of the wage-labourer, or from the
inferior position of one class of the community towards
another class, or from the inferior economical development
of one nation towards another nation. . . 

"In the meantime the great question -- 'What have we to
produce, and how?' necessarily remained in the background
. . . The main subject of social economy -- that is, the
*economy of energy required for the satisfaction of human
needs* -- is consequently the last subject which one
expects to find treated in a concrete form in economical
treatises." [Op. Cit., p. 17]

Kropotkin's ideas were, therefore, an attempt to discuss
how a post-capitalist society could develop, based on an
extensive investigation of current trends within capitalism,
and reflecting the needs which capitalism ignores. As noted 
above, current trends within capitalism have positive 
(socialistic) and negative (capitalistic) aspects as 
capitalist industry has not developed neutrally (it has 
been distorted by the twin requirements to maintain 
capitalist profits and power). 

For this reason Kropotkin considered the concentration of 
capital (which most Marxists base their arguments for 
socialism on) did not, in fact, represent an advance for
socialism as it was "often nothing but an amalgamation of 
capitalists for the purpose of *dominating the market*, 
not for cheapening the technical process." [_Fields, 
Factories and Workshops Tomorrow_, p. 154] Indeed, by
basing themselves on the trends of capital towards big
business, Leninism simply locks itself into the logic
of capitalism and, by implication, sees a socialist 
society which will basically be the same as capitalism, 
using the technology, industrial structure and industry 
developed under class society without change. After all, 
did Lenin not argue that "Socialism is merely state 
capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people"? 

Rather than condemn Kropotkin, Stack's comments (and those
like them) simply show the poverty of the Leninist critique 
of capitalism and its vision of the socialist future.

All in all, anyone who claims that anarchism is "backward looking"
or "yearns for the past" simply has no idea what they are talking
about.

H.2.4 Do anarchists think "the state is the main enemy" rather 
      than just "one aspect" of class society?

Pat Stack argues that "the idea that dominates anarchist thought" 
is "that the state is the main enemy, rather than identifying the 
state as one aspect of a class society that has to be destroyed."
["Anarchy in the UK?", _Socialist Review_, no. 246]] Paul Thomas
states that "Anarchists insist that the basis source of social
injustice is the state." [_Karl Marx and the Anarchists_, p. 2] 

On the face of it, such assertions make little sense. After
all, was not the first work by the first self-declared anarchist
called _What is Property?_ and contain the revolutionary maxim
"property is theft"? Surely this fact alone would be enough to 
put to rest the notion that anarchists view the state as the
main problem in the world? Obviously not. Flying in the face
of this well known fact as well as anarchist theory, Marxists 
have constantly repeated the falsehood that anarchists consider
the state as the main enemy. Indeed, Stack and Thomas are simply 
repeating an earlier assertion by Engels:

"Bakunin has a peculiar theory of his own, a medley of Proudhonism
and communism. The chief point concerning the former is that he
does not regard capital, i.e. the class antagonism between
capitalists and wage workers which has arisen through social
development, but the *state* as the main enemy to be abolished.
. . . our view [is] that state power is nothing more than the
organisation which the ruling classes -- landowners and capitalists
-- have provided for themselves in order to protect their social
privileges, Bakunin [on the other hand] maintains that it is the
*state* which has created capital, that the capitalist has his
capital *only be the grace of the state.* As, therefore, the
state is the chief evil, it is above all the state which must
be done away with and then capitalism will go to blazes of
itself. We, on the contrary, say: Do away with capital, the
concentration of all means of production in the hands of a
few, and the state will fall of itself. The difference is an
essential one . . . the abolition of capital *is* precisely
the social revolution." [Marx, Engels and Lenin, Op. Cit., 
p. 71]

As will come as no surprise, Engels did not bother to indicate 
where he discovered Bakunin's ideas on these matters. Similarly,
his followers raise this kind of assertion as a truism, apparently
without the need for evidence to support the claim. This is
hardly surprising as anarchists, including Bakunin, have expressed 
an idea distinctly at odds with Engels' claims, namely that the 
social revolution would be marked by the abolition of capitalism 
and the state at the same time. That this is the case can be seen 
from John Stuart Mill who, unlike Engels, saw that Bakunin's ideas
meant "not only the annihilation of all government, but getting all 
property of all kinds out of the hands of the possessors to be used 
for the general benefit." ["Chapters on Socialism," _Principles of 
Political Economy_, p. 376] If the great liberal thinker could 
discern this aspect of anarchism, why not Engels? After all, this 
vision of a *social* revolution (i.e. one that combined political, 
social *and* economic goals) occurred continuously throughout 
Bakunin's writings when he was an anarchist. Indeed, to claim that 
he, or anarchists in general, just opposed the state suggests a
total unfamiliarity with anarchist theory. For Bakunin, like all
anarchists, the abolition of the state occurs at the same time
as the abolition of capital. This joint abolition *is* precisely
the social revolution. 

In 1865, for example, we discover Bakunin arguing that anarchists
"seek the destruction of all States" in his "Program of the
Brotherhood." Yet he also argued that a member of this association
"must be socialist" and see that "labour" was the "sole producer
of social assets" and so "anyone enjoying these without working
is an exploiter of another man's labour, a thief." They must also
"understand that there is no liberty in the absence of equality"
and so the "attainment of the widest liberty" is possible only
"amid the most perfect (de jure and de facto) political, 
economic and social equality." The "sole and supreme objective"
of the revolution "will be the effective political, economic
and social emancipation of the people." This was because political
liberty "is not feasible without political equality. And the
latter is impossible without economic and social equality."
This mean that the "land belongs to everyone. But usufruct of
it will belong only to those who till it with their own hands."
As regards industry, "through the unaided efforts and economic
powers of the workers' associations, capital and the instruments
of labour will pass into the possession of those who will apply
them . . . through their own labours." He opposed sexism, for
women are "equal in all political and social rights." Ultimately,
"[n]o revolution could succeed . . . unless it was simultaneously
a political and a social revolution. Any exclusively political
revolution . . . will, insofar as it consequently does not have
the immediate, effective, political and economic emancipation
of the people as its primary objective, prove to be . . . illusory,
phony . . . The revolution should not only be made for the
people's sake: it should also be made by the people and can
never succeed unless it implicates all of the rural as well as
the urban masses" [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, pp. 134-41]

In 1868, Bakunin was arguing the same ideas. The "Association
of the International Brethren seeks simultaneously universal,
social, philosophical, economic and political revolution, so
that the present order of things, rooted in property,
exploitation, domination and the authority principle" will
be destroyed. The "revolution as we understand it will . . .
set about the . . . complete destruction of the State . . .
The natural and necessary upshot of that destruction" will
include the "[d]issolution of the army, magistracy, bureaucracy,
police and clergy" and "[a]ll productive capital and instruments
of labour . . . be[ing] confiscated for the benefit of
toilers associations, which will have to put them to use in
collective production" as well as the "[s]eizure of all Church
and State properties." The "federated Alliance of all labour
associations . . . will constitute the Commune." The people
"must make the revolution everywhere, and . . . ultimate
direction of it must at all times be vested in the people
organised into a free federation of agricultural and
industrial associations . . . organised from the bottom up."
[Op. Cit., pp. 152-6]

As these the words of a person who considered the state as
the "chief evil" or "that the state is the main enemy"? Of
course not, rather Bakunin clearly identified the state as 
one aspect of a class society that has to be destroyed. As
he put it, the "State, which has never had any task other
than to regularise, sanction and . . . protect the rule of
the privileged classes and exploitation of the people's
labour for the rich, must be abolished. Consequently, this
requires that society be organised from the bottom up
through the free formation and free federation of worker
associations, industrial, agricultural, scientific and
artisan alike, . . . founded upon collective ownership of
the land, capital, raw materials and the instruments of
labour, which is to say, all large-scale property . . . 
leaving to private and hereditary possession only those
items that are actually for personal use." [Op. Cit., 
p. 182] 

In summary, rather than seeing the state as the main evil to be 
abolished, Bakunin always stressed that a revolution must be
economic *and* political in nature, that it must ensure political,
economic and social liberty and equality. As such, he argued
for both the destruction of the state and the expropriation of
capital (an act conducted, incidentally, by a federation of
workers' associations or workers' councils). While the apparatus
of the state was being destroyed ("Dissolution of the army, 
magistracy, bureaucracy, police and clergy"), capitalism was
also being uprooted and destroyed ("All productive capital and 
instruments of labour . . . confiscated for the benefit of
toilers associations"). To assert, as Engels did, that Bakunin 
ignored the necessity of abolishing capitalism and the other 
evils of the current system while focusing exclusively on the 
state, is simply distorting his ideas. 

Kropotkin, unsurprisingly, argued along identical lines as
Bakunin. He stressed that "the revolution will burn on until 
it has accomplished its mission: the abolition of property-owning 
and of the State." This revolution, he re-iterated, would be a 
"mass rising up against property and the State." Indeed, Kropotkin 
always stressed that "there is one point to which all socialists 
adhere: the expropriation of capital must result from the coming 
revolution." This mean that "the area of struggle against capital, 
and against the sustainer of capital -- government" could be one 
in which "various groups can act in agreement" and so "any struggle 
that prepares for that expropriation should be sustained in unanimity 
by all the socialist groups, to whatever shading they belong." 
[_Words of a Rebel_, p. 75 and p. 204] Little wonder Kropotkin 
wrote his famous article "Expropriation" on this subject! As he 
put it:

"Expropriation -- that is the guiding word of the coming
revolution, without which it will fail in its historic
mission: the complete expropriation of all those who have
the means of exploiting human beings; the return to the
community of the nation of everything that in the hands of
anyone can be used to exploit others." [Op. Cit., pp. 207-8]

Strange words if Marxist assertions were true. As can be seen,
Kropotkin is simply following Bakunin's ideas on the matter.
He, like Bakunin, was well aware of the evils of capitalism 
and that the state protects these evils: 

"When a workman sells his labour to an employer and knows perfectly well 
that some part of the value of his produce will be unjustly taken by 
the employer; when he sells it without even the slightest guarantee 
of being employed so much as six consecutive months, it is a sad 
mockery to call that a free contract. . .  As long as three-quarters 
of humanity are compelled to enter into agreements of that description, 
force is of course necessary, both to enforce the supposed agreements
and to maintain such a state of things. Force -- and a great deal of 
force -- is necessary to prevent the labourers from taking possession 
of what they consider unjustly appropriated by the few; and force is 
necessary to continually bring new 'uncivilised nations' under the 
same conditions." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 69]

Little wonder he called anarchism "the no-government system of
socialism." [Op. Cit., p. 46] For Kropotkin, the "State is there 
to protect exploitation, speculation and private property; it is 
itself the by-product of the rapine of the people. The proletariat
must rely on his own hands; he can expect nothing of the State. 
It is nothing more than an organisation devised to hinder 
emancipation at all costs." [_Words of a Rebel_, p. 27] Rather
than see the state as the main evil, he clearly saw it as the
protector of capitalism -- in other words, as one aspect of
a class system which needed to be replaced by a better society. 

Similarly with all other anarchists. Emma Goldman, for
example, summarised for all anarchists when she argued that
anarchism "stands for . . . the liberation of the human body
from the domination of property; liberation from the shackles 
and restraint of government." [_Anarchism and Other Essays_,
p. 62] Errico Malatesta in the "Anarchist Programme" he 
drafted listed "Abolition of private property" before 
"Abolition of government" and argued that "the present state of
society" was one in "which some have inherited the land and all
social wealth, while the mass of the people, disinherited in all
respects, is exploited and oppressed by a small possessing class."
It ends by arguing that anarchism wants "the complete destruction
of the domination and exploitation of man by man" and for 
"expropriation of landowners and capitalists for the benefit
of all; and the abolition of government." [_Life and Ideas_, 
p. 184, p. 183, p. 197 and p. 198] Nearly three decades 
previously, we find Malatesta arguing the same idea. As he
put it in 1891, anarchists "struggle for anarchy, and for
socialism, because we believe that anarchy and socialism must
be realised immediately, that is to say that in the revolutionary
act we must drive government away, abolish property . . .
human progress is measured by the extent government power
and private property are reduced." [_Anarchy_, pp. 53-4] He 
stressed that, for "all anarchists," it was definitely a case
that the "abolition of political power is not possible without
the simultaneous destruction of economic privilege." [_Life
and Ideas_, p. 158]

As Brian Morris correctly summarises:

"Another criticism of anarchism is that it has a narrow view 
of politics: that it sees the state as the fount of all evil, 
ignoring other aspects of social and economic life. This is a 
misrepresentation of anarchism. It partly derives from the way 
anarchism has been defined, and partly because Marxist historians 
have tried to exclude anarchism from the broader socialist movement. 
But when one examines the writings of classical anarchists. . .
as well as the character of anarchist movements. . . it is 
clearly evident that it has never had this limited vision.
It has always challenged all forms of authority and exploitation, 
and has been equally critical of capitalism and religion as it 
has been of the state." ["Anthropology and Anarchism," _Anarchy: 
A Journal of Desire Armed_, no. 45, p, p. 40]

All in all, Marxist claims that anarchists view the state as
the "chief evil" or see the destruction of the state as the
"main idea" of anarchism are simply talking nonsense. In 
fact, rather than anarchists having a narrow view of social 
liberation, it is, in fact, Marxists who do so. By concentrating
almost exclusively on the (economic) class source of exploitation,
they blind themselves to other forms of exploitation and
domination that can exist independently of economic class
relationships. This can be seen from the amazing difficulty
that many of them got themselves into when trying to analyse
the Stalinist regime in Russia. Anarchists are well aware that
the state is just one aspect of the current class system. We
just recognise that all the evils of that system must be 
destroyed at the same time to ensure a *social* revolution
rather than just a change in who the boss is. 

H.2.5 Do anarchists think "full blown" socialism will be 
      created overnight?

Another area in which Marxists misrepresent anarchism is in the 
assertion that anarchists believe a completely socialist society 
(an ideal or "utopian" society, in other words) can be created 
"overnight." As Marxist Bertell Ollman puts it, "[u]nlike 
anarcho-communists, none of us [Marxists] believe that 
communism will emerge full blown from a socialist revolution. 
Some kind of transition and period of indeterminate length for 
it to occur are required." [Bertell Ollman (ed.), _Market 
Socialism: The Debate among Socialists_, p. 177] This assertion, 
while it is common, fails to understand the anarchist vision of 
revolution. We consider it a *process* and not an event -- as 
Malatesta argued, "[b]y revolution we do not mean just the 
insurrectionary act." [_Life and Ideas_, p. 156] 

Once this is understood, the idea that anarchists think
a "full blown" anarchist society will be created "overnight"
is a fallacy. As Murray Bookchin pointed out, "Bakunin,
Kropotkin, Malatesta were not so naive as to believe that
anarchism could be established overnight. In imputing this
notion to Bakunin, Marx and Engels wilfully distorted the
Russian anarchist's views." [_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_,
p. 213]

Indeed, Kropotkin stressed that anarchists "do not believe that in 
any country the Revolution will be accomplished at a stroke, in the 
twinkling of a eye, as some socialists dream." Moreover, "[n]o 
fallacy more harmful has ever been spread than the fallacy of 
a 'One-day Revolution.'" [_The Conquest of Bread_, p. 81] Bakunin
argued that a "more or less prolonged transitional period" would
"naturally follow in the wake of the great social crisis" implied
by social revolution. [_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, 
p. 412] The question, therefore, is not whether there will be
a "transitional" society after a revolution but what *kind*
of transition will it be. 

As such, anarchists are aware that a "full blown" communist 
society will not come about immediately. Rather, the creation of
such a society will be a *process* which the revolution will start
off. As Alexander Berkman put it, "you must not confuse the social 
revolution with anarchy. Revolution, in some of its stages, is a 
violent upheaval; anarchy is a social condition of freedom and 
peace. The revolution is the *means* of bringing anarchy about 
but it is not anarchy itself. It is to pave the road for anarchy, 
to establish condition which will make a life of liberty possible." 
However, the "end shapes the means" and so "to achieve its purpose 
the revolution must be imbued with and directed by the anarchist 
spirit and ideas .  . . the social revolution must be anarchist 
in method as in aim." [_ABC of Anarchism_, p. 81]

In his classic introduction to anarcho-communist ideas, Alexander 
Berkman also acknowledged that "full blown" communism was not 
likely after a successful revolution. "Of course," he argued, 
"when the social revolution has become thoroughly organised and 
production is functioning normally there will be enough for 
everybody. But in the first stages of the revolution, during 
the process of re-construction, we must take care to supply 
the people as best we can, and equally, which means rationing."
[Op. Cit., p. 67] Clearly, in such circumstances "full blown"
communism would be impossible and, unsurprisingly, Berkman
argues that would not exist. However, the principles that
inspire communism and anarchism could be applied immediately.
This meant that both the state and capitalism would be 
abolished. While arguing that "[t]here is no other way of 
securing economic equality, which alone is liberty" than
communist anarchism, he also states that it is "likely . . . 
that a country in social revolution may try various economic
experiments . . . different countries and regions will probably 
try out various methods, and by practical experience learn the 
best way. The revolution is at the same time the opportunity 
and justification for it . . ." Rather that dictate to the 
future, Berkman argued that his "purpose is to suggest, in 
board outline the principles which must animate the revolution, 
the general lines of action it should follow if it is to 
accomplish its aim  -- the reconstruction of society on a 
foundation of freedom and equality." [Op. Cit., p. 80]

As regards Malatesta, he argued along similar lines.
While arguing for the "complete destruction of the
domination and exploitation of man by man" by the
"expropriation of landlords and capitalists for the
benefit of all" and "the abolition of government," he
recognised that in "the post-revolutionary period, in the
period of reorganisation and transition, there might be
'offices for the concentration and distribution of the
capital of collective enterprises', that there might or
might not be titles recording the work done and the 
quantity of goods to which one is entitled." However,
he stressed that this "is something we shall have to wait
and see about, or rather, it is a problem which will have
many and varied solutions according to the system of
production and distribution which will prevail in the
different localities and among the many . . . groupings
that will exist." He argued that while, eventually, all
groups of workers (particularly the peasants) while
eventually "understand the advantages of communism or
at least of the direct exchange of goods for goods,"
this may not happen "in a day." If some kind of money 
was used, then it people should "ensure that [it] truly 
represents the useful work performed by its possessors" 
rather than being "a powerful means of exploitation and 
oppression" is currently is. [_Life and Ideas_, pp. 198-9
and pp. 100-1]

Rather than seeing a "full blown" communist society appearing 
instantly from a revolution, anarcho-communists see a period of 
transition in which the degree of communism in a given community 
or area is dependent on the objective conditions facing it. 
This period of transition would see different forms of social 
experimentation but the desire is to see libertarian communist 
principles as the basis of as much of this experimentation as 
possible. To claim that anarcho-communists ignore reality and 
see communism as being created overnight is simply a distortion 
of their ideas. Rather, they are aware that the development 
towards communism is dependent on local conditions, conditions 
which can only be overcome in time and by the liberated community
re-organising production and extending it as required.

Clearly, our argument contradicts the widely held view that 
anarchists believed an utopian world would be created instantly
after a revolution. Of course, by asserting that anarchists think 
"full blown communism" will occur without some form of transitional
period, Marxists paint a picture of anarchism as simply utopian, 
a theory which ignores objective reality in favour of wishful 
thinking. However, as seen above, such is not the case. Anarchists 
are aware that "full blown communism" is dependent on objective 
conditions and, therefore, cannot be implemented until those 
conditions are meet. Until such time as the objective conditions
are reached, various means of distributing goods, organising and
managing production, and so on will be tried. Such schemes will
be based as far as possible on communistic principles.

Therefore, immediately after a successful revolution a period 
of reconstruction will begin in which society is slowly 
transformed towards "full blown" communism. The speed and
nature of this transformation will, of course, depend on local
conditions and needs. However, unlike Marxists, such a period 
of transition would be based on libertarian and communist
principles. The organisation of society would be anarchist
-- the state would be abolished and replaced by a free
federation of workers and community associations. The economic
structure would be socialist -- production would be based on 
self-managed workplaces and the principles of distribution 
would be as communistic as possible under the existing 
objective conditions.

It also seems strange for Marxists to claim that anarchists
thought a "full blown" communist society was possible "over-night" 
given that anarchists had always stressed the difficulties facing 
a social revolution. Kropotkin, for example, continually stressed 
that a revolution would face extensive economic disruption.
In his words:

"A political revolution can be accomplished without shaking the
foundations of industry, but a revolution where the people lay
hands upon property will inevitably paralyse exchange and 
production . . . This point cannot be too much insisted upon; 
the reorganisation of industry on a new basis . . . cannot be 
accomplished in a few days; nor, on the other hand, will people 
submit to be half starved for years in order to oblige the 
theorists who uphold the wage system. To tide over the period 
of stress they will demand what they have always demanded in 
such cases -- communisation of supplies -- the giving of 
rations." [_The Conquest of Bread_, pp. 72-3]

The basic principles of this "transition" period would, 
therefore, be based on the "socialising of production, 
consumption and exchange." The state would be abolished 
and "federated Communes" would be created. The end of 
capitalism would be achieved by the "expropriation" of 
"everything that enables any man -- be he financier, 
mill-owner, or landlord - - to appropriate the product 
of others' toil." Distribution of goods would be based 
on "no stint or limit to what the community possesses 
in abundance, but equal sharing and dividing of those 
commodities which are scare or apt to run short." [Op. Cit., 
p. 136, p. 61 and p. 76] Clearly, while not "full blown"
communism by any means, such a regime does lay the ground
for its eventual arrival. As Max Nettlau summarised, 
"[n]othing but a superficial interpretation of some of
Kropotkin's observations could lead one to conclude that
anarchist communism could spring into life through an act
of sweeping improvisation, with the waving of a magic
wand." [_A Short History of Anarchism_, p. 80]

This was what happened in the Spanish Revolution, for example.
Different collectives operated in different ways. Some tried
to introduce free communism, some a combination of rationing
and communism, others introduced equal pay, others equalised
pay as much as possible and so on. Over time, as economic 
conditions changed and difficulties developed the collectives
changed their mode of distribution to take them into account.
These collectives indicate well the practical aspects of
anarchist and its desire to accommodate and not ignore reality.

Lastly, and as an aside, it this anarchist awareness of the 
disruptive effects of a revolution on a country's economy which, 
in part, makes anarchists extremely sceptical of pro-Bolshevik
rationales that blame the difficult economic conditions facing 
the Russian Revolution for Bolshevik authoritarianism (see
section H.8.1 for a fuller discussion of this). If, as Kropotkin 
argued, a social revolution inevitably results in massive 
economic disruption then, clearly, Bolshevism should be 
avoided if it cannot handle such inevitable events. In such 
circumstances, centralisation would only aid the disruption, 
not reduce it. This awareness of the problems facing a social 
revolution also led anarchists to stress the importance of 
local action and mass participation. As Kropotkin put it, the 
"immense constructive work demanded by a social revolution 
cannot be accomplished by a central government . . . It has 
need of knowledge, of brains and of the voluntary collaboration
of a host of local and specialised forces which alone can
attack the diversity of economic problems in their local
aspects." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, pp. 255-6]
Without this local action, co-ordinated joint activity would 
remain a dead letter. 

In summary, anarchists acknowledge that *politically* there is 
no transitional period (i.e. the state must be abolished and 
replaced by a free federation of self-managed working class
organisations). Economically anarchists recognise that different 
areas will develop in different ways and so there will be various
economical transitional forms. Rather than seeing "full blown
communism" being the instant result of a socialist revolution,
anarchist-communists actually argue the opposite -- "full blown
communism" will develop only after a successful revolution and
the inevitable period of social reconstruction which comes after
it. A "full blown" communist economy will develop as society becomes
ready for it. What we *do* argue is that any transitional economic
form must be based on the principles of the type of society
it desires. In other words, any transitional period must be
as communistic as possible if communism is your final aim and,
equally, it must be libertarian if your final goal is freedom.

Also see section I.2.2 for further discussion on this issue.

H.2.6 How do Marxists misrepresent Anarchist ideas on mutual aid?

Anarchist ideas on mutual aid are often misrepresented by
Marxists. Looking at Pat Stack's "Anarchy in the UK?" article,
for example, we find a particularly terrible misrepresentation
of Kropotkin's ideas. Indeed, it is so incorrect that it is
either a product of ignorance or a desire to deceive (and
as we shall indicate, it is probably the latter). Here is
Stack's account of Kropotkin's ideas:

"And the anarchist Peter Kropotkin, far from seeing class 
conflict as the dynamic for social change as Marx did, saw 
co-operation being at the root of the social process. He 
believed the co-operation of what he termed 'mutual aid' 
was the natural order, which was disrupted by centralised 
states. Indeed in everything from public walkways and 
libraries through to the Red Cross, Kropotkin felt he was 
witnessing confirmation that society was moving towards 
his mutual aid, prevented only from completing the journey 
by the state. It follows that if class conflict is not the 
motor of change, the working class is not the agent and 
collective struggle not the means." ["Anarchy in the UK?",
_Socialist Review_, no. 246]

There are three issues with Stack's summary. Firstly, Kropotkin 
did not, in fact, reject class conflict as the "dynamic of social 
change" nor reject the working class as its "agent." Secondly, 
all of Stack's examples of "Mutual Aid" do not, in fact, appear 
in Kropotkin's classic book _Mutual Aid_. They do, however, 
appear in other works by Kropotkin's, but *not* as examples 
of "mutual aid." Thirdly, in _Mutual Aid_ Kropotkin discusses
such aspects of working class "collective struggle" as strikes
and unions. All in all, it is Stack's total and utter lack of 
understanding of Kropotkin's ideas which immediately stands 
out from his comments.

As we have discussed how collective, working class direct action,
organisation and solidarity in the class struggle was at the
core of Kropotkin's politics in section H.2.2, we will not do
so here. Rather, we will discuss how Stack lies about Kropotkin's
ideas on mutual aid. As just noted, the examples Stack lists
are not to be found in Kropotkin's classic work _Mutual Aid_.
Now, *if* Kropotkin *had* considered them as examples of "mutual
aid" then he would have listed them in that work. This does
not mean, however, that Kropotkin did not mention these examples.
He does, but in other works (notably his essay _Anarchist
Communism_) and he does *not* use them as examples of mutual 
aid. Just as Stack's examples are not mentioned in _Mutual Aid_, 
so Kropotkin fails to use the words "mutual aid" in his essay 
_Anarchist-Communism: Its Basis and Principles_. Here is 
Kropotkin's own words as regards Stack's "examples":

"We maintain, moreover, not only that communism is a desirable 
state of society, but that the growing tendency of modern
society is precisely towards communism -- free communism -- 
notwithstanding the seemingly contradictory growth of
individualism. In the growth of individualism . . . we see 
merely the endeavours of the individual towards emancipating
himself from the steadily growing powers of capital and the
State. But side by side with this growth we see also . . .  
the latent struggle of the producers of wealth to maintain 
the partial communism of old, as well as to reintroduce 
communist principles in a new shape, as soon as favourable 
conditions permit it. . .  the communist tendency is 
continually reasserting itself and trying to make its way 
into public life. The penny bridge disappears before the
public bridge; and the turnpike road before the free road. The 
same spirit pervades thousands of other institutions. Museums,
free libraries, and free public schools; parks and pleasure 
grounds; paved and lighted streets, free for everybody's use; 
water supplied to private dwellings, with a growing tendency 
towards disregarding the exact amount of it used by the individual;
tramways and railways which have already begun to introduce the 
season ticket or the uniform tax, and will surely go much
further in this line when they are no longer private property: 
all these are tokens showing in what direction further progress is
to be expected. 

"It is in the direction of putting the wants of the individual 
*above* the valuation of the service he has rendered, or might 
render, to society; in considering society as a whole, so 
intimately connected together that a service rendered to any 
individual is a service rendered to the whole society." 
[_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamplets_, pp. 59-60]

As is clear, the examples Stack selects have nothing to do with 
mutual aid in Kropotkin's eyes. Rather, they are examples of 
communistic tendencies within capitalism, empirical evidence
that can be used to not only show that communism can work but
also that it is not a utopian social solution but an expression
of tendencies within society. Simply put, he is using examples
from existing society to show that communism is not impossible.

Similarly with Stack's other examples. Kropotkin argued that:

"we are struck with the infinitesimal part played by government in 
our life. . .  [A] striking feature of our century tells in favour 
of the . . . no-government tendency. It is the steady enlargement of
the field covered by private initiative, and the recent growth of 
large organisations resulting merely and simply from free agreement. 
The railway net of Europe -- a confederation of so many scores of 
separate societies -- and the direct transport of passengers and 
merchandise over so many lines which were built independently and 
federated together, without even so much as a Central Board of 
European Railways, is a most striking instance of what is already 
done by mere agreement. . . . 

"But there also is no lack of free organisations for nobler pursuits. 
One of the noblest achievements of our century is undoubtedly the 
Lifeboat Association. . . . The Hospitals Association and hundreds 
of like organisations, operating on a large scale and covering each 
a wide field, may also be mentioned under this head.  . .  hundreds 
of societies are constituted every day for the satisfaction of some 
of the infinitely varied needs of civilised man. . . in short, there 
is not a single direction in which men exercise their faculties 
without combining together for the accomplishment of some common 
aim. Every day new societies are formed, while every year the old 
ones aggregate together into larger units, federate across the 
national frontiers, and co-operate in some common work. . . One of 
the most remarkable societies which has recently arisen is undoubtedly 
the Red Cross Society . . . 

"These facts -- so numerous and so customary that we pass by without 
even noticing them -- are in our opinion one of the most prominent 
features of the second half of the nineteenth century. The just-mentioned 
organisms grew up so naturally, they so rapidly extended and so easily 
aggregated together, they are such unavoidable outgrowths of the 
multiplication of needs of the civilised man, and they so well replace 
State interference, that we must recognise in them a growing factor of 
our life. Modern progress is really towards the free aggregation of 
free individuals so as to supplant government in all those functions 
which formerly were entrusted to it, and which it mostly performed so 
badly." [Op. Cit., pp. 65-7]

As is clear, Kropotkin was using these examples *not* as expressions
of "mutual aid" but rather as evidence that social life can be organised
without government. Just as with communism, he gave concrete examples
of libertarian tendencies within society to prove the possibility of
an anarchist society. And just like his examples of communistic 
activities within capitalism, his examples of co-operation without
the state are not listed as examples of "mutual aid."

All this would suggest that Stack has either not read Kropotkin's 
works or that he has and consciously decided to misrepresent his 
ideas. In fact, its a combination of the two. Stack (as proven 
by his talk at _Marxism 2001_) gathered his examples of "mutual 
aid" from Paul Avrich's essay "Kropotkin's Ethical Anarchism" 
contained in his _Anarchist Portraits_. As such, he has not
read the source material. Moreover, he simply distorted what
Avrich wrote. In other words, not only has he not read Kropotkin's
works, he consciously decided to misrepresent the secondary
source he used. This indicates the quality of almost all Marxist 
critiques of anarchism.

For example, Avrich correctly notes that Kropotkin did not 
"deny that the 'struggle for existence' played an important
role in the evolution of species. In _Mutual Aid_ he declares 
unequivocally that 'life *is* struggle; and in that struggle
the fittest survive.'" Kropotkin simply argued that co-operation
played a key role in determining who was, in fact, the fittest.
Similarly, Avrich lists many of the same examples Stack presents 
but not in his discussion of Kropotkin's ideas on mutual aid. 
Rather, he correctly lists them in his discussion of how 
Kropotkin saw examples of anarchist communism in modern
society and was "manifesting itself 'in the thousands of
developments of modern life.'" This did not mean that Kropotkin 
did not see the need for a social revolution, quite the reverse. 
As Avrich notes, Kropotkin "did not shrink from the necessity 
of revolution" as he "did not expect the propertied classes 
to give up their privileges and possession without a fight." 
This "was to be a *social* revolution, carried out by the 
masses themselves" achieved by means of "expropriation" of
social wealth. [Paul Avrich, _Anarchist Portraits_, p. 58, 
p. 62 and p. 66]

So much for Stack's claims. As can be seen, they are not only
a total misrepresentation of Kropotkin's work, they are also
a distortion of his source! 
 A few more points need to be raised on this subject. 

Firstly, Kropotkin never claimed that mutual aid "was the natural 
order." Rather, he stressed that Mutual Aid was (to use the 
subtitle of his book on the subject) "a factor of evolution." 
Never denying the importance of struggle or competition as a 
means of survival, he argued that co-operation within a species
was the best means for it to survive in a hostile environment.
This applied to life under capitalism. In the hostile environment
of class society, then the only way in which working class people
could survive would be to practice mutual aid (in other words,
solidarity). Little wonder, then, that Kropotkin listed strikes
and unions as expressions of mutual aid in capitalist society.
Moreover, if we take Stack's arguments at face value, then he
clearly is arguing that solidarity is not an important factor
in the class struggle and that mutual aid and co-operation 
cannot change the world! Hardly what you would expect a socialist
to argue. In other words, his inaccurate diatribe against 
Kropotkin backfires on his own ideas.

Secondly, Stack's argument that Kropotkin argued that co-operation
was the natural order is in contradiction with his other claims
that anarchism "despises the collectivity" and "dismiss[es] the 
importance of the collective nature of change." How can you have
co-operation without forming a collective? And, equally, surely
support for co-operation clearly implies the recognition of the
"collective nature of change"? Moreover, if Stack had bothered
to *read* Kropotkin's classic he would have been aware that he
listed both unions and strikes as expressions of "mutual aid" 
(a fact, of course, which would undermine Stack's argument that
anarchists reject collective working class struggle and 
organisation). 

Thirdly, _Mutual Aid_ is primarily a work of popular science 
and not a work on revolutionary anarchist theory like, say, 
_The Conquest of Bread_ or _Words of a Rebel_. As such, it
does not present a full example of Kropotkin's revolutionary
ideas and how mutual aid fits into them. However, it does
present some insights on the question of social progress
which indicate that he did not think that "co-operation" 
was "at the root of the social process," as Stack claims.
For example, he notes that "[w]hen Mutual Aid institutions
. . . began . . . to lose their primitive character, to be
invaded by parasitic growths, and thus to become hindrances
to process, the revolt of individuals against these institutions
took always two different aspects. Part of those who rose up
strove to purify the old institutions, or to work out a
higher form of commonwealth." But at the same time, others
"endeavoured to break down the protective institutions of
mutual support, with no other intention but to increase their
own wealth and their own powers." In this conflict "lies the
real tragedy of history." He also noted that the mutual aid 
tendency "continued to live in the villages and among the 
poorer classes in the towns." Indeed, "in so far as" as new 
"economical and social institutions" were "a creation of the 
masses" they "have all originated from the same source" of 
mutual aid. [_Mutual Aid_, pp. 18-9 and p. 180]

Kropotkin was well aware that mutual aid (or solidarity) 
could not be applied between classes in a class society.
Indeed, his chapters on mutual aid under capitalism 
contain the strike and union. As he put it in an earlier
work:

"What solidarity can exist between the capitalist and the
worker he exploits? Between the head of an army and the
soldier? Between the governing and the governed?" [_Words
of a Rebel_, p. 30]

In summary, Stack's assertions about Kropotkin's theory of
"Mutual Aid" are simply false. He simply distorts the source
material and shows a total ignorance of Kropotkin's work (which
he obviously has not bothered to read before criticising it).
A truthful account of "Mutual Aid" would involve recognising
that Kropotkin show it being expressed in both strikes and
labour unions and that he saw solidarity between working 
people as the means of not only surviving within the hostile
environment of capitalism but also as the basis of a mass
revolution which would end it. 

H.2.7 Who do anarchists see as their "agents of social change"?

It is often charged, usually without any evidence, that
anarchists do not see the working class as the "agent"
of the social revolution. Pat Stack, for example, states
"the failure of anarchism [is] to understand the centrality 
of the working class itself." He argues that for Marx, "the 
working class would change the world and in the process 
change itself. It would become the agent for social advance 
and human liberty." For Bakunin, however, "skilled artisans 
and organised factory workers, far from being the source of 
the destruction of capitalism, were 'tainted by pretensions 
and aspirations'. Instead Bakunin looked to those cast aside 
by capitalism, those most damaged, brutalised and marginalised. 
The lumpen proletariat, the outlaws, the 'uncivilised, 
disinherited, illiterate', as he put it, would be his agents 
for change." ["Anarchy in the UK?", _Socialist Review_, no. 
246] He fails to provide any references for his accusations. 
This is unsurprising, as to do so would mean that the reader 
could check for themselves the validity of Stack's claims.

Take, for example, the quote "uncivilised, disinherited, 
illiterate" Stack uses as evidence. This expression is
from an essay written by Bakunin in 1872 and which expressed
what he considered the differences between his ideas and
those of Marx. The quote can be found on page 294 of
_Bakunin on Anarchism_. On the previous page, we discover
Bakunin arguing that "for the International to be a real
power, it must be able to organise within its ranks the
immense majority of the proletariat of Europe, of America,
of all lands." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 293] This is
the context in which Bakunin made the comments Stack quotes.
As such, he clearly is quoting out of context in terms of
Bakunin's article. Moreover, as we will indicate, Stack's
also quotes them outside the historical context as well as
Bakunin's ideas taken as a whole.

Let us begin with Bakunin's views on "skilled artisans and 
organised factory workers." In _Statism and Anarchy_, for 
example, we discover Bakunin arguing that the "proletariat 
. . . must enter the International [Workers' Association] 
en masse, form factory, artisan, and agrarian sections, and 
unite them into local federations" for "the sake of its own
liberation." [_Statism and Anarchy_, p. 51] This perspective
is the predominant one in Bakunin's ideas. For example, he
argued that anarchists saw "the new social order" being
"attained . . . through the social (and therefore
anti-political) organisation and power of the working
masses of the cities and villages." He argued that "only
the trade union sections can give their members  . . .
practical education and consequently only they can draw 
into the organisation of the International the masses of 
the proletariat, those masses without whose practical
co-operation . . . the Social Revolution will never be
able to triumph." The International, in Bakunin's words,
"organises the working masses . . .  from the bottom
up" and that this was "the proper aim of the organisation
of trade union sections." He stressed that revolutionaries
must "[o]rganise the city proletariat in the name of
revolutionary Socialism . . . [and] unite it into one
preparatory organisation together with the peasantry."
[_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 300, p. 310, 
p. 319 and p. 378]

This support for organised workers and artisans can also be 
seen from the rest of the essay in which Bakunin discusses 
the "flower of the proletariat." He goes on to discuss the 
policy that the _International Workingmen's Association_ 
should follow (i.e. the organised revolutionary workers).
He argued that its "sections and federations [must be]
free to develop its own policies . . . [to] attain real
unity, basically economic, which will necessarily lead to 
real political unity . . . The foundation for the unity of 
the International . . . has already been laid by the common 
sufferings, interests, needs, and real aspirations of the 
workers of the whole world." He stressed that "the 
International has been . . . the work of the proletariat 
itself . . . It was their keen and profound instinct as 
workers . . . which impelled them to find the principle
and true purpose of the International. They took the common 
needs  already in existence as the foundation and saw the
*international organisation of economic conflict against 
capitalism* as the true objective of this association. In 
giving it exclusively this base and aim, the workers at 
once established the entire power of the International. 
They opened  wide the gates to all the millions of the 
oppressed and exploited." The International, as well as 
"organising local, national and international strikes" 
and "establishing national and international trade unions," 
would discuss "political and philosophical questions." The 
workers "join the International for one very practical purpose:
solidarity in the struggle for full economic rights against the 
oppressive exploitation by the bourgeoisie." [_Bakunin on 
Anarchism_, pp. 297-8, pp. 298-9 and pp. 301-2]

All this, needless to say, makes a total mockery of Stack's claim 
that Bakunin did not see "skilled artisans and organised factory 
workers" as "the source of the destruction of capitalism" and 
"agents for change." Indeed, it is hard to find a greater
distortion of Bakunin's ideas. Rather than dismiss "skilled 
artisans" and "organised factory workers" Bakunin desired to 
organise them along with agricultural workers into unions and 
get these unions to affiliate to the _International Workers' 
Association_. He argued again and again that the working class, 
organised in workers associations, were the means of making a 
revolution (i.e. "the source of the destruction of capitalism," 
to quote Stack). 

Only in *this* context can we understand Bakunin's comments 
as any apparent contradiction generated by quoting out of
context is quickly solved by looking at Bakunin's work. This 
reference to the "uncivilised, disinherited, illiterate" comes 
from a polemic against Marx. From the context, it can quickly 
be seen that by these terms Bakunin meant the bulk of the 
working class. In his words:

"To me the flower of the proletariat is not, as it is to the 
Marxists, the upper layer, the aristocracy of labour, those 
who are the most cultured, who earn more and live more 
comfortably that all the other workers. Precisely this 
semi-bourgeois layer of workers would, if the Marxists
had their way, constitute their *fourth governing class.*
This could indeed happen if the great mass of the proletariat
does not guard against it. By virtue of its relative well-being 
and semi-bourgeois position, this upper layer of workers is 
unfortunately only too deeply saturated with all the political 
and social prejudices and all the narrow aspirations and 
pretensions of the bourgeoisie. Of all the proletariat, this 
upper layer is the least socialist, the most individualist.

"By the *flower of the proletariat*, I mean above all that great 
mass, those millions of the uncultivated, the disinherited, the 
miserable, the illiterates . . . I mean precisely that eternal 
'meat' (on which governments thrive), that great *rabble of the 
people* (underdogs, 'dregs of society') ordinarily designated by 
Marx and Engels by the phrase . . . Lumpenproletariat" [_Bakunin 
on Anarchism_, p. 294]

Thus Bakunin contrasted a "semi-bourgeois" layer to the "great 
mass of the proletariat." In a later work, _Statism and Anarchy_, 
Bakunin makes the same point. He argues there was "a special 
category of relatively affluent workers, earning higher wages,
boasting of their literary capacities and . . . impregnated
by a variety of bourgeois prejudices . . . in Italy . . . 
they are insignificant in number and influence . . . In Italy 
it is the extremely poor proletariat that predominates. Marx 
speaks disdainfully, but quite unjustly, of this 
*Lumpenproletariat.* For in them, and only in them, and not 
in the bourgeois strata of workers, are there crystallised 
the entire intelligence and power of the coming Social 
Revolution." [Op. Cit., p. 334] Again it is clear that 
Bakunin is referring to a small minority within the working 
class and *not* dismissing the working class as a whole. He 
explicitly pointed to the "*bourgeois-influenced* minority
of the urban proletariat" and contrasted this minority to 
"the mass of the proletariat, both rural and urban." 
[_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 254]

Clearly, Stack is distorting Bakunin's ideas on this subject 
when he claims that Bakunin thought *all* workers were "tainted 
by pretensions and aspirations." In fact, like Marx, Engels 
and Lenin, Bakunin differentiated between different types of 
workers. This did not mean he rejected organised workers or 
skilled artisans nor the organisation of working people into 
revolutionary unions, quite the reverse. As can be seen, 
Bakunin argued there was a group of workers who accepted 
bourgeois society and did relatively well under it. It was 
*these* workers who were "frequently no less egoistic than 
bourgeois exploiters, no less pernicious to the International 
than bourgeois socialists, and no less vain and ridiculous 
than bourgeois nobles." [_The Basic Bakunin_, p. 108] It is 
comments like this that Marxists quote out of context and 
use for their claims that Bakunin did not see the working 
class as the agent of social change. However, rather than 
refer to the whole working class, Stack quotes Bakunin's 
thoughts in relation to a minority strata within it. Clearly, 
from the context, Bakunin *did not* mean *all* working class 
people. 

Also, let us not forget the historical context. After all,
when Bakunin was writing, the vast majority of the working 
population across the world was, in fact, illiterate and
disinherited. To get some sort of idea of the numbers of 
working people who would have been classed as "the 
uncultivated, the disinherited, the miserable, the 
illiterates" we have to provide some numbers. In Spain, 
for example, "in 1870, something like 60 per cent of the 
population was illiterate." [Gerald Brenan, _The Spanish 
Labyrinth_, p. 50] In Russia, in 1897 (i.e. 21 years after 
Bakunin's death), "only 21% of the total population of 
European Russia was literate. This was mainly because of 
the appallingly low rate of literacy in the countryside -- 
17% compared to 45% in the towns." [S.A. Smith, _Red 
Petrograd_, p. 34] Stack, in effect, is excluding the 
majority of the working masses from the working class 
movement *and* the revolution in the 1860-70s by his 
comments. Little wonder Bakunin said what he said. By 
ignoring the historical context (as he ignores the context 
of Bakunin's comments), Stack misleads the reader and 
presents a distinctly distorted picture of Bakunin's 
thought.

In other words, Bakunin's comments on the "flower of the
proletariat" apply to the majority of the working class 
during his lifetime and for a number of decades afterwards
and *not* to an underclass, not to what Marx termed the 
"lumpenproletariat". As proven above, Bakunin's idea of 
what the "lumpenproletariat" is not what Marxists mean by 
the term. If Bakunin had meant the same as Marx by the 
"lumpenproletariat" then this would not make sense as the 
"lumpenproletariat" for Marx were not wage workers. This 
can best be seen when he argues that the International
must organise this "flower of the proletariat" and conduct 
economic collective struggle against the capitalist class. 
In his other works (and in the specific essay these quotes
are derived from) Bakunin stressed the need to organise all 
workers and peasants into unions to fight the state and bosses 
and his arguments that workers associations should not only
be the means to fight capitalism but also the framework of 
an anarchist society. Clearly, Sam Dolgoff's summary of 
Bakunin's ideas on this subject is the correct one:

"Bakunin's *Lumpenproletariat* . . . was broader than Marx's, 
since it included all the submerged classes: unskilled, 
unemployed, and poor workers, poor peasant proprietors, 
landless agricultural labourers, oppressed racial minorities, 
alienated and idealistic youth, declasse intellectuals, and 
'bandits' (by whom Bakunin meant insurrectionary 'Robin Hoods' 
like Pugachev, Stenka Razin, and the Italian Carbonari)." 
["Introduction", _Bakunin on Anarchism_, pp. 13-4]

Nor is Stack the only anarchist to make such arguments as
regards Bakunin. Paul Thomas quotes Bakunin arguing that the 
working class "remains socialist without knowing it" because 
of "the very force of its position" and "all the conditions 
of its material existence" and then, incredulously, adds that 
"[i]t is for this reason that Bakunin turned away from the 
proletariat and its scientific socialism" towards the 
peasantry. [_Karl Marx and the Anarchists_, p. 291] A more
distorted account of Bakunin's ideas would be hard to find (and
there is a lot of competition for that particular honour). The
quotes Thomas provides are from Bakunin's "The Policy of the
International" in which he discusses his ideas on how the
International Working-Men's Association should operate (namely
"the collective struggle of the workers against the bosses"). 
At the time (and for some time after) Bakunin called himself 
a revolutionary socialist and argued that by class struggle,
the worker would soon "recognise himself [or herself] to be
a revolutionary socialist, and he [or she] will act like
one." [_The Basic Bakunin_, p. 103] As such, the argument
that the social position workers are placed makes them 
"socialist without knowing" does not, in fact, imply that
Bakunin thought they would become Marxists ("scientific
socialism") and, therefore, he turned against them. Rather,
it meant that, for Bakunin, anarchist ideas were a product
of working class life and it was a case of turning instinctive
feelings into conscious thought by collective struggle. As 
noted above, Bakunin did not "turn away" from these ideas nor 
the proletariat. Indeed, Bakunin held to the importance of 
organising the proletariat (along with artisans and peasants)
to the end of his life. Quite simply, Thomas is distorting 
Bakunin's ideas.

Lastly, we have to point out a certain irony (and hypocrisy) in 
Marxist attacks on Bakunin on this subject. This is because Marx, 
Engels and Lenin held similar views on the corrupted "upper strata" 
of the working class as Bakunin did. Indeed, Marxists have a
specific term to describe this semi-bourgeois strata of workers,
namely the "labour aristocracy." Marx, for example, talked about
the trade unions in Britain being "an aristocratic minority"
and the "great mass of workers . . . has long been outside"
them (indeed, "the most wretched mass has never belonged.")
[Marx-Engels, _Collected Works_, vol. 22, p. 614] 

Engels also talked about "a small, privileged, 'protected' minority"
within the working class, which he also called "the working-class
aristocracy." [Op. Cit., vol. 27, p. 320 and p. 321] Lenin quotes
him arguing that the "English proletariat is actually becoming
more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations
is apparently aiming at the possession of . . . a bourgeois 
proletariat *alongside* the bourgeoisie." [quoted by Lenin, 
_Collected Works_, vol. 22, p. 283] Like Lenin, Engels explained
this by the dominant position of Britain within the world market.
Indeed, Lenin argued that "a section of the British proletariat
becomes bourgeois." For Lenin, imperialist "superprofits" make it
"*possible to bribe* the labour leaders and the upper stratum of
the labour aristocracy." This "stratum of workers-turned-bourgeois,
or the labour aristocracy, who are quite philistine in their
mode of life, in the size of their earnings and in their entire
outlook . . . are the real *agents of the bourgeoisie in the
working-class* movement, the labour lieutenants of the capitalist
class." [Op. Cit., p. 284 and p. 194]

As can be seen, this is similar to Bakunin's ideas and, ironically 
enough, nearly identical to Stack's distortion of those ideas 
(particularly in the case of Marx). However, only someone with a 
desire to lie would suggest that any of them dismissed the working 
class as their "agent of change" based on this selective quoting. 
Unfortunately, that is what Stack does with Bakunin. Ultimately,
Stack's comments seem hypocritical in the extreme attacking 
Bakunin while remaining quiet on the near identical comments 
of his heroes.

All in all, once a historic and textual context is placed on
Bakunin's words, it is clear which social class was considered
as the social revolution's "agents of change": the working class
(i.e. wage workers, artisans, peasants and so on). In this,
other revolutionary anarchists follow him. For anarchists, the
social revolution will be made by the working class. Ultimately,
for anyone to claim that Bakunin, for any social anarchist,
rejects the working class as an agent of social change simply
shows their ignorance of the politics they are trying to attack.

H.2.8 What is the relationship of anarchism to syndicalism?

One of the most common Marxist techniques when they discuss
anarchism is to contrast the likes of Bakunin and Kropotkin 
to the revolutionary syndicalists. The argument runs along 
the lines that "classical" anarchism is individualistic and 
rejects working class organisation and power and syndicalism 
is a step forward from it (i.e. a step closer to Marxism). 
Sadly, such arguments simply show the ignorance of the author
rather than any form of factual basis. When the ideas of
revolutionary anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin are
compared to revolutionary syndicalism, the similarities are
soon discovered. 

This kind of argument can be found in Pat Stack's essay "Anarchy 
in the UK?" After totally distorting the ideas of anarchists like 
Bakunin and Kropotkin, Stack argues that anarcho-syndicalists 
"tended to look to the spontaneity and anti-statism of anarchism, 
the economic and materialist analysis of Marxism, and the 
organisational tools of trade unionism. Practically every serious 
anarchist organisation came from or leant on this tradition . . . 
The huge advantage they 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." [_Socialist Review_, no. 246]

Given that Stack's claims that anarchists reject the "need for
collective action," do not understand "the power of the working
class" and the "centrality" of the workplace are simply inventions, 
it would suggest that Stack's "huge advantage" does not, in fact, 
exist and is pure nonsense. Bakunin, Kropotkin and all revolutionary 
anarchists, as proven in section H.2.2, already understood all this 
and based their politics on the need for collective working class 
struggle at the point of production. As such, by contrasting 
anarcho-syndicalism with anarchism (as expressed by the likes of
Bakunin and Kropotkin) Stack simply shows his utter and total
ignorance of his subject matter.

Moreover, if he bothered to read the works of the likes of Bakunin 
and Kropotkin he would discover that many of their ideas were
identical to those of revolutionary syndicalism. For example,
Bakunin argued that the "organisation of the trade sections, 
their federation in the International, and their representation 
by Chambers of Labour, . . . [allow] the workers  . . . [to] 
combin[e] theory and practice . . . [and] bear in themselves 
the living germs of *the social order*, which is to replace the 
bourgeois world. They are creating not only the ideas but also 
the facts of the future itself." [quoted by Rudolf Rocker, 
_Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 45] Like the syndicalists, he argued 
"the natural organisation of the masses . . . is organisation 
based on the various ways that their various types of work 
define their day-to-day life; it is organisation by trade 
association" and once "every occupation . . . is represented
within the International [Working-Men's Association], its
organisation, the organisation of the masses of the people
will be complete." Moreover, Bakunin stressed that the working 
class had "but a single path, that of *emancipation through
practical action*" which meant "workers' solidarity in their 
struggle against the bosses" by "*trades-unions, organisation, 
and the federation of resistance funds*" [_The Basic Bakunin_, 
p. 139 and p. 103]

Like the syndicalists, Bakunin stressed working class self-activity
and control over the class struggle:

"Toilers count no longer on anyone but yourselves. Do not demoralise
and paralyse your growing strength by being duped into alliances
with bourgeois Radicalism . . . Abstain from all participation in
bourgeois Radicalism and organise outside of it the forces of the
proletariat. The bases of this organisation are already completely
given: they are the workshops and the federation of workshops, the
creation of fighting funds, instruments of struggle against the
bourgeoisie, and their federation, not only national, but
international.

"And when the hour of revolution sounds, you will proclaim the
liquidation of the State and of bourgeois society, anarchy,
that is to say the true, frank people's revolution . . . 
and the new organisation from below upwards and from the
circumference to the centre." [quoted by K.J. Kenafick, 
_Michael Bakunin and Karl Marx_, pp. 120-1]

This new society would be organised "by free federation, from
below upwards, of workers' associations, industrial as well
as agricultural . . . in districts and municipalities at
first; federation of these into regions, of the regions
into nations, and the nations into a fraternal Internationalism."
Moreover, "capital, factories, all the means of production and
raw material" would be owned by "the workers' organisations"
while the land would be given "to those who work it with their
own hands." [quoted by Kenafick, Op. Cit., p. 241 and p. 240]

The similarities with revolutionary syndicalism could not be
clearer. Little wonder that all serious historians see the 
obvious similarities between anarcho-syndicalism and Bakunin's 
anarchism. For example, George R. Esenwein's (in his study of
early Spanish anarchism) comments that syndicalism "had deep 
roots in the Spanish libertarian tradition. It can be traced 
to Bakunin's revolutionary collectivism." He also notes that 
the class struggle was "central to Bakunin's theory." 
[_Anarchist Ideology and the Working Class Movement in Spain, 
1868-1898_, p. 209 and p. 20] 

Caroline Cahm, likewise, points to "the basic syndicalist ideas 
of Bakunin" and that he "argued that trade union organisation 
and activity in the International [Working Men's Association] 
were important in the building of working-class power in the 
struggle against capital . . . He also declared that trade union 
based organisation of the International would not only guide the 
revolution but also provide the basis for the organisation of the 
society of the future." Indeed, he "believed that trade unions had 
an essential part to play in the developing of revolutionary
capacities of the workers as well as building up the organisation 
of the masses for revolution." [_Kropotkin and the Rise of 
Revolutionary Anarchism_, p. 219, p. 215 and p. 216]

Paul Avrich, in his essay "The Legacy of Bakunin," agrees. 
"Bakunin," he argued, "perhaps even more than Proudhon, was a 
prophet of revolutionary syndicalism, who believed that a free 
federation of trade unions would be the 'living germs of a new 
social order which is to replace the bourgeois world.'" 
[_Anarchist Protraits_, pp. 14-15] Bertrand Russell (in his 
justly famous discussion of socialism, anarchism and syndicalism) 
noted that "[h]ardly any of these ideas [associated with 
syndicalism] are new: almost all are derived from the Bakunist 
[sic!] section of the old International" and that this was "often 
recognised by Syndicalists themselves." [_Roads to Freedom_, 
p. 52]

Needless to say, anarchists agree with this perspective. Arthur 
Lehning, for example, summarises the anarchist perspective when
he commented that "Bakunin's collectivist anarchism . . . 
ultimately formed the ideological and theoretical basis of 
anarcho-syndicalism." ["Introduction", _Michael Bakunin: 
Selected Writings_, p. 29] Kropotkin argued that syndicalism 
"is nothing other than the rebirth of the International -- 
federalist, worker, Latin." [quoted by Martin A. Miller, 
_Kropotkin_, p. 176] Malatesta stated in 1907 that he had 
"never ceased to urge the comrades into that direction which 
the syndicalists, forgetting the past, call *new*, even though
it was already glimpsed and followed, in the International,
by the first of the anarchists." [_The Anarchist Reader_,
p. 221] Little wonder that Rudolf Rocker stated the following 
in his classic introduction to anarcho-syndicalism:

"Modern Anarcho-syndicalism is a direct continuation of those
social aspirations which took shape in the bosom of the First
International and which were best understood and most strongly
held by the libertarian wing of the great workers' alliance."
[_Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 49]

Murray Bookchin just states the obvious: 

"Long before syndicalism became a popular term in the French
labour movement of the late [eighteen]nineties, it already
existed in the Spanish labour movement of the early seventies.
The anarchist-influenced Spanish Federation of the old IWMA
was . . . distinctly syndicalist." ["Looking Back at Spain," 
pp. 53-96, _The Radical Papers_, p. 67]

Perhaps, in the face of such evidence (and the writings of
Bakunin himself), Marxists could claim that the sources we 
quote are either anarchists or "sympathetic" to anarchism. 
To counter this is very easy, we need only quote Marx and 
Engels. Marx attacked Bakunin for thinking that the "working 
class . . . must only organise themselves by trades- unions" 
and "not occupy itself with *politics.*" Engels argued along
the same lines, having a go at the anarchists because in the 
"Bakuninist programme a general strike is the lever employed 
by which the social revolution is started" and that they 
admitted "this required a well-formed organisation of the 
working class" (i.e. a trade union federation). Indeed, he
summarised Bakunin's strategy as being to "organise, and
when *all* the workers, hence the majority, are won over,
dispose all the authorities, abolish the state and 
replace it with the organisation of the International." 
[Marx, Engels and Lenin, _Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism_, 
p. 48, p. 132, p. 133 and p. 72] Ignoring the 
misrepresentations of Marx and Engels about the ideas of 
their enemies, we can state that they got the basic point 
of Bakunin's ideas -- the centrality of trade union 
organisation and struggle as well as the use of strikes 
and the general strike. Therefore, you do not have to read 
Bakunin to find out the similarities between his ideas and
syndicalism, you can read Marx and Engels. Clearly, most
Marxist critiques of anarchism haven't even done that!

Latter anarchists, needless to say, supported the syndicalist
movement and, moreover, drew attention to its anarchist roots.
Emma Goldman noted that in the First International "Bakunin and
the Latin workers" forged ahead "along industrial and Syndicalist
lines" and stated that syndicalism "is, in essence, the economic
expression of Anarchism" and that "accounts for the presence of
so many Anarchists in the Syndicalist movement. Like Anarchism,
Syndicalism prepares the workers along direct economic lines,
as conscious factors in the great struggles of to-day, as well
as conscious factors in the task of reconstructing society." 
After seeing syndicalist ideas in action in France in 1900,
she "immediately began to propagate Syndicalist ideas." 
[_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 66, p. 68 and p. 67]

Kropotkin argued anarchist communism "wins more and more ground 
among those working-men who try to get a clear conception as to
the forthcoming revolutionary action. The syndicalist and 
trade union movements, which permit the workingmen to realise 
their solidarity and to feel the community of their interests 
better than any election, prepare the way for these conceptions."
[_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 174] His support
for anarchist participation in the labour movement was strong,
considering it a key method of preparing for a revolution and
spreading anarchist ideas amongst the working classes. As he
put it:

"The *syndicat* is absolutely necessary. It is the sole force
of the workers which continues the direct struggle against
capital without turning to parliamentarism." [quoted by
Miller, Op. Cit., p. 177]

"Revolutionary Anarchist Communist propaganda within the
Labour Unions," he argued, "had always been a favourite
mode of action in the Federalist or 'Bakuninist' section
of the International Working Men's Association. In Spain
and in Italy it had been especially successful. Now it
was resorted to, with evident success, in France and
_Freedom_ [the British Anarchist paper] eagerly advocated
this sort of propaganda." [_Act For Yourselves_, pp. 119-20]
Caroline Cahm notes in her excellent account of Kropotkin's
ideas between 1872 and 1886, he "was anxious to revive the
International as an organisation for aggressive strike action
to counteract the influence of parliamentary socialists on
the labour movement." This resulted Kropotkin advocating a
"remarkable fusion of anarchist communist ideas with both
the bakuninist [sic!] internationalist views adopted by
the Spanish Federation and the syndicalist ideas developed 
in the Jura Federation in the 1870s." This included seeing
the importance of revolutionary labour unions, the value of
the strikes as a mode of direct action and syndicalist action
developing solidarity. [Cahm, Op. Cit., p. 257]

Clearly, any one claiming that there is a fundamental difference
between anarchism and syndicalism is talking nonsense. Syndicalist
ideas were being argued by the likes of Bakunin and Kropotkin
before syndicalism emerged in the French CGT in the 1890s as
a clearly labelled revolutionary theory. Rather than being in 
conflict, the ideas of syndicalism find their roots in the ideas 
of Bakunin and "classical" anarchism. This would be quickly seen 
if the actual writings of Bakunin and Kropotkin were consulted. 
There *are,* of course, differences between anarchism and 
syndicalism, but they are *not* those usually listed by
Marxists. Section J.3.9 discusses these differences. As will
quickly be discovered, they are *not* based on a rejection of
working class organisation, direct action, solidarity and
collective struggle! 

Indeed, rather than acknowledge these similarities to Bakunin's
ideas, Stack prefers to rewrite history by claiming (at his
meeting on "Marxism and Anarchism" at the SWP's _Marxism 2001_ 
conference) that Georges Sorel was the father of syndicalism!
Any one familiar with the history of syndicalism and the ideas
of Sorel would, of course, know the syndicalist movement had 
been in existance for a number of years before Sorel wrote
_Refections on Violence_. As such, he discussed from afar
a movement which already existed. As the editor to a recent
edition of Sorel's book notes, "the immediate backdrop" of
_Reflections on Violence_ was "the rise of the French
syndicalist movement" which "Sorel had been following
. . . since the late 1890s." It was only "after 1902, when
the Confederation Generale du Travail (CGT) launched a
series of spectacular strikes, that syndicalism came to the
forefront of Sorel's attention." In summary, "Sorel did not
create or even inspire the syndicalist movement." [_Reflections 
on Violence_, pp. viii-ix] Rather, syndicalism came about when
anarchists (as Bakunin recommended thirty years previously)
entered the trade unions. Indeed, Sorel acknowledges this in 
his work, arguing that historians "will one day see in
this entry of the anarchists into the *syndicats* one of 
the greatest events that has been produced in our time."
[Op. Cit., p. 35]

Ultimately, claims like Pat Stack's simply shows how unfamiliar 
the author is with the ideas they are pathetically attempting to 
critique. Anarchists from Bakunin onwards shared most of the
same ideas as syndicalism (which is unsurprising as most of the
ideas of anarcho-syndicalism have direct roots in the ideas
of Bakunin). In other words, for Stack, the "huge advantage" 
anarcho-syndicalists have "over other anarchists" is that they,
in fact, share the same "understanding of the power of the 
working class, the centrality of the point of production (the 
workplace) and the need for collective action"! This, in itself,
shows the bankruptcy of Stack's claims and those like it.

H.2.9 Do anarchists have "liberal" politics?

Another assertion by Marxists is that anarchists have 
"liberal" politics or ideas. For example, one Marxist 
argues that the "programme with which Bakunin armed his 
super-revolutionary vanguard called for the 'political, 
economic and social equalisation of classes and individuals 
of both sexes, beginning with the abolition of the right of 
inheritance.' This is *liberal* politics, implying nothing 
about the abolition of capitalism." [Derek Howl, "The 
Legacy of Hal Draper," _International Socialism_, no. 52, 
p. 148] That Howl is totally distorting Bakunin's ideas 
can quickly be seen by looking at the whole of the
programme. Simply put, Howl is knowingly quoting Bakunin
out of context in order to discredit his ideas.

Howl is quoting from item 2 of the "Programme of the Alliance." 
Strangely he fails to quote the end of that item, namely when 
it states this "equalisation" was "in pursuance of the decision 
reached by the last working men's Congress in Brussels, the
land, the instruments of work and all other capital may
become the collective property of the whole of society and
be utilised only by the workers, in other words by the
agricultural and industrial associations." If this was
not enough to indicate the abolition of capitalism, item
4 states that the Alliance "repudiates all political action
whose target is anything except the triumph of the workers'
cause over Capital." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, 
p. 174] Howl's dishonesty is clear. Bakunin *explicitly*
argued for the abolition of capitalism in the same item Howl 
(selectively) quotes from. If the socialisation of land and 
capital under the control of workers' associations is not 
the abolition of capitalism, we wonder what is!

Equally as dishonest as this quoting out of context is Howl's
non-mention of the history of the expression "political,
economic and social equalisation of classes and individuals
of both sexes." After Bakunin sent the Alliance programme to
the General Council of the _International Workingmen's 
Association_, he received a letter date March 9, 1869 from
Marx which argued that the term "the equalisation of classes"
"literally interpreted" would mean "harmony of capital and 
labour" as "persistently preached by the bourgeois socialists."
The letter argues that it was "not the logically impossible 
'equalisation of classes', but the historically necessary, 
superseding 'abolition of classes'" which was the "true 
secret of the proletarian movement" and which "forms the 
great aim of the International Working Men's Association."
Significantly, the letter adds the following:

"Considering, however, the context in which that phrase 
'equalisation of classes' occurs, it seems to be a mere 
slip of the pen, and the General Council feels confident 
that you will be anxious to remove from your program an 
expression which offers such a dangerous misunderstanding."
[Marx-Engels, _Collected Works_, vol 21, p. 46]

And, given the context, Marx was right. The phrase "equalisation
of classes" placed in the context of the political, economic
and social equalisation of individuals obviously implies the
abolition of classes. The logic is simple. If both worker and
capitalist shared the same economic and social position then 
wage labour would not exist (in fact, it would be impossible 
as it is based on social and economic *inequality*) and so 
class society would not exist. Similarly, if the tenant and the 
landlord were socially equal then the landlord would have no
power over the tenant, which would be impossible. Bakunin 
agreed with Marx on the ambiguity of the term and the Alliance 
changed its Programme to call for "the final and total abolition 
of classes and the political, economic and social equalisation 
of individuals of either sex." [Bakunin, Ibid.] This change 
ensured the admittance of the Alliance sections into the 
International Workingmen's Association (although this did 
not stop Marx, like his followers, bringing up the "equality 
of classes" years later). However, Howl repeating the changed 
phrase "equalisation of classes" out of context helps discredit
anarchism and so it is done.

Simply put, anarchists are *not* liberals as we are well aware of
the fact that without equality, liberty is impossible except for
the rich. As Nicolas Walter put it, "[l]ike liberals, anarchists
want freedom; like socialists, anarchists want equality. But we
are not satisfied by liberalism alone or by socialism alone.
Freedom without equality means that the poor and weak are less
free than the rich and strong, and equality without freedom means
that we are all slaves together. Freedom and equality are not
contradictory, but complementary; in place of the old polarisation
of freedom versus equality -- according to which we are told that
more freedom means equals less equality, and more equality equals
less freedom -- anarchists point out that in practice you cannot
have one without the other. Freedom is not genuine if some people
are too poor or too weak to enjoy it, and equality is not genuine
is some people are ruled by other." [_Reinventing Anarchy_, p. 43]
Clearly, anarchists do *not* have liberal politics. Quite the
reverse, as we subject it to extensive critique from a working
class perspective.

To the claim that anarchism "combines a socialist critique of 
capitalism with a liberal critique of socialism," anarchists say
that this is mistaken. [Paul Thomas, _Karl Marx and the Anarchists_,
p. 7] Rather, anarchism is simply a socialist critique of both
capitalism and the state. Freedom under capitalism is fatally
undermined by inequality -- it simply becomes the freedom to
pick a master. This violates liberty and equality. Equally, as
regards the state. "Any State at all," argued Bakunin, "no matter
what kind, is a domination and exploitation. It is a negation of
Socialism, which wants an equitable human society delivered from
all tutelage, from all authority and political domination as well
as economic exploitation." [quoted by Kenafick, Op. Cit., pp. 95-6]
As such, state structures violate not only liberty but also equality.
There is no real equality in power between, say, the head of the 
government and one of the millions who may, or may not, have voted 
for them. As the Russian Revolution proved, there can be no meaningful 
equality between a striking worker and the "socialist" political 
police sent to impose the will of the state.

This means that if anarchists are concerned about freedom (both 
individual *and* collective) it is not because we are influenced
by liberalism. Quite the reverse, as liberalism happily tolerates
hierarchy and the restrictions of liberty implied by private
property, wage labour and the state. As Bakunin argued, capitalism
turns "the worker into a subordinate, a passive and obedient
servant." [_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 188] As such,
anarchism rejects liberalism, although (as Bakunin put it), "[i]f
socialism disputes radicalism, this is hardly to reverse it but
rather to advance it." [_The Basic Bakunin_, p. 87] Therefore,
anarchism rejects liberalism, not because it supports the idea
of freedom, but precisely because it does not go far enough
and fails to understand that without equality, freedom is little
more than freedom for the master. 

Lastly, a few words on the mentality that could suggest that anarchist
concern for liberty means that it is a form of liberalism. Rather
than suggest the bankruptcy of anarchism it, in fact, suggests the
bankruptcy of the politics of the person making the accusation.
After all, the clear implication is that a concern with individual,
collective and social freedom is alien to socialist ideas. It also
strikes at the heart of socialism -- its concern for equality --
as it clearly implies that some have more power (namely the right
to suppress the liberty of others) than the rest. As such, it
suggests a superficial understanding of *real* socialism. 

Ultimately, to argue that a concern for freedom means "liberalism" 
(or, equally, "individualism") indicates that the person is not a 
socialist. After all, a concern that every individual controls their 
daily lives (i.e. to be free) means a wholehearted support for 
collective self-management of group affairs. It means a vision 
of a revolution (and post-revolutionary society) based on direct 
working class participation and management of society from below 
upwards. To dismiss this vision by dismissing the principles which 
inspire it as "liberalism" means to support rule from above by the 
"enlightened" elite (i.e. the party) and the hierarchical state 
structures. It means arguing for *party* power, not *class* power, 
as liberty is seen as a *danger* to the revolution and so the 
people must be protected against the "petty-bourgeois"/"reactionary" 
narrowness of the people. Rather than seeing free debate of ideas 
and mass participation as a source of strength, it sees it as a 
source of "bad influences" which the masses must be protected from.

Moreover, it suggests a total lack of understanding of the difficulties 
that a social revolution will face. Unless it is based on the active
participation of the majority of a population, any revolution will
fail. The construction of socialism, of a new society, will face
thousands of unexpected problems and seek to meet the needs of
millions of individuals, thousands of communities and hundreds of
cultures. Without the individuals and groups within that society 
being in a position to freely contribute to that constructive task, 
it will simply wither under the bureaucratic and authoritarian
rule of a few party leaders. As such, individual liberties are an
essential aspect of *genuine* social reconstruction -- without
freedom of association, assembly, organisation, speech and so on,
the active participation of the masses will be replaced by an
isolated and atomised collective of individuals subjected to 
autocratic rule from above. 

Ultimately, as Rudolf Rocker suggested, the "urge for social justice
can only develop properly and be effective, when it grows out of
man's sense of personal freedom and it based on that. In other
words *Socialism will be free, or it will not be at all.* In its
recognition of this lies the genuine and profound justification
for the existence of Anarchism." [_Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 20]

H.2.10 Are anarchists against leadership?

It is a common assertion by Marxists that anarchists reject
the idea of "leadership" and so think in terms of a totally
spontaneous revolution. This is also generally understood to
imply that anarchists do not see the need for revolutionaries
to organise together to influence the class struggle in the
here and now. Hence the British SWP's Duncan Hallas:

"That an organisation of socialist militants is necessary
is common ground on the left, a few anarchist purists
apart. But what kind of organisation? One view, widespread
amongst newly radicalised students and young workers, is
that of the libertarians . . . [They have] hostility to
centralised, co-ordinated activity and profound suspicion
of anything smacking of 'leadership.' On this view nothing
more than a loose federation of working groups is necessary
or desirable. The underlying assumptions are that centralised
organisations inevitably undergo bureaucratic degeneration
and that the spontaneous activities of working people are
the sole and sufficient basis for the achievement of 
socialism . . . some libertarians draw the conclusion that
a revolutionary socialist party is a contradiction in terms.
This, of course, is the traditional anarcho-syndicalist
position." [_Towards a revolutionary socialist party_, p. 39]

Ignoring the usual patronising references to the age and
experience of non-Leninists, this argument can be faulted
on many levels. Firstly, while libertarians do reject 
centralised structures, it does *not* mean we reject 
co-ordinated activity. This may be a common Marxist 
argument, but it is a straw man one. Secondly, anarchists
do *not* reject the idea of "leadership." We simply reject
the idea of hierarchical leadership. Thirdly, while all
anarchists do think that a "revolutionary socialist party"
is a contradiction in terms, it does not mean that we
reject the need for revolutionary organisations (i.e.
organisations of anarchists). While opposing centralised
and hierarchical political parties, anarchists have long
saw the need for anarchist groups and federations to discuss
and spread our ideas and influence. We will discuss each issue
in turn.

The first argument is the least important. For Marxists, 
co-ordination equals centralism and to reject centralisation
means to reject co-ordination of joint activity. For anarchists,
co-ordination does not each centralism or centralisation. This
is why anarchism stresses federation and federalism as the means
of co-ordinating joint activity. Under a centralised system,
the affairs of all are handed over to a handful of people at
the centre. Their decisions are then binding on the mass of
the members of the organisation whose position is simply that 
of executing the orders of those whom the majority elect. This
means that power rests at the top and decisions flow from the
top downwards. As such, the "revolutionary" party simply mimics 
the very society it claims to oppose.

In a federal structure, in contrast, decisions flow from the
bottom up by means of councils of elected, mandated and 
recallable *delegates*. In fact, we discover anarchists 
like Bakunin and Proudhon arguing for elected, mandated and 
recallable delegates rather than for representatives in 
their ideas of how a free society worked years before the 
Paris Commune applied them in practice. The federal structure 
exists to ensure that any co-ordinated activity accurately 
reflects the decisions of the membership. As such, anarchists 
"do not deny the need for co-ordination between groups, for 
discipline, for meticulous planning, and for unity in action. 
But they believe that co-ordination, discipline, planning, 
and unity in action must be achieved *voluntarily,* by means 
of a self-discipline nourished by conviction and understanding, 
not by coercion and a mindless, unquestioning obedience to orders 
from above." [_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_, p. 215] In other words, 
co-ordination comes *from below* rather than being imposed from 
above by a few leaders. To use an analogy, federalist co-ordination 
is the co-ordination created in a strike by workers resisting their
bosses. It is created by debate amongst equals and flows from
below upwards. Centralised co-ordination is the co-ordination
imposed from the top-down by the boss. 

As such, anarchists reject the "centralised" model of the party
as it is a "revolutionary" grouping organised on the capitalist
model. As such, it is not revolutionary at all. It simply 
reproduces the very problems within the "revolutionary" 
movement that, ironically, inspired the initial revolt of its 
members towards socialism. The idea that the membership should 
run the organisation becomes simply that the majority designates 
its rulers and, like the bourgeois system of parliamentary
democracy it is copied from, quickly becomes drained of any
real meaning and becomes a veil thrown over the unlimited
power of the rulers. The membership does not run the party
simply because it elects delegates once a year who, in turn,
designate the central committee -- no more than the people
are sovereign in a parliamentary-style republic because they
vote for the deputies who designate the government. Moreover,
it trains the membership in accepting a division between
leaders and led which, if applied during a revolution, will
quickly mean that the party, *not* the masses, have real power.

Ultimately, centralised organisations become very undemocratic
and, equally as important, *ineffective.* Hierarchical 
organisations kill people's enthusiasm and creativity. Such
organisations are organisations where plans and ideas are not 
adopted because they are the best but simply because it is what
a handful of leaders *think* are best for everyone else. Really
effective organisations are those which make decisions based
frank and open co-operation and debate, where dissent is *not*
stifled and ideas are adopted because of their merit, and not
*who* suggests them (i.e. the leaders of the party). In their 
quest for power and command, authoritarians usually end up 
manipulating processes, railroad their agendas, and in the 
process alienate people -- exactly those people who are new to 
organising for social change. They cause experienced organisers 
to quit and put-off people who might otherwise join the movement.

This is why anarchists stress federalist organisations. It ensures
that co-ordination flows from below and there is no institutionalised
leadership. By organising in a way that reflects the kind of society
we want, we train ourselves in the skills and decision making processes
required to make a free and classless society work. In other words,
that means and ends are united and this ensures that the means used
will result in the desired ends. Simply put, libertarian means must
be used if you want libertarian ends.

Secondly, anarchists are not against all forms of "leadership."
We are against hierarchical and institutionalised forms of 
leadership. In other words, of giving *power* to leaders. This 
is the key difference, as Albert Meltzer explains. "Some
people in some circumstance," he argues, "do naturally 'give a
lead.' But this should not mean they are a class apart. Any
revolutionary in a factory where the majority have no 
revolutionary experience, will at times, 'give a lead.' But
no anarchist would form an *institutionalised leadership,*
nor wait for a lead, but give one." [_Anarchism: Arguments
for and against_, p. 36] 

This means, as we argue in section J.3.6, that anarchists seek
to influence the class struggle as *equals.* Rather than aim
for positions of power, anarchists want to influence people
by the power of their ideas as expressed in the debates that
occur in the organisations created in the social struggle 
itself. This is because anarchists recognise that there is
an unevenness in the level of ideas within the working class.
This fact is obvious. Some workers accept the logic of the
current system, others are critical of certain aspects,
others (usually a minority) are consciously seek a better
society (and are anarchists, ecologists, Marxists, etc.)
and so on. Only constant discussion, the clash of ideas, 
combined with collective struggle can develop and narrow 
the unevenness of ideas within the oppressed. As Malatesta 
argued, "[o]nly freedom or the struggle for freedom can be 
the school for freedom." [_Life and Ideas_, p. 59]

From this perspective, it follows that any attempt to create
an institutionalised leadership structure means the end of
the revolutionary process. Such "leadership" automatically
means a hierarchical structure, one in which the leaders 
have power and make the decisions for the rest. This just
reproduces the old class division of labour between those
who think and those who act (i.e. between order givers
and order takers). Rather than the revolutionary masses
taking power in such a system, it is the "leaders" (i.e.
a specific party hierarchy) who do so and the masses role
becomes, yet again, simply that of selecting which boss
tells them what to do.

As such, the anarchist federation does not reject the need
of "leadership" in the sense of giving a led, of arguing
its ideas and trying to win people to them. It does reject
the idea that "leadership" should become separated from the
mass of the people. Simply put, no party, no group of leaders
have all the answers and so the active participation of all
is required for a successful revolution. "To give full scope
to socialism," argued Kropotkin, "entails rebuilding from
top to bottom a society dominated by the narrow individualism
of the shopkeeper . . . it is a question of completely
reshaping all relationships . . . In every street, in every
hamlet, in every group of men gathered around a factory or
along a section of the railway line, the creative, 
constructive, and organisational spirit must be awakened in
order to rebuild life -- in the factory, in the village,
in the store, in production, and in distribution of
supplies." Hence the need to "*shatter the state*" and
"rebuild a new organisation, by beginning from the very
foundations of society -- the liberated village commune,
federalism, groupings from simple to compound, free
workingmen's [and women's] associations." Such a task
could *not* be "carried out within the framework of the
state and the pyramidal organisation which is the essence
of the state." [_Selected Writings on Anarchism and 
Revolution_, pp. 261-2]

As such, anarchists reject the idea of turning the organs
created in the class struggle and revolutionary process into
hierarchical structures. By turning them from organs of
self-management into organs for nominating "leaders," the
constructive tasks and political development of the 
revolution will be aborted before they really begin. The
active participation of all will become the picking of new
masters and the revolution will falter. For this reason,
anarchists "differ from the Bolshevik type of party in
their belief that genuine revolutionaries must function
*within the framework of the forms created by the
revolution,* not within forms created by the party. . . 
Anarcho-communists seek to persuade the factory committees,
assemblies or soviets to make themselves into *genuine
organs of popular self-management,* not to dominate them,
manipulate them, or hitch them to an all-knowing political
party. Anarcho-communists do not seek to rear a state
structure over these popular revolutionary organs." 
[Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 217]

This means that "an organisation is needed to propagate
ideas systematically -- and not ideas alone, but *ideas
which promote the concept of self-management.*" In other
words, there "is a need for a revolutionary organisation
-- but its function must always be kept clearly in mind.
Its first task is propaganda . . . In a revolutionary 
situation, the revolutionary organisation presents the
most advanced demands: it is prepared at every turn of
events to formulate -- in the most concrete fashion --
the immediate task that should be performed to advance
the revolutionary process. It provides the boldest 
elements in action and in the decision-making organs
of the revolution." [Bookchin, Op. Cit., pp. 216-7]
But what it does not is supplant those organs or 
decision-making process by creating institutionalised,
hierarchical leadership structures. As such, it is
not a question of organisation versus non-organisation,
or "leadership" versus non-"leadership" but rather what
*kind* of organisation and the *kind* of leadership.

Clearly, then, anarchists do not reject or dismiss the
importance of politically aware minorities organising
and spreading their ideas within social struggles. As 
Caroline Cahm summarised in her excellent study of 
Kropotkin's thought between 1872 and 1886, "Kropotkin
stressed the role of heroic minorities in the preparation
for revolution." [_Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary
Anarchism, 1872-86_, p. 276] However, as John Crump correctly
argues, the "key words here are *in the preparation for
revolution.* By their courage and daring in opposing 
capitalism and the state, anarchist minorities could
teach by example and thereby draw increasing numbers into
the struggle. But Kropotkin was not advocating substitutionism;
the idea that a minority might carry out the revolution in
place of the people was as alien to him as the notion that
a minority would exercise rule after the revolution. In
fact, Kropotkin recognised that the former would be a
prescription for the latter." [_Hatta Shuzo and Pure
Anarchism in Interwar Japan_, p. 9] In Kropotkin's own
words:

"The idea of anarchist communism, today represented by
feeble minorities, but increasingly finding popular
expression, will make its way among the mass of the
people. Spreading everywhere, the anarchist groups
. . . will take strength from the support they find
among the people, and will raise the red flag of the
revolution . . . On that day, what is now the minority
will become the People, the great mass, and that mass
rising against property and the State, will march
forward towards anarchist communism." [_Words of a
Rebel_, p. 75]

This influence would be gained simply by the correctness of
our ideas and the validity of our suggestions. This means
that anarchists seek influence "through advice and example,
leaving the people . . .  to adopt our methods and solutions
if these are, or seem to be, better than those suggested and
carried out by others." As such, any anarchist organisation 
would "strive acquire overwhelming influence in order to draw 
the [revolutionary] movement towards the realisation of our
ideas. But such influence must be won by doing more and
better than others, and will be useful if won in that way."
This means rejecting "taking over command, that is by becoming
a government and imposing one's own ideas and interests
through police methods." [Malatesta, _The Anarchist 
Revolution_, pp. 108-9]

Moreover, unlike leading Marxists like Lenin and Karl Kautsky, 
anarchists think that socialist ideas are developed *within* 
the class struggle rather than outside it by the radical 
intelligentsia. According to Lenin (who was only agreeing 
with Kautsky, the leading light of German and International 
Social Democracy at the start of the twentieth century) 
socialist (or "Social-Democratic") "consciousness could only
be brought to them [the workers] from without. The history
of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively
by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union
consciousness." Socialist ideas did not arise from the
labour movement but from the "educated representatives 
of the propertied classes, the intellectuals."  ["What 
is to Be Done?", _Essential Works of Lenin_, p. 74]

Anarchists reject this perspective. Kropotkin argued that 
"modern socialism has emerged out of the depths of the people's
consciousness. If a few thinkers emerging from the bourgeoisie
have given it the approval of science and the support of
philosophy, the basis of the idea which they have given
their own expression has nonetheless been the product of
the collective spirit of the working people. The rational
socialism of the International is still today our greatest
strength, and it was elaborated in working class organisation,
under the first influence of the masses. The few writers who
offered their help in the work of elaborating socialist
ideas have merely been giving form to the aspirations that
first saw their light among the workers." [_Words of a Rebel_,
p. 59] In other words, anarchists are a part of the working
class (either by birth or by rejecting their previous class
background and becoming part of it), the part which has 
generalised its own experiences, ideas and needs into a 
theory called "anarchism" and seeks to convince the rest 
of the validity of its ideas and tactics. This would 
be a dialogue, based on both learning *and* teaching.

As such, this means that the relationship between the 
specifically anarchist groups and oppressed peoples in
struggle is a two way one. As well as trying to influence the
social struggle, anarchists also try and learn from the class
struggle and try to generalise from the experiences of their 
own struggles and the struggles of other working class people. 
Rather than seeing the anarchist group as some sort of teacher, 
anarchists see it as simply part of the social struggle and
its ideas can and must develop from active participation 
within the class struggle. As anarchists agree with Bakunin
and reject the idea that their organisations should take
power on behalf of the masses, it is clear that such groups
are not imposing alien ideas upon people but rather try to
clarify the ideas generated by working class people in struggle.
It is an objective fact that there is a great difference in
the political awareness within the masses of oppressed people.
This uneven development means that they do not accept, all at 
once or in their totality, revolutionary ideas. There are layers. 
Groups of people, by ones and twos and then in larger numbers, 
become interested, read literature, talk with others, and create
new ideas. The first groups that explicitly call their ideas 
"anarchism" have the right and duty to try to persuade others 
to join them. This is not opposed to the self-organisation of 
the working class, rather it is how the working class 
self-organises.  

Thirdly, as we discuss in section J.3, anarchists recognise the
need to create specifically anarchist organisations to spread
anarchist ideas and influence the class struggle. As we discuss
the different kinds of anarchist organisations in that section,
we will not do so here. Suffice to say, the idea that anarchists
reject this need to organise politically in order to achieve
a revolution is not to be found in the theory and practice of
all the major anarchist thinkers. 

Ultimately, if spontaneity was enough to create (and ensure the 
success of) a social revolution then we would be living in a
libertarian socialist society. The fact that we are not suggests
that spontaneity, however important, is not enough in itself.
This simple fact of history is understood by anarchists and
all the major anarchist thinkers.

See section J.3 for more details on what organisations anarchists
create and their role in anarchist revolutionary theory. Section
J.3.6 has a fuller discussion of the role of anarchist groups in 
the class struggle. For a discussion of the role of anarchists in 
a revolution, see section J.7.5. For a fuller discussion why
anarchists reject the idea of a revolutionary socialist party
see section H.5.1 ("Why are vanguard parties anti-socialist?").

H.2.11 Are anarchists "anti-democratic"?

One of the common arguments against anarchism is that it is
"anti-democratic" (or "elitist"). For example, the British 
_Socialist Workers Party_ journal _International Socialism_ 
(number 52) denounces anarchism for being "necessarily deeply 
anti-democratic" due to its "thesis of the absolute sovereignty 
of the individual ego as against the imposition of *any*
'authority' over it," which, its is claimed, is the "distinctly
anarchist concept." Then Hal Draper is quoted arguing that 
"[o]f all ideologies, anarchism is the most fundamentally 
anti-democratic in principle, since it is not only unalterably
hostile to democracy in general but particularly to any 
socialist democracy of the most ideal kind that could be 
imagined." This is because "[b]y the 'principle of authority' 
the consistent anarchist means principled opposition to any 
exercise of authority, including opposition to authority 
derived from the most complete democracy and exercised in 
completely democratic fashion." The author of the review argues 
that this position is an "idealist conception" in which "*any* 
authority is seen as despotic; 'freedom' and 'authority' (and 
therefore 'freedom' and 'democracy' are opposites. This 
presumption of opposition to 'authority' was fostered by 
liberalism." Needless to say, he contrasts this with the 
"Marxist" "materialist understanding of society" in which it 
"was clear that 'authority' is necessary in *any* society where 
labour is collaborative." [Derek Howl, "The Legacy of Hal Draper," 
_International Socialism_, no. 52, p. 145]

Such as argument is, of course, just ridiculous. Indeed, it is
flawed on so many levels its hard to know where to start. The
obvious place to start is the claim that anarchism is the most
"fundamentally anti-democratic in principle." Now, given that
there are fascists, monarchists, supporters (like Trotsky) of 
"party dictatorship" and a host of others who advocate minority 
rule (even by one person) over everyone else, can it be argued with
a straight face that anarchism is the most "anti-democratic"
because it argues for the liberty of all? Is the idea and
practice of absolute monarchy *really* more democratic than
anarchism? Clearly not, although this does indicate the quality
of this kind of argument.

Another obvious point is that anarchists do not see *any* authority 
as "despotic." As we indicated in section H.4, this common Marxist 
assertion is simply not true. Anarchists have always been very clear 
on the fact they reject specific kinds of authority and not "authority" 
as such. In fact, by the term "principal of authority," Bakunin
meant *hierarchical* authority, and not "authority" as such. This 
explains why Kropotkin argued that "the origin of the anarchist 
inception of society . . . [lies in] the criticism . . .  of the 
hierarchical organisations and the authoritarian conceptions of 
society" and stressed that anarchism "refuses all hierarchical 
organisation." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 158 and 
p. 137]

This means, just to state the obvious, that making and sticking 
by collective decisions are *not* acts of authority. Rather 
they simply expressions of individual autonomy. Clearly in most 
activities there is a need to co-operate with other people. 
Indeed, *living* involves the "absolute sovereignty of the 
individual ego" (as if anarchists like Bakunin used such terms!)
being "restricted" by exercising that "sovereignty." Take, for
example, playing football. This involves finding others who seek
to play the game, organising into teams, agreeing on rules and so
on. All terrible violations of the "absolute sovereignty of the 
individual ego," yet it was precisely the "sovereignty" of the
"individual" which produced the desire to play the game in the
first place. What sort of "sovereignty" is it that negates itself
when it is exercised? Clearly, then, the Marxist "summary" of 
anarchist ideas on this matter, like of many others, is poverty 
stricken.

And, unsurprisingly enough, we find anarchist thinkers like Bakunin
and Kropotkin attacking this idea of "the absolute sovereignty 
of the individual ego" in the most severe terms. Indeed, they
thought was a bourgeois theory which simply existed to justify
the continued domination and exploitation of working class 
people by the ruling class. Kropotkin quite clearly recognised
its anti-individual and unfree nature by labelling it "the 
authoritarian individualism which stifles us" and stressing its
"narrow-minded, and therefore foolish" nature. [_Conquest of
Bread_, p. 130] Similarly, it would do the Marxist argument 
little good if they quoted Bakunin arguing that the "freedom 
of individuals is by no means an individual matter. It is a 
collective matter, a collective product. No individual can 
be free outside of human society or without its co-operation"
or that he considered "individualism" as a "bourgeois
principle." [_The Basic Bakunin_, p. 46 and p. 57] Perhaps, 
of course, these two famous anarchists were not, in fact, 
"consistent" anarchists, but that claim is doubtful. 

Anarchism does, of course, derive from the Greek for "without 
authority" or "without rulers" and this, unsurprisingly, informs 
anarchist theory and visions of a better world. This means that 
anarchism is against the "domination of man by man" (and woman 
by woman, woman by man, and so on). However, "[a]s knowledge 
has penetrated the governed masses . . . the people have 
revolted against the form of authority then felt most intolerable. 
This spirit of revolt in the individual and the masses, is the 
natural and necessary fruit of the spirit of domination; the 
vindication of human dignity, and the saviour of social life." 
Thus "freedom is the necessary preliminary to any true and 
equal human association." [Charlotte Wilson, _Anarchist Essays_, 
p. 54 and p. 40] In other words, anarchist comes from the 
struggle of the oppressed against their rulers and is an 
expression of individual and social freedom. Anarchism was 
born from the class struggle.

Taking individual liberty as a good thing, the next question is
how do free individuals co-operate together in such a way as
to ensure their continued liberty. This, of course, means that
any association must be one of equality between the associating
individuals. This can only be done when everyone involved takes
a meaningful role in the decision making process and because of
this anarchists stress the need for *self-government* (usually 
called *self-management*) of both individuals and groups. 
Self-management within free associations and decision making 
from the bottom-up is the only way domination can be eliminated. 
This is because, by making our own decisions ourselves, we 
automatically end the division of society into governors and 
governed (i.e. end hierarchy). As Anarchism clearly means 
support for freedom and equality, it automatically implies 
opposition to all forms of hierarchical organisation and 
authoritarian social relationship. This means that anarchist
support for individual liberty does not end, as many Marxists 
assert, in the denial of organisation or collective decision
making but rather in support for *self-managed* collectives. 
Only this form of organisation can end the division of society 
into rulers and ruled, oppressor and oppressed, exploiter and 
exploited and create an environment in which individuals can 
associate without denying their freedom and equality.

This is why anarchists stress such things as decision making by
mass assemblies and the co-ordination of decisions by the free
federation of mandated and recallable delegates. This would 
allow those affected by a decision to have a say in it, so 
allowing them to manage their own affairs directly and without 
hierarchy. 

Therefore, the *positive* side of anarchism (which naturally 
flows from its opposition to authority) results in a political 
theory which argues that people must control their own struggles,
organisations and affairs directly. This means we support mass 
assemblies and their federation via councils of mandated delegates 
subject to recall if they break their mandates (i.e. they act as 
they see fit, i.e. as politicians or bureaucrats, and not as the 
people who elected them desire). This way people directly govern 
themselves and control their own lives. Rather than imply an 
"individualism" which denies the importance of association and
the freedom it can generate, anarchism implies an opposition to
hierarchy in all its forms and the support free association of 
equals. In other words, anarchism can generally be taken to mean 
support for self-government or self-management, both by individuals
and by groups. 

In summary, anarchist support for individual liberty incurs a
similar support for self-managed groups. In such groups, individuals
co-operate as equals to maximise their liberty. This means, for 
anarchists, Marxists are just confusing co-operation with coercion, 
agreement with authority, association with subordination. Thus the
Marxist "materialist" concept of authority distorts the anarchist 
position and, secondly, is a supra-historical in the extreme. 
Different forms of decision making are lumped together, independent 
of the various forms it may assume. To equate hierarchical and 
self-managed decision making, antagonistic and harmonious forms
of organisation, alienated authority or authority retained in the
hands of those directly affected by it, can only be a source of
confusion. Rather than being a "materialistic" approach, the 
Marxist one is pure philosophical idealism -- the postulating of
a-historic concepts independently of the individuals and societies
that generate specific social relationships and ways of working
together.

Similarly, it would be churlish to note that Marxists themselves
have habitually rejected democratic authority when it suited them.
Even that "higher type of democracy" of the soviets was ignored
by the Bolshevik party once it was in power. In response to the 
"great Bolshevik losses in the soviet elections" during the 
spring and summer of 1918 which resulted in "big gains by the
SRs and particularly by the Mensheviks," "Bolshevik armed force 
usually overthrew the results of these provincial elections." 
In addition, "the government continually postponed the new general 
elections to the Petrograd Soviet, the term of which had ended in 
March 1918. Apparently, the government feared that the opposition 
parties would show gains." Moreover, the Bolsheviks "pack[ed]
local soviets once they could not longer count on an electoral 
majority" by giving representation to organisations they dominated. 
[Samuel Farber, _Before Stalinism_, pp. 23-4, p. 22 and p. 33] This, 
needless to say, made these elections meaningless and made the regime 
"soviet" in name only. The Bolsheviks simply undermined soviet 
democracy to ensure their hold in power.

In the workplace, the Bolsheviks replaced workers' economic 
democracy with "one-man management" appointed from above, by 
the state. Lenin was at the forefront of this process, arguing 
that workers' must "*unquestioningly obey the single will* of 
the leaders of labour" in April 1918 along with granting 
"individual executives dictatorial power (or 'unlimited' 
powers)." He argued that "the appointment of individuals, 
dictators with unlimited powers" was, in fact, "in general 
compatible with the fundamental principles of Soviet government" 
simply because "the history of revolutionary movements" had "shown" 
that "the dictatorship of individuals was very often the 
expression, the vehicle, the channel of the dictatorship of 
revolutionary classes." He notes that "[u]ndoubtably, the 
dictatorship of individuals was compatible with bourgeois 
democracy." [_The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government_, 
p. 34 and p. 32] This nonsense reached its heights (or, more 
correctly, depths) with Trotsky's ideas on the "militarisation 
of labour" he advanced in late 1919 and early 1920 as a
means of reconstructing Russia in a socialist (!) manner
after the (fast approaching) end of the Civil War. Need
we also mention that Trotsky also abolished democratic forms 
of organisation in the military *before* the start of the
Civil War -- as he put it, the "elective basis is politically 
pointless and technically inexpedient and has already been set 
aside by decree." [quoted by M. Brinton, _The Bolsheviks and 
Workers' Control_, pp. 37-8]

These are a few examples of Trotsky's argument that you
cannot place "the workers' right to elect representatives
above the party. As if the Party were not entitled to
assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship clashed
with the passing moods of the workers' democracy!" He
continued by stating the "Party is obliged to maintain
its dictatorship . . . regardless of temporary vacillations
even in the working class . . . The dictatorship does not
base itself at every moment on the formal principle of
a workers' democracy." [quoted by Brinton, Op. Cit., p. 78]
He repeated this argument nearly two decades later, stating
that the "very same masses are at different times inspired 
by different moods and objectives. It is just for this 
reason that a centralised organisation of the vanguard 
is indispensable. Only a party, wielding the authority 
it has won, is capable of overcoming the vacillation 
of the masses themselves." [_The Moralists and Sycophants_,
p. 59] Ultimately, for Leninists, the revolution is seen
purely as a way for the "revolutionary" party to take power.
Trotsky, for example, argued that "the proletariat can take 
power only through its vanguard" and that a "revolutionary 
party, even having seized power . . . is still by no means 
the sovereign ruler of society." Note, the party is "the 
sovereign ruler of society," *not* the working class. He
stressed this by arguing that those "who propose the 
abstraction of Soviets to the party dictatorship should 
understand that only thanks to the party dictatorship were 
the Soviets able to lift themselves out of the mud of 
reformism and attain the state form of the proletariat." 
[_Stalinism and Bolshevism_]

So, remember when Lenin or Trotsky argue for "the dictatorship of
individuals," the over-riding of the democratic decisions of the 
masses by the party, the elimination of workers factory committees 
in favour of appointed managers armed with "dictatorial" power or 
when the Bolshevik disbanded soviets with non-Bolshevik majorities, 
it is *anarchism* which is fundamentally "anti-democratic"! All
in all, that anyone can claim that anarchism is more 
"anti-democratic" than Leninism is a joke. However, all these
anti-democratic acts do fit in nicely with Howl's "materialist" 
Marxist concept that "'authority' is necessary in *any* society 
where labour is collaborative." As such, since "authority" is
essential and all forms of collective decision making are 
necessarily "authoritarian" and involve "subordination," then
it clearly does not really matter how collectives are organised 
and how decisions are reached. Hence the lack of concern for 
the liberty of the working people subjected to the (peculiarly 
bourgeois-like) forms of authority preferred by Lenin and 
Trotsky. It was precisely for this reason, to differentiate 
between egalitarian (and so libertarian) forms of organisation 
and decision making and authoritarian ones, that anarchists 
called themselves "anti-authoritarians." 

Even if we ignore all the anti-democratic acts of Bolshevism (or
justify them in terms of the problems facing the Russian Revolution,
as most Leninists do), the anti-democratic nature of Marxist ideas
still come to the fore. The Leninist support for centralised state 
power brings their attack on anarchism as being "anti-democratic" 
into clear perspective. Ultimately, Marxism results in the affairs
of millions being decided upon by a handful of people in the 
Central Committee of the vanguard party. As an example, we will
discuss Trotsky's arguments against the Makhnovist movement in the
Ukraine. 

Trotsky argued that the Makhnovists were against "Soviet power." 
This, he argued, was simply "the authority of all the local soviets
in the Ukraine" because they all "recognise the central power
which they themselves have elected." Consequently, the Makhnovists
reject not only central authority about also the local soviets
as well. Trotsky also argued that there were no "appointed"
persons in Russia as "there is no authority in Russia but that 
which is elected by the whole working class and working peasantry. 
It follows [!] that commanders appointed by the central Soviet 
Government are installed in their positions by the will of the 
working millions." He stressed that one can speak of "appointed"
persons "only under the bourgeois order, when Tsarist officials 
or bourgeois ministers appointed at their own discretion commanders 
who kept the soldier masses subject to the bourgeois classes."
[_The Makhno Movement_] When the Makhnovists tried to call 
the fourth regional conference of peasants, workers and partisans
to discuss the progression of the Civil War in early 1919, Trotsky,
unsurprisingly enough, banned it. 

In other words, because the Bolshevik government had been elected 
one year previously under a regime which had manipulated and 
overturned soviet elections, he (as its representative) had the 
right to ban a conference which would have expressed the wishes 
of millions of workers, peasants and partisans fighting for the 
revolution! The fallacious nature of his arguments is easily
seen. Rather than executing the will of millions of toilers,
Trotsky was simply executing his own will. He did not consult
those millions nor the local soviets who had, in Bolshevik 
ideology, surrendered their power to the handful of people in
the central committee of the Bolshevik Party. By banning the
conference he was very effectively undermining the practical, 
functional democracy of millions and replacing it with a purely 
formal "democracy" based on empowering a few leaders at the
centre. Yes, indeed, truly democracy in action when one person 
can deny a revolutionary people its right to decide its own
fate!

Unsurprisingly, the anarchist Nestor Makhno replied by 
arguing that he considered it "an inviolable right of
the workers and peasants, a right won by the revolution,
to call congresses on their own account, to discuss their
affairs. That is why the prohibition by the central
authorities on the calling of such congresses . . .
represent a direct and insolent violation of the rights of
the workers." [quoted by Peter Arshinov, _The History of
the Makhnovist Movement_, p. 129] We will leave it to the
readers to decide which of the two, Trotsky or Makhno, 
showed the fundamentally "anti-democratic" perspective.

Lastly, there are a few theoretical issues that need to be
raised on this matter. Notice, for example, that no attempt 
is made to answer the simple question of why having 51% of 
a group automatically makes you right! It is taken for 
granted that the minority should subject themselves to the 
will of the majority before that will is even decided upon. 
Does that mean, for example, that Marxists refuse minorities 
the right of civil disobedience if the majority acts in a way 
which harms their liberties and equality? If, for example, the 
majority in community decides to implement race laws, does that 
mean that Marxists would *oppose* the discriminated minority 
taking direct action to change those laws? Or, to take an 
example closer to Marxism, in 1914 the leaders of the Social 
Democratic Party in the German Parliament voted for war credits. 
The anti-war minority of that group went along with the majority 
in the name of "democracy," "unity" and "discipline". Would Howl 
and Draper argue that they were right to do so? If they were not
right to betray the ideas of Marxism and the international working
class, then why not? They did, after all, subject themselves to
the "most perfect socialist democracy" and so, presumably, made
the correct decision. Simply put, the arguments that anarchists
are "anti-democratic" are question-begging in the extreme.

As a general rule-of-thumb, anarchists have little problem 
with the minority accepting the decisions of the majority
after a process of free debate and discussion. As we argue
in section A.2.11, such collective decision making is 
compatible with anarchist principles -- indeed, is based 
on them. By governing ourselves directly, we exclude others 
governing us. However, we do not make a fetish of this, 
recognising that, in certain circumstances, the minority 
must and should ignore majority decisions. For example, 
if the majority of an organisation decide on a policy 
which the minority thinks is disastrous then why should 
they follow the majority? Equally, if the majority make 
a decision which harms the liberty and equality of a
non-oppressive and non-exploitative minority, then that 
minority has the right to reject the "authority" of the
majority. Hence Carole Pateman:

"The essence of liberal social contract theory is that individuals
ought to promise to, or enter an agreement to, obey representatives,
to whom they have alienated their right to make political decisions
. . . Promising . . . is an expression of individual freedom and
equality, yet commits individuals for the future. Promising also
implies that individuals are capable of independent judgement and
rational deliberation, and of evaluating and changing their own
actions and relationships; promises may sometimes justifiably be
broken. However, to promise to obey is to deny or limit, to a
greater or lesser degree, individuals' freedom and equality and
their ability to exercise these capacities. To promise to obey
is to state that, in certain areas, the person making the promise
is no longer free to exercise her capacities and decide upon her
own actions, and is no longer equal, but subordinate." [_The
Problem of Political Obligation_, p. 19]

Thus, for anarchists, a democracy which does not involve individual
rights to dissent, to disagree and to practice civil disobedience
would violate freedom and equality, the very values Marxists usually 
claim to be at the heart of their politics. The claim that anarchism 
is "anti-democratic" basically hides the argument that the minority 
must become the slave of the majority -- with no right of dissent 
when the majority is wrong (in practice, of course, it is usually
meant the orders and laws of the minority who are elected to power). 
In effect, it wishes the minority to be subordinate, not equal, 
to the majority. Anarchists, in contrast, because we support 
self-management also recognise the importance of dissent and 
individuality -- in essence, because we are in favour of 
self-management ("democracy" does not do the concept justice) we 
also favour the individual freedom that is its rationale. We 
support the liberty of private individuals because we believe in 
self-management ("democracy") so passionately. 

Indeed, Howl and Draper fail to understand the rationale for 
democratic decision making -- it is not based on the idea that 
the majority is always right but that individual freedom requires 
democracy to express and defend itself. By placing the collective 
above the individual, they undermine democratic values and replace 
them with little more than tyranny by the majority (or, more likely, 
those who claim to represent the majority).

Progress is determined by those who dissent and rebel against the 
status quo and the decisions of the majority. That is why anarchists 
support the right of dissent in self-managed groups -- in fact,
as we argue in section A.2.11, dissent, refusal, revolt by 
individuals and minorities is a key aspect of self-management. 
Given that Leninists do not support self-management (rather they, 
at best, support the Lockean notion of electing a government as 
being "democracy") it is hardly surprising they, like Locke, views 
dissent as a danger and something to denounce. Anarchists, on
the other hand, recognising that self-management's (i.e. direct 
democracy's) rationale and base is in individual freedom, recognise 
and support the rights of individuals to rebel against what they 
consider as unjust impositions. As history shows, the anarchist 
position is the correct one -- without rebellion, numerous 
minorities would never have improved their position and society
would stagnant. Indeed, Howl's and Draper's comments are just a 
reflection of the standard capitalist diatribe against strikers 
and protestors -- they don't need to protest, for they live in 
a "democracy."

So, yes, anarchists do support individual freedom to resist even
democratically made decisions simply because democracy *has to be* 
based on individual liberty. Without the right of dissent, democracy
becomes a joke and little more than a numerical justification 
for tyranny. This does not mean we are "anti-democratic," indeed
the reverse as we hold true to the fundamental rationale for
democratic decision-making -- it allows individuals to combine
as equals and not as subordinates and masters. Moreover, diversity 
is essential for any viable eco-system and it is essential in any 
viable society (and, of course, any society worth living in). This
means that a healthy society is one which encourages diversity,
individuality, dissent and, equally, self-managed associations 
to ensure the freedom of all.

As Malatesta argued, "[t]here are matters over which it is worth 
accepting the will of the majority because the damage caused by 
a split would be greater than that caused by error; there are 
circumstances in which discipline becomes a duty because to 
fail in it would be to fail in the solidarity between the 
oppressed and would mean betrayal in face of the enemy . . . 
What is essential is that individuals should develop a sense 
of organisation and solidarity, and the conviction that fraternal 
co-operation is necessary to fight oppression and to achieve a 
society in which everyone will be able to enjoy his [or her] 
own life." [_Life and Ideas_, pp. 132-3] 

As such, anarchists are not against majority decision making as
such. We simply recognise it has limitations. In practice, the
need for majority and minority to come to an agreement is one
most anarchists would recognise: 

"But such an adaptation [of the minority to the decisions
of the majority] on the one hand by one group must be reciprocal,
voluntary and must stem from an awareness of need and of
goodwill to prevent the running of social affairs from being 
paralysed by obstinacy. It cannot be imposed as a principle
and statutory norm. . .

"So . . . anarchists deny the right of the majority to govern
in human society in general . . . how is it possible . . . to 
declare that anarchists should submit to the decisions of the 
majority before they have even heard what those might be?" 
[Malatesta, _The Anarchist Revolution_, pp. 100-1]

Therefore, while accepting majority decision making as a key
aspect of a revolutionary movement and a free society, anarchists
do not make a fetish of it. We recognise that we must use our
own judgement in evaluating each decision reached simply because
the majority is not always right. We must balance the need for
solidarity in the common struggle and needs of common life with
critical analysis and judgement. As Malatesta argues:

"In any case it is not a question of being right or wrong; it
is a question of freedom, freedom for all, freedom for each
individual so long as he [or she] does not violate the equal
freedom of others. No one can judge with certainty who is
right and who is wrong, who is closer to the truth and which
is the best road for the greatest good for each and everyone.
Experience through freedom is the only means to arrive at the
truth and the best solutions; and there is no freedom if there
is not the freedom to be wrong.

"In our opinion, therefore, it is necessary that majority and
minority should succeed in living together peacefully and
profitably by mutual agreement and compromise, by the
intelligent recognition of the practical necessities of
communal life and of the usefulness of concessions which
circumstances make necessary." [_Life and Ideas_, p. 72]

Needless to say, our arguments apply with even more force to
the decisions of the *representatives* of the majority, who are
in practice a very small minority. Leninists usually try and
confuse these two distinct forms of decision making. When 
Leninists discuss majority decision making they almost always 
mean the decisions of those elected by the majority -- the 
central committee or the government -- rather than the majority 
of the masses or an organisation. Ultimately, the Leninist
support for democracy (as the Russian Revolution showed) is
conditional on whether the majority supports them or not. 
Anarchists are not as hypocritical or as elitist as this,
arguing that everyone should have the same rights the
Leninists usurp for their leaders.

Therefore the Marxist attack on anarchism as "anti-democratic"
is not only false, it is ironic and hypocritical. Firstly,
anarchists do *not* argue for "the absolute sovereignty of 
the individual ego." Rather, we argue for individual freedom.
This, in turn, implies a commitment to self-managed forms of
social organisation. This means that anarchists do not confuse
agreement with (hierarchical) authority. Secondly, Marxists do
not explain why the majority is always right or why their
opinions are automatically the truth. Thirdly, the logical
conclusions of their arguments would result in the absolute
enserfment of the individual to the representatives of the
majority. Fourthly, rather than being supporters of democracy, 
Marxists like Lenin and Trotsky explicitly argued for minority 
rule and the ignoring of majority decisions when they clashed 
with the decisions of the ruling party. Fifthly, their support 
for "democratic" centralised power means, in practice, the 
elimination of democracy in the grassroots. As can be seen 
from Trotsky's arguments against the Makhnovists, the 
democratic organisation and decisions of millions can be 
banned by a single individual.

All in all, Marxists claims that anarchists are "anti-democratic"
just backfire on Marxism.

H.2.12 Does anarchism survive only in the absence of a strong
       workers' movement?

Derek Howl argues that anarchism "survives only in the absence
of a strong workers themselves." This was based, apparently,
anarchism is the politics of "non-proletarians." As he puts
it, there "is a class basis of this. Just as Proudhon's
'anarchism' reflected the petty bourgeoisie under pressure,
so too Bakuninism as a movement rested upon non-proletarians
. . . In Italy Bakuninism was based upon the large 'lumpen
bourgeoisie', doomed petty bourgeois layers. In Switzerland
the Jura Federation . . . was composed of a world of cottage
industry stranded between the old world and the new, as were
pockets of newly proletarianised peasants that characterised
anarchism in Spain." He quotes Hal Draper statement that 
anarchism "was an ideology alien to the life of modern 
working people." ["The Legacy of Hal Draper," _International 
Socialism_, no. 52, p. 148]

Ignoring the obvious contradiction of "newly proletarianised
peasants" being "non-proletarians," we have the standard
Marxist "class analysis" of anarchism. This is to assert that
anarchism is "non-proletarian" while Marxism is "proletarian."
On the face of it, such an assertion seems to fly in the face 
of historical facts. After all, when Marx and Engels were 
writing the _Communist Manifesto_, the proletariat was a tiny 
minority of the population of a mostly rural, barely 
industrialised Germany and France. Perhaps it was Engels 
experiences as a capitalist in England that allowed him an 
insight into "the life of modern working people?"

Beyond this there are a few problems with this type of argument.
Firstly, there is the factual problems. Simply put, anarchism
appealed to "modern" working people and Marxism has appealed
to the "non-proletarian" groups and individuals (and vice versa, 
of course). This can be seen from the examples Howl lists as well 
as the rise of syndicalist ideas after the reformism of the first 
Marxist movement (social democracy) became apparent. Simply put, 
the rise of Marxism within the labour movement is associated with
its descent into reformism, *not* revolution. Secondly, there is 
the slight ideological problem that Lenin himself argued that the 
working class, by its own efforts, did not produce socialist ideas 
which were generated far from "the life of modern working people" 
by the intelligentsia. Lastly, there is the assumption that two 
long dead Germans, living in an environment where "modern working 
people" (proletarians) were a small minority of the working 
population, could really determine for all history which is 
(and is not) "proletarian" politics.

Taking the countries Howl lists, we can see that any claim
that anarchism is "alien" to the working class is simply false.
Looking at each case, it is clearly the case that the *politics*
of the people involved signify their working class credentials
for Marxists, *not* their actual economic or social class. Thus 
we have the sociological absurdity that makes anarchist workers 
"petty bourgeois" while actual members of the bourgeoisie (like 
Engels) or professional revolutionaries (and the sons of middle 
class families like Marx, Lenin and Trotsky) are considered as 
representatives of "proletarian" politics. Indeed, when these
radical members of the middle-class repress working class people
(as did Lenin and Trotsky were in power) they *remain* figures
to be followed and their acts justified in terms of the "objective"
needs of the working people they are oppressing! Ultimately, for 
most Marxists, whether someone is "non-proletariat" depends on 
their ideological viewpoint and not, in fact, their actual class.

Hence we discover Marx and Engels (like their followers) blaming
Bakunin's success in the International, as one historian notes, 
"on the middle-class leadership of Italy's socialist movement 
and the backwardness of the country. But if middle-class leaders 
were the catalysts of proletarian revolutionary efforts in Italy, 
this was also true of every other country in Europe, not excluding 
the General Council in London." [T.R. Ravindranathan, _Bakunin and 
the Italians_, p. 168] And by interpreting the difficulties for
Marxism in this way, Marx and Engels (like their followers)
need not question their own ideas and assumptions. As Nunzio
Pernicone notes, "[f]rom the outset, Engels had consistently
underestimated Bakunin as a political adversary and refused
to believe that Italian workers might embrace anarchist 
doctrines." However, "even a casual perusal of the 
internationalist and dissident democratic press would have
revealed to Engels that Bakuninism was rapidly developing
a following among Italian artisans and workers. But this
reality flew in the face of his unshakeable belief that
Italian internationalists were all a 'gang of declasses,
the refuse of the bourgeoisie.'" Even after the rise of 
the Italian Marxism in the 1890s, "the anarchist movement 
was proportionately more working-class than the PSI" and
the "the number of bourgeois intellectuals and professionals
that supported the PSI [Italian Socialist Party] was
vastly greater" than those supporting anarchism. Indeed,
"the percentage of party membership derived from the 
bourgeoisie was significantly higher in the PSI than among
the anarchists." [_Italian Anarchism, 1864-1892_, p. 82 and 
p. 282] Ironically, given Engels diatribes against the Italian
anarchists stopping workers following "proletarian" (i.e.
Marxist) politics and standing for elections, "as the PSI 
grew more working-class, just before the outbreak of war [in 
1914], its Directorate [elected by the party congress] grew more 
anti-parliamentary." [Gwyn A. Williams, _Proletarian Order_, 
p. 29] 

As we noted in section A.5.5, the role of the anarchists and 
syndicalists compared to the Marxists during the 1920 near 
revolution suggested that the real "proletarian" revolutionaries 
were, in fact, the former and *not* the latter. All in all,
the history of the Italian labour movement clearly show that,
for most Marxists, whether a group represents the "proletariat"
is simply dependent on their ideological commitment, *not*
their actual class. 

As regards the Jura Federation, we discover that its support was
wider than suggested by Marxists. As Marxist Paul Thomas noted,
"Bakunin's initial support in Switzerland -- like Marx's in
England -- came from resident aliens, political refugees . . .
but he also gathered support among *Gastarbeitier* for whom
Geneva was already a centre, where builders, carpenters and
and workers in heavy industry tended to be French or Italian
. . . Bakunin . . .  also marshalled considerable support among
French speaking domestic workers and watchmakers in the Jura."
[_Karl Marx and the Anarchists_, p. 390] It would be interesting
to hear a Marxist claim that "heavy industry" represented the
past or "non-proletarian" elements! Similarly, E. H. Carr in his
(hostile) biography of Bakunin, noted that the "sections of the
International at Geneva fell into two groups." Skilled craftsmen
formed the "Right wing" while "the builders, carpenters, and
workers in the heavier trades, the majority of whim were
immigrants from France and Italy, represented the Left." 
Unsurprisingly, these different groups of workers had different
politics. The craftsmen "concentrated on . . . reform" while
the latter "nourished hopes of a complete social upheaval."
Bakunin, as would be expected, "fanned the spirit of revolt"
among these, the proletarian, workers and soon had a "commanding
position in the Geneva International." [_Michael Bakunin_, p. 361] 
It should be noted that Marx and the General Council of the
International consistently supported the reformist wing of the
International in Geneva which organised political alliances
with the middle-class liberals during elections. Given these 
facts, it is little wonder that Howl concentrates on the 
support Bakunin received from domestic workers producing 
watches. To mention the support for Bakunin by organised, 
obviously proletarian, workers would undermine his case and 
so it is ignored.

Lastly, there is Spain. It seems funny that a Marxist would use
Spain as an example *against* the class roots of anarchism. 
After all, that is one of the countries where anarchism dominated
the working class movement. As one historian points out, "it
was not until the 1860s -- when anarchism was introduced --
that a substantive working class movement began to emerge" and
"throughout the history of Spanish anarchism, its survival
depended in large measure on the anarchists' ability to
maintain direct links with the workers." [George R. Esenwein,
_Anarchist Ideology and the Working-Class Movement in Spain,
1868-1898_, p. 6 and p. 207] As well as organising "newly
proletarianised peasants," the "Bakuninists" also organised
industrial workers -- indeed, far more successfully than
the Socialists. Indeed, the UGT only started to approach 
the size of the CNT once it had started to organise "newly 
proletarianised peasants" in the 1930s (i.e. anarchist 
unions organised more of the industrial working class than
the Socialist ones). From such a fact, we wonder if Marxists 
would argue that socialism rested on "non-proletarian" 
elements?

Moreover, the logic of dismissing anarchism as "non-proletarian" 
because it organised "newly proletarianised peasants" is simply 
laughable. After all, capitalism needed landless labours in order 
to start. This meant that the first proletarians existing in rural 
areas and were made up of ex-peasants. When these ex-peasants arrived
in the towns and cities, they were still "newly proletarianised
peasants." To ignore these groups of workers would mean, of
course, that they would lack basic socialist ideas once they 
reached urban areas, so potentially harming the labour movement
there. And, of course, a large section of Bolshevik support in 
1917 was to be found in "newly proletarianised peasants" whether 
in the army or working in the factories. Ironically enough, the 
Mensheviks argued that the Bolsheviks gained their influence 
from worker-peasant industrial "raw recruits" and not from the 
genuine working class. [Orlando Figes, _A People's Tragedy_, 
p. 830] As such, to dismiss anarchism because it gained converts 
from similar social strata as the Bolsheviks seems, on the face 
of it, a joke. 

As can be seen Howl's attempts to subject anarchism to a "class
analysis" simply fails. He selects the evidence which fits his
theory and ignores that which does not. However, looking at the
very examples he bases his case on shows how nonsensical it is.
Simply put, anarchist ideas appealed to many types of workers,
including typically "proletarian" ones who worked in large-scale
industries. What they seem to have in common is a desire for
radical social change, organised by themselves in their own
combative class organs (such as unions). Moreover, like the 
early British workers movement, they considered that these
unions, as well as being organs of class struggle, could also
be the framework of a free socialist society. Such a perspective
is hardly backward (indeed, since 1917 most Marxists pay 
lip-service to this vision!).

Which brings us to the next major problem with Howl's argument,
namely the fate of Marxism and the "strong" labour movement
it allegedly is suited for. Looking at the only nation which 
did have a "modern" working class during the most of Marx's 
life, Britain, the "strong" labour movement it produced was 
(and has) not been anarchist, it is true, but neither was it 
(nor did it become) Marxist. Rather, it has been a mishmash of 
conflicting ideas, predominately reformist state socialist ones 
which owe little, if anything, to Marx. Indeed, the closest 
Britain came to developing a wide scale revolutionary working 
class movement was during the "syndicalist revolt" of the 1910s. 
Ironically, some Marxists joined this movement simply because 
the existing Marxist parties were so reformist or irrelevant 
to the "life of modern working people." 

Looking at the rise of capitalism in other countries, we find
the same process. The rise of social democracy (Marxism) in 
the international labour movement simply signified the rise 
of reformism. Instead of producing a *revolutionary* labour 
movement, Marxism helped produce the opposite (although,
initially, hiding reformist activity behind revolutionary
rhetoric). So when Howl asserts that anarchism "survives in 
the absence of a strong workers' movement," we have to wonder 
what planet he is on. 

Thus, to state matters more correctly, anarchism flourishes
during those periods when the labour movement and its members
are radical, taking direct action and creating new forms of
organisation which are still based on workers' self-management.
This is to be expected as anarchism is both based upon and
is the result of workers' self-liberation through struggle.
In less militant times, the effects of bourgeois society and 
the role of unions within the capitalist economy can de-radicalise 
the labour movement and lead to the rise of bureaucracy within it. 
It is then, during periods when the class struggle is low, that 
reformist ideas spread. Sadly, Marxism aided that spread by its 
tactics -- the role of electioneering focused struggle away from
direct action and into the ballot-box and so onto leaders rather
than working class self-activity.

Moreover, if we look at the current state of the labour movement, 
then we would have to conclude that Marxism is "an ideology alien 
to the life of modern working people." Where are the large Marxist 
working class unions and parties? There are a few large reformist 
socialist and Stalinist parties in continental Europe, but these 
are not Marxist in any meaningful sense of the word. Most of the 
socialist ones used to be Marxist, although they relatively quickly 
stopped being revolutionary in any meaningful sense of the word 
a very long time ago (some, like the German Social Democrats, 
organised counter-revolutionary forces to crush working class 
revolt after the First World War). As for the Stalinist parties, 
it would be better to consider it a sign of shame that they get 
any support in the working class at all. Simply put, in terms of 
revolutionary Marxists, there are various Trotskyist sects arguing 
amongst themselves on who is the *real* vanguard of the proletariat, 
but *no* Marxist labour movement.

Which, of course, brings us to the next point, namely the ideological
problems for Leninists themselves by such an assertion. After all,
Lenin himself argued that "the life of modern working people" could
only produce "trade-union consciousness." Indeed, according to him,
socialist ideas were developed independently of working people by
the socialist (middle-class) "intelligentsia." As he put it in
_What is to be done?_, "the working class, exclusively by their 
own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness 
. . . the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose quite 
independently of the spontaneous growth of the labour movement; 
it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of ideas among the 
revolutionary socialist intelligentsia." This meant that "Social 
Democratic [i.e. socialist] consciousness . . . could only be brought 
to them [the workers] from without." [_Essential Works of Lenin_, 
pp. 74-5] Clearly, then, for Lenin, socialism was an ideology
which was alien to the life of modern working class people. 

Lastly, there is the question of whether Marx and Engels can
seriously be thought of as being able to decree once and for
all what is and is not "proletarian" politics. Given that
neither of these men were working class (one was a capitalist!)
it makes the claim that they would know "proletarian" politics
suspect. Moreover, they formulated their ideas of what constitute
"proletarian" politics before a modern working class actually
developed in any country bar Britain. This means, that from the
experience of one section of the proletarian in one country in
the 1840s, Marx and Engels have decreed for all time what is and
is not a "proletarian" set of politics! On the face of it, it is
hardly a convincing argument, particularly as we have over 150
years of experience of these tactics with which to evaluate them!

Based on this perspective, Marx and Engels opposed all other 
socialist groups as "sects" if they did not subscribe to their
ideas. Ironically, while arguing that all other socialists were
fostering their sectarian politics onto the workers movement, 
they themselves fostered their own perspective onto it.
Originally, because the various sections of the International
worked under different circumstances and had attained different 
degrees of development, the theoretical ideals which reflected 
the real movement would also diverge. The International, therefore, 
was open to all socialist and working class tendencies its general 
policies would be, by necessity, based on conference decisions 
that reflected this divergence. These decisions would be determined 
by free discussion within and between sections of all economic, 
social and political ideas. Marx, however, replaced this policy 
with a common program of "political action" (i.e. electioneering) 
by mass political parties via the fixed Hague conference of 1872. 
Rather than having this position agreed by the normal exchange 
of ideas and theoretical discussion in the sections guided by 
the needs of the practical struggle, Marx imposed what *he* 
considered as the future of the workers movement onto the 
International -- and denounced those who disagreed with him 
as sectarians. The notion that what Marx considered as necessary 
might be another sectarian position imposed on the workers' 
movement did not enter his head nor those of his followers. 

Thus the Marxist claim that true working class movements are based 
on mass political parties based on hierarchical, centralised, 
leadership and those who reject this model and political action 
(electioneering) are sects and sectarians is simply their option
and little more. Once we look at the workers' movement without 
the blinkers created by Marxism, we see that Anarchism was a 
movement of working class people using what they considered 
valid tactics to meet their own social, economic and political 
goals -- tactics and goals which evolved to meet changing 
circumstances. Seeing the rise of anarchism and syndicalism 
as the political expression of the class struggle, guided by 
the needs of the practical struggle they faced naturally 
follows when we recognise the Marxist model for what it 
is -- just one possible interpretation of the future of the 
workers' movement rather than *the* future of that movement
(and as the history of Social Democracy indicates, the 
predictions of Bakunin and the anarchists within the First 
International were proved correct). 

This tendency to squeeze the revolutionary workers' movement into
the forms decreed by two people in the mid-nineteenth century has
proved to be disastrous for it. Even after the total failure of
social democracy, the idea of "revolutionary" parliamentarianism
was fostered onto the Third International by the Bolsheviks in spite
of the fact that more and more revolutionary workers in advanced
capitalist nations were rejecting it in favour of direct action
and autonomous working class self-organisation. Anarchists and
libertarian Marxists based themselves on this actual movement of
working people, influenced by the failure of "political action,"
while the Bolsheviks based themselves on the works of Marx and
Engels and their experiences in a backward, semi-feudal society
whose workers had already created factory committees and soviets 
by direct action. It was for this reason that the anarcho-syndicalist
Augustin Souchy said he referred "to the tendencies that exist in
the modern workers' movement" when he argued at the Second Congress 
of the Communist International:

"It must be granted that among revolutionary workers the tendency
toward parliamentarism is disappearing more and more. On the
contrary, a strong anti-parliamentary tendency is becoming 
apparent in the ranks of the most advanced part of the proletariat.
Look at the Shop Stewards' movement [in Britain] or Spanish
syndicalism . . . The IWW is absolutely antiparliamentary . . .
I want to point out that the idea of antiparliamentarism is
asserting itself more strongly in Germany . . . as a result of
the revolution itself . . . We must view the question in this
light." [_Proceedings and Documents of the Second Congress 1920_,
vol 1, pp. 176-7]

Of course, this perspective of basing yourself on the ideas and
tactics generated by the action class struggle was rejected in
favour of a return to the principles of Marx and Engels and their
vision of what constituted a genuine "proletarian" movement. If 
these tactics were the correct ones, then why did they not lead 
to a less dismal set of results? After all, the degeneration of
social democracy into reformism would suggest their failure and
sticking "revolutionary" before their tactics (as in "revolutionary
parliamentarianism") changes little. Marxists, like anarchists, are
meant to be materialists, not idealists. What was the actual outcome 
of the Leninist strategies? Did they result in successful proletarian 
revolutions. No, they did not. The revolutionary wave peaked and
fell and the Leninist parties themselves very easily and quickly
became Stalinised. Significantly, those areas with a large anarchist,
syndicalist or quasi-syndicalist (e.g. the council communists) 
workers movements (Italy, Spain and certain parts of Germany) 
came closest to revolution and by the mid-1930s, only Spain with 
its strong anarchist movement had a revolutionary labour movement.
Therefore, rather than representing "non-proletarian" or "sectarian" 
politics forced upon the working class, anarchism reflected the 
politics required to built a *revolutionary* workers' movement 
rather than a reformist mass party.

As such, perhaps we can finally lay to rest the idea that Marx
predicted the whole future of the labour movement and the path 
it must take like some kind of socialist Nostradamus. Equally,
we can dismiss Marxist claims of the "non-proletarian" nature 
of anarchism as uninformed and little more than an attempt to 
squeeze history into an ideological prison. As noted above, 
in order to present such an analysis, the actual class 
compositions of significant events and social movements have 
to be manipulated. This is the case of the Paris Commune, 
for example, which was predominantly a product of artisans 
(i.e. the "petit bourgeoisie"), *not* the industrial working 
class and yet claimed by Marxists as an example of the 
"dictatorship of the proletariat." Ironically, many of the 
elements of the Commune praised by Marx can be found in the 
works of Proudhon and Bakunin which pre-date the uprising. 
Similarly, the idea that workers' fighting organisations 
("soviets") would be the means to abolish the state and the 
framework of a socialist society can be found in Bakunin's works,
decades before Lenin paid lip-service to this idea in 1917. For a 
theory allegedly resting on "non-proletarian" elements it has 
successfully predicted many of the ideas Marxists claim to have 
learnt from proletarian class struggle! 

So, in summary, the claims that anarchism is "alien" to working
class life, that it is "non-proletarian" or "survives in the
absence of a strong workers' movement" are simply false. Looking
objectively at the facts of the matter quickly shows that this 
is the case.

H.2.13 Do anarchists reject "political" struggles and action?

A common Marxist claim is that anarchists and syndicalists 
ignore or dismiss the importance of "political" struggles or
action. This is not true. Rather, as we discuss in section
J.2.10, we think that "political" struggles should be 
conducted by the same means as social and economic struggles, 
namely by direct action, solidarity and working class 
self-organisation.

As this is a common assertion, it is useful to provide a quick 
summary of why anarchists do not, in fact, reject "political" 
struggles and action as such. Rather, to quote Bakunin, 
anarchism "does not reject politics generally. It will 
certainly be forced to involve itself insofar as it will 
be forced to struggle against the bourgeois class. It 
only rejects bourgeois politics . . . [as it] establishes 
the predatory domination of the bourgeoisie." [_The Political 
Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 313] For Kropotkin, it was a
truism that it was "absolutely impossible . . . to confine
the ideas of the working mass within the narrow circle of
reductions in working hours and wage increases . . . The
social question compels attention." This fact implied two
responses: "the workers' organisation propels itself either 
into the sterile path of parliamentary politics as in
Germany, or into the path of revolution." [quoted by 
Caroline Cahm, _Kropotkin and the rise of Revolutionary
Anarchism, 1872-1886_, p. 241] 

So while Marxists often argue that anarchists exclusively 
interested in economic struggle and reject "politics" or 
"political action," the truth of the matter is different.
We are well aware of the importance of political issues,
although anarchists reject using bourgeois methods in
favour of direct action. Moreover, we are aware that any
social or economic struggle has its political aspects and
that such struggles bring the role of the state as defender
of capitalism and the need to struggle against it into 
focus:

"There is no serious strike that occurs today without the
appearance of troops, the exchange of blows and some acts of
revolt. Here they fight with the troops; there they march on
the factories; . . . in Pittsburgh in the United States, the
strikers found themselves masters of a territory as large as
France, and the strike became the signal for a general revolt 
against the State; in Ireland the peasants on strike found
themselves in open revolt against the State. Thanks to 
government intervention the rebel against the factory becomes 
the rebel against the State." [quoted by Caroline Cahm, Op. Cit., 
p. 256]

As Malatesta argued, from "the economic struggle one must
pass to the political struggle, that is to struggle against
government; and instead of opposing the capitalist millions
with the workers' few pennies scraped together with difficulty,
one must oppose the rifles and guns which defend property
with the more effective means that the people will be able 
to defeat force by force." [_Life and Ideas_, pp. 193-4] So
anarchists are well aware of the need to fight for political
issues and reforms, and so are "not in any way opposed to
the political struggle, but in their opinion this struggle,
too, must take the form of direct action, in which the 
instruments of economic [and social] power which the 
working class has at its command are the most effective.
The most trivial wage-fight shows clearly that, whenever
the employers find themselves in difficulties, the state
stops in with the police, and even in some cases with the
militia, to protect the threatened interests of the possessing
classes. It would, therefore, be absurd for them to overlook
the importance of the political struggle." [Rudolf Rocker,
_Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 65]

This means that the question of whether to conduct political 
struggles is *not* the one which divides anarchists from
Marxists. Rather, it is a question of *how* this struggle
is fought. For anarchists, this struggle is best fought using
*direct action* (see section J.2) and fighting working class 
organisations based in our workplaces and communities. For
Marxists, the political struggle is seen as being based on
standing candidates in bourgeois elections. This can be seen 
from the resolution passed by the socialist ("Second") 
International in 1893. This resolution was designed to 
exclude anarchists and stated that only "those Socialist
Parties and Organisations which recognise the organisation
of workers and of political action." By "political action"
it mean "that the working-class organisations seek, in as
far as possible, to use or conquer political rights and the
machinery of legislation for the furthering of the interests
of the proletariat and the conquest of political power."
[quoted by Susan Milner, _The Dilemmas of Internationalism_,
p. 49] Significantly, while this International and its member 
parties (particular the German Social Democrats) were happy to 
expel anarchists, they never expelled the leading reformists 
from their ranks.

So, in general, anarchists use the word "political action" to 
refer exclusively to the taking part of revolutionaries in 
bourgeois elections (i.e. electioneering or parliamentarianism). 
It does not mean a rejection of fighting for political reforms 
or a lack of interest in political issues, quite the reverse in
fact. The reason *why* anarchists reject this tactic is discussed
in section J.2.6 ("What are the effects of radicals using 
electioneering?"), which means we will give a short summary
here.

Simply put, for anarchists, the net effect of socialists using
bourgeois elections would be to put them (and the movements 
they represent) into the quagmire of bourgeois politics and
influences. In other words, the parties involved will be shaped
by the environment they are working within and not vice versa.
As Bakunin argued, the "inevitable result" of electing workers
into bourgeois state would be to see them "become middle class
in their outlook" due to them being "transferred to a purely
bourgeois environment and into an atmosphere of purely
bourgeois political ideas." This meant that as "long as
universal suffrage is exercised in a society where the people,
the mass of workers, are *economically* dominated by a minority
holding exclusive possession the property and capital of the
country . . . elections . . . . can only be illusory,
anti-democratic in their results." [Op. Cit., p. 216 and
p. 213] This meant that "the election to the German
parliament of one or two workers . . . from the Social
Democratic Party" was "not dangerous" and, in fact, was
"highly useful to the German state as a lightning-rod, or
a safety-valve." Unlike the "political and social theory"
of the anarchists, which "leads them directly and inexorably
to a complete break with all governments and all forms of
bourgeois politics, leaving no alternative but social 
revolution," Marxism, he argued, "inexorably enmeshes and
entangles its adherents, under the pretext of political 
tactics, in endless accommodation with governments and the
various bourgeois political parties -- that is, it thrusts
them directly into reaction." [Bakunin, _Statism and Anarchy_, 
p. 193 and pp. 179-80] In the case of the German Social
Democrats, this became obvious in 1914, when they supported
their state in the First World war, and after 1918, when 
they crushed the German Revolution.

For Kropotkin, the idea that you could somehow "prepare" for a
revolution by electioneering was simply a joke. "As if the
bourgeoisie," he argued, "still holding on to its capital,
could allow them [the socialists] to experiment with socialism
even if they succeeded in gaining control of power! As if the
conquest of the municipalities were possible without the
conquest of the factories." He saw that "those who yesterday 
were considered socialists are today letting go of socialism, 
by renouncing its mother idea ["the need to replace the wage 
system and to abolish individual ownership of . . . social 
capital"] and passing over into the camp of the bourgeoisie, 
while retaining, so as to hide their turnabout, the label of 
socialism." [_Words of a Rebel_, p. 181 and p. 180]

Ultimately, the bourgeois tactics used ended up with bourgeois
results. As Emma Goldman argued, socialism "was led astray by
the evil spirit of politics" and "landed in the [political]
trap and has now but one desire -- to adjust itself to the
narrow confines of its cage, to become part of the authority,
part of the very power that has slain the beautiful child 
Socialism and left begin a hideous monster." [_Red Emma 
Speaks_, p. 80] The net effect of "political action" was the
corruption of the socialist movement into a reformist party
which betrayed the promise of socialism in favour of making
existing society better (so it can last longer). This process
confirmed Bakunin's predictions as well as Kropotkin's 
comments:

"The middle class will not give up its power without a struggle.
It will resist. And in proportion as Socialists will become
part of the Government and share power with the middle class,
their Socialism will grow paler and paler. This is, indeed,
what Socialism is rapidly doing. Were this no so, the middle
classes . . . would not share their power with the Socialists."
[_Evolution and Environment_, p. 102]

In addition, as we argue in sections H.1.5 and J.2.5, direct
action is either based on (or creates) forms of self-managed
working class organisations. The process of collective struggle,
in other words, necessitates collective forms of organisation
and decision making. These combative organisations, as well as
conducting the class struggle under capitalism, can also be the
framework of a free society (see section H.1.4). However, standing
in elections does *not* produce such alternative social structures
and, indeed, hinders them as the focus for social changes becomes
a few leaders working in existing (i.e. bourgeois) structures and
bodies. 

As can be seen, anarchists reject "political" struggle (i.e.
electioneering) for good (and historically vindicated) reasons.
This makes a mockery of Marxists assertions (beginning with
Marx) that anarchists like Bakunin "opposed all political action
by the working class since this would imply 'recognition'
of the existing state." [Derek Howl, "The Legacy of Hal 
Draper," _International Socialism_, no. 52, p. 147] This, 
in fact, is a common Marxist claim, namely that anarchists 
reject "political struggle" on principle (i.e. for idealistic
purposes). In the words of Engels, Bakunin was "opposed to all 
political action by the working class, since this would in fact 
involve recognition of the existing state." [Marx, Engels and 
Lenin, _Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 49] Sadly, like 
all Marxists, he failed to indicate where, in fact, Bakunin 
actually said that. As can be seen, this was *not* the case.
Bakunin, like all revolutionary anarchists, reject "political
action" (in the sense of electioneering) simply because they
feared that such tactics would be counterproductive and
undermine the revolutionary nature of the labour movement. As
the experience of Marxist Social Democracy showed, he was
proved correct.

In summary, while anarchists reject standing of socialists in
elections ("political action," narrowly defined), we do not
reject the need to fight for political reforms or specific
political issues. However, we see such action as being based
on collective working class *direct action* organised around
combative organs of working class self-management and power
rather than the individualistic act of placing a cross on a
piece of power once every few years and letting leaders fight
your struggles for you.

H.2.14 Are anarchist organisations either "ineffective," "elitist" 
       or the "downright bizarre"?

Marxists often accuse anarchist organisations of being "elitist"
or "secret." Pat Stack (of the British SWP) ponders the history 
of anarchist organisation (at least the SWP version of that 
history):

"how otherwise [than Leninist vanguard political parties] do 
revolutionaries organise? Apart from the serious efforts of 
anarcho-syndicalists to grapple with this problem, anarchists 
have failed to pose any serious alternative. In as much as they 
do, they have produced either the ineffective, the elitist or 
the downright bizarre. Bakunin's organisation, the 'Alliance of 
Social Democracy', managed all three: 'The organisation had two 
overlapping forms, one secret, involving only the "intimates", 
and one public, the Alliance of Social Democracy. Even in its 
open, public mode, the alliance was to be a highly centralised 
organisation, with all decisions on the national level approved 
by the Central Committee. Since it was the real controlling body, 
the secret organisation was even more tightly centralised . . . 
with first a Central Committee, then a "central Geneva section" 
acting as the "permanent delegation of the permanent Central 
Committee", and, finally, within the central Geneva section a 
"Central Bureau", which was to be both the "executive power . . . 
composed of three, or five, or even seven members" of the secret 
organisation and the executive directory of the public 
organisation.'

"That this was far more elitist and less democratic than Lenin's 
model is clear."

There are, as is obvious, numerous problems with Stack's assertions.
Firstly, he makes absolutely *no* attempt to discuss anarchist
ideas on the question of revolutionary organisation. In section
J.3, we discuss the various approaches anarchists have historically
suggested in this area and Stack fails to mention any of them.
Rather, he prefers to present a somewhat distorted account of the
ideas of Bakunin on the structural aspects of his organisation, 
ideas which died with him in 1876! Secondly, as Stack fails to
discuss how anarchists (including Bakunin) see their organisations
operating, its hard to determine whether they are "ineffective"
or "elitist." This is hardly surprising, as they are neither.
Thirdly, even as regards his own example (Bakunin's Alliance) his
claim that it was "ineffectual" seems inappropriate in the 
extreme. Whether it was "elitist" or "downright bizarre" is hard
to determine, as Stack quotes an unnamed author and their quotes
from its structure. Fourthly, and ironically for Stack, Lenin's
"model" shared many of the same features as those of Bakunin's!

As noted, Stack fails to discuss any of the standard anarchist
ideas on how revolutionaries should organise. As we discuss
in section J.3, there are three main types: the "synthesis"
federation, the "class struggle" federation and the "Platform."
In the twenty-first century, these are the main types of 
anarchist organisation. As such, it would be extremely hard 
to argue that these are "elitist," "ineffective" or "downright 
bizarre." What these organisational ideas have in common is
the vision of an anarchist organisation as a federation of 
autonomous self-managed groups which work with others as equals. 
How can directly democratic organisations, which influence others 
by the force of their ideas and by their example, be "elitist"
or "downright bizarre"? Little wonder, then, that Stack used 
an example from 1868 to attack anarchism in the twenty-first 
century! If he actually presented an honest account of anarchist 
ideas then his claims would quickly be seen to be nonsense. And 
as for the claim of being "ineffective," well, given that Stack's
article is an attempt to combat anarchist influence in the 
anti-globalisation movement it would suggest the opposite.

For a modern account of how anarchist groups operate, organise
and try to influence the class struggle directly, by the "natural 
influence" (to use Bakunin's expression) of its members in working 
class organisations see section J.3. 

Even looking at the example of Bakunin's Alliance, we can see
evidence that Stack's summary is simply wrong. Firstly, it seems 
strange for Stack to claim that the Alliance was "ineffective." 
After all, Marx spent many years combating it (and Bakunin's 
influence) in the First International. Indeed, so effective 
was it that anarchist ideas dominated most sections of that 
organisation, forcing Marx to move the General Council to 
America to ensure that it did not fall into the hands of the 
anarchists (i.e. of the majority). Moreover, it was hardly 
"ineffective" when it came to building the International. As 
Marxist Paul Thomas notes, "the International was to prove 
capable of expanding its membership only at the behest of the
Bakuninists [sic!]" and "[w]herever the International was 
spreading, it was doing so under the mantle of Bakuninism." 
[_Karl Marx and the Anarchists_, p. 315and p. 319] Yet Stack 
considers this as an example of an "ineffective" organisation!

As regards Stack's summary of Bakunin's organisation goes, we
must note that Stack is quoting an unnamed source on Bakunin's 
views on this subject. We, therefore, have no way of evaluating 
whether this is a valid summary of Bakunin's ideas on this matter. 
As we indicate elsewhere (see section J.3.7) Leninist summaries 
of Bakunin's ideas on secret organising usually leave a lot to be 
desired (by usually leaving a lot out or quoting out of context 
certain phrases). As such, and given the total lack of relevance
of this model for anarchists since the 1870s, we will not bother
to discuss this summary. Simply put, it is a waste of time to 
discuss an organisational model which no modern anarchist supports.

However, as we discuss in section J.3.7, there is a key way  in which Bakunin's ideas on this issue were far *less* 
"elitist" and *more* "democratic" than Lenin's model. Simply, 
Bakunin always stressed that his organisation "rules out any 
idea of dictatorship and custodial control." The revolution 
"everywhere must be created by the people, and supreme control
must always belong to the people organised into a free federation 
of agricultural and industrial associations . . . organised from 
the bottom upwards by means of revolutionary delegation." [_Michael 
Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 172] In other words, Bakunin
saw the social revolution in terms of popular participation and
control, *not* the seizing of power by a "revolutionary" party
or group. 

The "main purpose and task of the organisation," argued Bakunin,
would be to "help the people to achieve self-determination." It 
would "not threaten the liberty of the people because it is free 
from all official character" and "not placed above the people like 
state power." Its programme "consists of the fullest realisation of 
the liberty of the people" and its influence is "not contrary to 
the free development and self-determination of the people, or its 
organisation from below according to its own customs and instincts 
because it acts on the people only by the natural personal influence 
of its members who are not invested with any power." Thus the
revolutionary group would be the "helper" of the masses, with 
an "organisation within the people itself." [quoted by Michael 
Confino, _Daughter of a Revolutionary_, p. 259, p. 261, p. 256 
and p. 261] The revolution itself would see "an end to all 
masters and to domination of every kind, and the free 
construction of popular life in accordance with popular 
needs, not from above downward, as in the state, but from 
below upward, by the people themselves, dispensing with 
all governments and parliaments -- a voluntary alliance of 
agricultural and factory worker associations, communes, 
provinces, and nations; and, finally, . . . universal human 
brotherhood triumphing on the ruins of all the states."
[_Statism and Anarchy_, p. 33]

Unlike Lenin, Bakunin did not confuse party power with people power. 
His organisation, for all it faults (and they were many), did not 
aim to take power in the name of the working class and exercise
power through a centralised, top-down, state. Rather, its influence 
would be based on the "natural influence" of its members within
mass organisations. The influence of anarchists would, therefore,
be limited to the level by which their specific ideas were accepted
by other members of the same organisations after discussion and
debate. As regards the nature of the labour movement, we must point 
out that Bakunin provided the same "serious" answer as the 
anarcho-syndicalists -- namely, revolutionary labour unionism.
As we discuss in section H.2.8, Bakunin's ideas on this matter
are nearly identical to those of the syndicalists Stack praises.

As noted, however, no anarchist group has reproduced the internal
structure of the Alliance, which means that Stack's point is simply
historical in nature. Sadly this is not the case with his own politics
as the ideas he attacks actually parallel Lenin's model in many ways 
(although, as indicated above, how Bakunin's organisation would 
function in the class struggle was fundamentally different, as Lenin's 
party sought power for itself). Given that Stack is proposing Lenin's 
model as a viable means of organising revolutionaries, it is useful 
to summarise it. We shall take as an example two statements issued 
by the Second World Congress of the Communist International in 1920 
under the direction of Lenin. These are "Twenty-One Conditions of 
Communism" and "Theses on the Role of the Communist Party in the 
Proletarian Revolution." These two documents provide a vision of 
Leninist organisation which is fundamentally elitist.

Lenin's "model" is clear from these documents. The parties adhering 
to the Communist International had to have two overlapping forms, 
one legal (i.e. public) and another "illegal" (i.e. secret). It was
the "duty" of these parties "to create everywhere a parallel illegal 
organisational apparatus." [_Proceedings and Documents of the Second 
Congress 1920_, vol. 2, p. 767]

Needless to say, this illegal organisation would be the real 
controlling body, as it would have to be made up of trusted 
communists and could only be even more tightly centralised 
than the open party as its members could only be appointed
from above by the illegal organisation's central committee. 
To stress that the "illegal" (i.e. secret) organisation
controlled the party, the Communist International agreed
that while "the Communist Parties must learn to systematically
combine legal and illegal activity," the legal work "must
be under the actual control of the illegal party at all
times." [Op. Cit., vol. 1, p. 199]

Even in its open, public mode, the Communist Party was to 
be a highly centralised organisation, with all decisions on 
the national level made by the Central Committee. The parties
must be as centralised as possible, with a party centre which
has strength and authority and is equipped with the most
comprehensive powers. Also, the party press and other 
publications, and all party publishing houses, must be 
subordinated to the party presidium. This applied on 
an international level as well, with the decisions of its 
Communist International's Executive Committee were binding on 
all parties belonging to the Communist International. 
[Op. Cit., vol. 2, p. 769] 
Moreover, "Communist cells of all kinds must be subordinate
to each other in a strictly hierarchical order of rank as
precisely as possible." Democratic centralism itself was
fundamentally hierarchical, with its "basic principles" 
being that "the higher bodies shall be elected by the
lower, that all instructions of the higher bodies are
categorically and necessarily binding on the lower." 
Indeed, "there shall be a strong party centre whose 
authority is universally and unquestionably recognised
for all leading party comrades in the period between
congresses." Any "advocacy of broad 'autonomy' for the
local party organisations only weakens the ranks of the
Communist Party" and "favours petty-bourgeois, anarchist
and disruptive tendencies." [Op. Cit., vol. 1, p. 198]

It seems strange for Stack to argue that Bakunin's ideas
(assuming he presents an honest account of them, of course) 
were "far more elitist and less democratic than Lenin's model" 
as it obviously was not. Indeed, the similarities between Stack's 
summary of Bakunin's ideas and Leninist theory are striking. The 
Leninist party has the same division between open and secret (legal
and illegal) structures as in Bakunin's, the same centralism and 
top-down nature. Lenin argued that "[i]n all countries, even in
those that are freest, most 'legal,' and most 'peaceful' . . .
it is now absolutely indispensable for every Communist Party to
systematically combine legal and illegal work, legal and illegal
organisation." He stressed that "[o]nly the most reactionary
philistine, no matter what cloak of fine 'democratic' and
pacifist phrases he may don, will deny this fact or the 
conclusion that of necessity follows from it, viz., that all
legal Communist parties must immediately form illegal organisations
for the systematic conduct of illegal work." [_Collected Works_,
vol. 31, p. 195] 

This was due to the threat of state repression, which also faced
Bakunin's Alliance. As Murray Bookchin argues, "Bakunin's emphasis on
conspiracy and secrecy can be understood only against the social
background of Italy, Spain, and Russia the three countries in
Europe where conspiracy and secrecy were matters of sheer survival."
[_The Spanish Anarchists_, p. 24]

For anarchists, the similarity in structure between Bakunin and Lenin
is no source of embarrassment. Rather, we argue that it is due to
a similarity in political conditions in Russia and *not* similarities
in political ideas. If we look at Bakunin's ideas on social revolution
and the workers' movement we see a fully libertarian perspective
-- of a movement from the bottom-up, based on the principles of
direct action, self-management and federalism. Anarchists since 
his death have applied *these* ideas to the specific anarchist 
organisation as well, rejecting the non-libertarian elements of 
Bakunin's ideas which Stack correctly (if somewhat hypocritically 
and dishonestly) denounce. All in all, Stack has shown himself to 
be a hypocrite or, at best, a "most reactionary philistine" (to
use Lenin's choice expression).

In addition, it would be useful to evaluate the effectiveness 
of Stack's Leninist alternative. Looking at the outcome of the 
Russian Revolution, we can only surmise that it is not very
effective. This is because its goal is meant to be a socialist
society based on soviet democracy. Did the Russian Revolution 
actually result in such a society? Far from it. The Kronstadt 
revolt was repressed in 1921 because it demanded soviet power (see
section H.7). Nor was this an isolated example. The Bolsheviks 
had been disbanding soviets with elected non-Bolshevik majorities 
since early 1918 (i.e. *before* the start of the Civil War) and 
by 1920 leading Bolsheviks were arguing that dictatorship of the
proletariat could only be expressed by means of the dictatorship
of the party (see section H.6 for details). Clearly, the Bolshevik 
method is hardly "effective" in the sense of achieving its stated 
goals. Nor was it particularly effective before the revolution
either. During the 1905 revolution, the Bolsheviks opposed the
councils of workers' deputies (soviets) which had been formed
and gave them an ultimatum: either accept the programme of the 
Bolsheviks or else disband! The soviets ignored them. In February 
1917 the Bolshevik party opposed the actions that produced the 
revolution which overthrew the Tsar. Simply put, the one event
that validates the Bolshevik model is the October Revolution 
of 1917 and even that failed. 

The weakness of Stack's diatribe can be seen from his use of 
the Alliance example. Moreover, it backfires on his own politics. 
The similarities between Bakunin's ideas and Lenin's on this 
subject are clear. The very issues which Stack raises as being 
"elitist" in Bakunin (secret and open organisation, centralisation, 
top-down decision making) are shared by Lenin. Given that no other 
anarchist organisation has ever followed the Alliance structure 
(and, indeed, it is doubtful the Alliance followed it!), it makes 
a mockery of the scientific method to base a generalisation on 
an exception rather than the norm (indeed, the only exception). 
For Stack to use Bakunin's ideas on this issue as some kind of 
evidence against anarchism staggers belief. Given that anarchists 
reject Bakunin's ideas on this subject while Leninists continue to 
subscribe to Lenin's, it is very clear that Stack is being extremely 
hypocritical in this matter.

All in all, anarchists would argue that it is Leninist ideas on
the vanguard party which are "elitist," "ineffective" and "downright
bizarre." As we discuss in section H.5, the only thing the Leninist 
"revolutionary" party is effective for is replacing one set of 
bosses with a new set (the leaders of the party).

H.2.15 Do anarchists reject discipline?

The idea that anarchists reject the need for discipline, or
are against organisation, or base their ideas on the whim of
the individual, are common place in Marxism. Simply put, the 
idea that anarchists reject "discipline" is derived from the 
erroneous Marxist assertion that anarchism is basically a 
form of "individualism" and based on the "absolute sovereignty 
of the individual ego" (see section H.2.11). From this (incorrect)
position, it is logically deduced that anarchism must reject the 
need for "discipline" (i.e. the ability to make and stick to 
collective decisions). Needless to say, this is false. Anarchists
are well aware of the need to organise together and, therefore,
the need to stick by decisions reached. The importance of 
solidarity in anarchist theory is an expression of this 
awareness.

However, there is "discipline" and "discipline." There can be no
denying that in a capitalist workplace or army there is "discipline"
yet few, if any, sane persons would argue that this distinctly
top-down and hierarchical "discipline" is something to aspire to,
particularly if you seek a free society. This cannot be compared
to a making and sticking by a collective decision reached by free 
discussion and debate within a self-governing associations. As 
Bakunin argued:

"Discipline, mutual trust as well as unity are all excellent 
qualities when properly understood and practised, but disastrous
when abused . . . [one use of the word] discipline almost always 
signifies despotism on the one hand and blind automatic submission
to authority on the other . . . 

"Hostile as I am to [this,] the authoritarian conception of 
discipline, I nevertheless recognise that a certain kind of 
discipline, not automatic but voluntary and intelligently 
understood is, and will ever be, necessary whenever a greater 
number of individuals undertake any kind of collective work or 
action. Under these circumstances, discipline is simply the 
voluntary and considered co-ordination of all individual efforts 
for a common purpose. At the moment of revolution, in the
midst of the struggle, there is a natural division of functions
according to the aptitude of each, assessed and judged by the
collective whole: Some direct and others carry out orders.
But no function remains fixed and it will not remain permanently
and irrevocably attached to any one person. Hierarchical order
and promotion do not exist, so that the executive of yesterday
can become the subordinate of tomorrow. No one rises above the
others, and if he does rise, it is only to fall back again a
moment later, like the waves of the sea forever returning to
the salutary level of equality.

"In such a system, power, properly speaking, no longer exists.
Power is diffused to the collectivity and becomes the true
expression of the liberty of everyone, the faithful and
sincere realisation of the will of all . . . this is the
only true discipline, the discipline necessary for the
organisation of freedom. This is not the kind of discipline
preached by the State . . . which wants the old, routine-like,
automatic blind discipline. Passive discipline is the foundation
of every despotism." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, pp. 414-5]

Clearly, anarchists see the need for *self*-discipline rather
than the hierarchical "discipline" associated with capitalism
and other class systems. It simply means that "anyone who 
associates and co-operates with others for a common purpose
must feel the need to co-ordinate his [or her] actions with
those of his [or her] fellow members and do nothing that harms
the work of others and, thus, the common cause; and respect
the agreements that have been made -- except when wishing 
sincerely to leave the association when emerging differences
of opinion or changed circumstances or conflict over preferred
methods make co-operation impossible or inappropriate." [Malatesta,
_The Anarchist Revolution_, pp. 107-8] As such, we reject
hierarchical "discipline," considering it as confusing agreement
with authority, co-operation with coercion and helping with
hierarchy.

Anarchists are not alone in this. A few Marxists have also seen
this difference. For example, Rosa Luxemburg repeated (probably
unknowingly) Bakunin's distinction between forms of "discipline" 
when she argued, against Lenin, that:

"Lenin . . . declares that 'it is no longer the proletarians but
certain intellectuals in our party who need to be educated in
the matters of organisation and discipline' . . . He glorifies
the educative influence of the factory, which, he says, accustoms
the proletariat to 'discipline and organisation' . . .

"Saying all this, Lenin seems to demonstrate . . . his conception
of socialist organisation is quite mechanistic. The discipline
Lenin has in mind being implanted in the working class not only
by the factory but also by the military and the existing state
bureaucracy -- by the entire mechanism of the centralised
bourgeois state.

"We misuse words and we practice self-deception when we apply
the same term -- discipline -- to such dissimilar notions as:
(1) the absence of thought and will in a body with a thousand
automatically moving hands and legs, and (2) the spontaneous
co-ordination of the conscious, political acts of a body of
men. What is there in common between the regulated docility
of an oppressed class and the self-discipline and organisation
of a class struggling for its emancipation?

"The self-discipline of the social democracy is not merely the
replacement of the authority of the bourgeois rulers with the
authority of a socialist central committee. The working class
will acquire the sense of the new discipline, the freely 
assumed self-discipline of the social democracy, not as a
result of the discipline imposed on it by the capitalist
state, but by extirpating, to the last root, its old habits
of obedience and servility." [_Rosa Luxemburg Speaks_, 
pp. 119-20]

Like Luxemburg, anarchists stress the difference in forms of
decision making and reject authoritarian organisations along
with hierarchical "discipline" (see section H.4). This
support for self-discipline within self-managed organisations
flows directly from the anarchist awareness of the *collective*
nature of social change: as "[t]oday, in revolutionary action 
as in labour itself, collectivism must replace individualism. 
Understand clearly that in organising yourselves you will be
stronger than all the political leaders in the world." [Bakunin, 
quoted by K.J. Kenafick, _Michael Bakunin and Karl Marx_, 
p. 244]

For anarchists, collective organisation and co-operation does 
not mean the end of individuality. As Bakunin argued: 

"You will think, you will exist, you will act collectively,
which nevertheless will not prevent in the least the full
development of the intellectual and moral faculties of
each individual. Each of you will bring to you his own
talents, and in all joining together you will multiply 
your value a hundred fold. Such is the law of collective
action . . . in giving your hands to each other for this
action in common, you will promise to each other a mutual
fraternity which will be . . . a sort of free contract . . .
Then proceed collectively to action you will necessarily
commence by practising this fraternity between yourselves
. . . by means of regional and local organisations . . .
you will find in yourselves strength that you had never
imagined, if each of you acted individually, according
to his own inclination and not as a consequence of a
unanimous resolution, discussed and accepted beforehand."
[quoted by Kenafick, Op. Cit., pp. 244-5]

Therefore, anarchists see the need for "discipline," assuming
that it is created in appropriately libertarian ways. We reject
it if it simply means blindly following the orders of those in 
power, which is usually does mean within modern society and,
sadly, large parts of the labour and socialist movements. However, 
this does not mean that the majority is always right. As 
Malatesta argued, "[t]here are matters over which it is worth 
accepting the will of the majority because the damage caused 
by a split would be greater than that caused by error; there 
are circumstances in which discipline becomes a duty because 
to fail in it would be to fail in the solidarity between the 
oppressed and would mean betrayal in face of the enemy. But 
when is convinced that the organisation is pursuing a course
which threatens the future and makes it difficult to remedy
the harm done, then it is a duty to rebel and to resist even
at the risk of providing a split." Therefore, "anarchists
should extend our activities into all organisations to
preach unity among all workers, decentralisation, freedom
of initiative, within the common framework of solidarity
 . . . What is essential is that individuals should develop 
a sense of organisation and solidarity, and the conviction 
that fraternal co-operation is necessary to fight oppression 
and to achieve a society in which everyone will be able to 
enjoy his [or her] own life." [_Life and Ideas_, pp. 132-3]

In other words, anarchists reject the idea that obeying orders
equals "discipline" and recognise that real discipline means
evaluating the needs of solidarity and equality with your
fellow workers and acting accordingly.

H.2.16 Does the Spanish Revolution show the failure of anarchism?

The actions of the anarchists of the CNT and FAI during the
Spanish Civil War is almost always mentioned by Marxists when
they attack anarchism. Take, for example, Pat Stack. He argues
as follows:

"This question of state power, and which class holds it, was to 
prove crucial for revolutionaries during the Spanish Civil War and 
in particular during the revolutionary upheavals in Catalonia. Here 
anarchism faced its greatest test and greatest opportunity, yet it 
failed the former and therefore missed the latter. 

"When the government in the region under the leadership of Companys 
admitted its impotence and offered to dissolve, effectively handing 
power to the revolutionary forces, the anarchists turned them down. 
CNT leader and FAI . . . militant Garcia Oliver explained, 'The 
CNT and the FAI decided on collaboration and democracy, renouncing 
revolutionary totalitarianism which would lead to the strangulation 
of the revolution by the anarchist and Confederal dictatorship. We 
had to choose, between Libertarian Communism, which meant anarchist 
dictatorship, and democracy, which meant collaboration.' The choice 
was between leaving the state intact and paving the way for Franco's 
victory or building a workers' government in Catalonia which could 
act as a focal point for the defeat of Franco and the creation of 
the structures of a new workers' state. In choosing the former the 
anarchists were refusing to distinguish between a capitalist 
state and a workers' state . . . The movement that started 
by refusing to build a workers' state ended up by recognising a 
capitalist one and betraying the revolution in the process."
["Anarchy in the UK?", _Socialist Review_, no. 246]

While we have addressed this issue in sections I.8.10 and I.8.11,
it is useful to summarise a few key points on this issue. First,
there is the actual objective situation in which the decision to
collaborate was made in. Strangely, for all his talk of anarchists
ignoring "material conditions," Stack fails to mention any when he
discusses the decisions of Spanish Anarchism. As such, he critique
is pure idealism, without any attempt to ground it in the objective
circumstances facing the CNT and FAI. Second, the quote provided as 
the only evidence for Stack's analysis dates from a year after the
decision was made. Rather than reflect the actual concerns of the
CNT and FAI when they made their decision, they reflect the attempts
of the leaders of an organisation which had significantly departed
from its libertarian principles to justify their actions. While this
obviously suits Stack's idealist analysis of events, its use can be
flawed for this reason. Thirdly, clearly the decision of the CNT and
FAI *ignored* anarchist theory. As such, it seems ironic to blame
anarchism when anarchists ignores its recommendations, yet this is
what Stack argues. Lastly, there is the counter-example of Aragon,
which clearly refutes Stack's analysis. 

To understand why the CNT and FAI made the decisions it did, it is
necessary to do what Stack fails to do, namely to provide some
context. The decision to ignore anarchist theory, ignore the state
rather than smashing it and work with other anti-fascist organisations
was made immediately after the army had been defeated on the streets
of Barcelona on the 20th of July, 1936. It is this fact, the success
of a popular insurrection in one region against a *nation wide* military
coup, which helps place the CNT's decisions into context. Catalonia is 
but one region in Spain. While the CNT had great strength in many 
regions of that country, it was not uniform. Some areas, such as 
around Madrid and in Asturias, the socialist UGT was stronger 
(although the CNT had been making inroads in both areas). This meant
any decision to introduce libertarian communism in Catalonia would 
have, in all likelihood, meant isolation within Republican Spain 
and the possibility that the CNT would have to fight both the 
Republican state *as well as* Franco. 

As such, the *real* choice facing the CNT was not "between leaving 
the state intact . . . or building a workers' government in Catalonia 
which could act as a focal point for the defeat of Franco" but rather 
something drastically different. Either work with other anti-fascists 
against Franco so ensuring unity against the common enemy and implement 
anarchism after victory *or* immediately implement libertarian 
communism and possibly face a conflict on two fronts, against Franco 
*and* the Republic (and, possibly, imperialist intervention against 
the social revolution). This situation made the CNT-FAI decided to
collaborate with other anti-fascist groups in the Catalan _Central 
Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias_. To downplay these objective 
factors and simply blame the decision on anarchist politics is a 
joke. As we argue in section I.8.10 in more detail, this dilemma 
was the one which was driving the decisions of the CNT leadership, 
*not* any failings in anarchist politics (see section I.8.11 for
a discussion of why applying anarchist ideas would have been the
correct decision, although hindsight is always twenty-twenty).

Similarly, the Garica Oliver quote provided by Stack dated from 
a year *after* the events of July 1936. As discussed in section 
I.8.11, these comments are justifications of CNT-FAI actions and 
were designed for political effect. As such, they simply cannot 
be taken at face value for two reasons. 

Firstly, the decision to collaborate was obviously driven by fear 
of Franco and the concern not to divide the forces fighting him. 
As the 1937 report to the AIT put it, the CNT had a "difficult 
alternative: to completely destroy the state, to declare war 
against the Rebels, the government, foreign capitalists . . . or 
collaborating." [quoted by Robert Alexander, _The Anarchists in 
the Spanish Civil War_, vol. 2, p. 1156] That was the reality 
facing the CNT -- not Stack's pondering of Garcia Oliver quotes 
ripped from their historical context. 

Secondly, Oliver's arguments are totally contradictory. After all, 
he 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 Garica Oliver had 
been fighting against for most of his life! Moreover, 
libertarian communism *was* the revolution. As such, to choose 
it over capitalist democracy to stop "the strangulation of the 
revolution" makes no sense, as the revolution which was created 
by the rank-and-file of the anarchist movement after the defeat 
of Franco was based on libertarian communist ideas and ideals!

For these reasons, it is safe to take Garica Oliver's words with
a large pinch of salt. To rely upon them for an analysis of the
actions of the Spanish Anarchists or the failings of anarchism
suggests an extremely superficial perspective. This is particularly
the case when we look at both the history of the CNT and anarchist
theory. According to anarchist ideas, the social revolution, to 
quote Bakunin, must "totally destroy the State," expropriate 
capital and the land "on behalf of workers' associations" and
create "the federative Alliance of all working men's associations" 
which "will constitute the Commune." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected 
Writings_, p. 170] Therefore, it is "not true to say that we 
completely ignore politics. We do not ignore it, for we definitely 
want to destroy it." [Bakunin, _The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, 
p. 331] As can be seen, the CNT ignored these recommendations. Given 
that the CNT did *not* destroy the state, nor create a federation of
workers' councils, then how can anarchist theory be blamed? It
seems strange to point to the failure of anarchists to apply their
politics as an example of the failure of those politics, yet this
is what Stack is doing.

As we discuss in section I.8.11, the CNT leadership, going against
anarchist theory, decided to postpone the revolution until *after* 
Franco was defeated. As the Catalan CNT leadership put it in August 
1936:

"Reports have also been received from other regions. There has been
some talk about the impatience of some comrades who wish to go
futher than crushing fascism, but for the moment the situation in
Spain as a whole is extremely delicate. In revolutionary terms,
Catalonia is an oasis within Spain.

"Obviously no one can foresee the changes which may follow the
civil war and the conquest of that part of Spain which is still
under the control of mutinous reactionaries." [quoted by Jose
Peirats, _The CNT in the Spanish Revolution_, vol. 1, pp. 151-2]

As can be seen, concern that Catalonia would be isolated from the
rest of the Republic is foremost in their minds. Equally, there is
the acknowledgement that many CNT members were applying anarchist
politics by fighting fascism via a revolutionary war. This can
be seen by the rank and file of the CNT and FAI ignoring the 
decision "postpone" the revolution in favour of an anti-fascist
war. All across Republican Spain, workers and peasants started to 
expropriate capital and the land, placing it under workers' 
self-management. They did so on their own initiative. They also 
applied anarchist ideas in full in Aragon, where the _Council of 
Aragon_ was created in October 1936 at a meeting of delegates 
from CNT unions, village collectives and militia columns. In 
other words, the creation of a federation of workers' 
associations as argued by Bakunin. Little wonder Stack fails 
to mention what happened in Aragon, it would undermine his
argument against anarchism to mention it.

To contrast Catalonia and Aragon shows the weakness of Stack's 
argument. The same organisation, with the same politics, yet 
different results. How can anarchist ideas be blamed for what
happened in Catalonia when they had been applied in Aragon? Such 
a position could not be logically argued and, unsurprisingly, 
Aragon usually fails to get mentioned by Marxists when discussing
Anarchism during the Spanish Civil War. The continuity of what 
happened in Aragon with the ideas of anarchism and the CNT's 1936 
Zaragoza Resolution on Libertarian Communism is clear.

In summary, how could anarchism have "failed" during the Spanish
Revolution when it was ignored in Catalonia (for fear of fascism) 
and applied in Aragon? How can it be argued that anarchist politics 
were to blame when those very same politics had formed the Council 
of Aragon? It cannot. Simply put, the Spanish Civil War showed
the failure of certain anarchists to apply their ideas in a
difficult situation rather than the failure of anarchism.

Needless to say, Stack also claims that the _Friends of Durruti_
group developed towards Marxism. As he puts it:

"Interestingly the one Spanish anarchist group that developed the 
most sophisticated critique of all this was the Friends of Durutti. 
As Felix Morrow points out, 'They represented a conscious break with 
the anti-statism of traditional anarchism. They explicitly declared 
the need for democratic organs of power, juntas or soviets, in the 
overthrow of capitalism, and the necessary state measures of 
repression against the counter-revolution.' The failure of the 
Spanish anarchists to understand exactly that these were the stark 
choices workers' power, or capitalist power followed by reaction."

The _Friends of Durruti_ (FoD) were an anarchist grouping within the 
CNT and FAI which, like a large minority of others, strongly and 
consistently opposed the policy of anti-fascist unity. However,
rather than signify a "conscious break" with anarchism, it signified
a conscious *return* to it. This can be clearly seen when we compare
their arguments to those of Bakunin. As noted by Stack, the FoD
argued for "juntas" in the overthrow of capitalism and to defend
against counter-revolution. This is *exactly* what revolutionary 
anarchists have argued for since Bakunin (see section H.2.1 for 
details)! The continuity of the ideas of FoD with the pre-Civil 
War politics of the CNT and the ideas of revolutionary anarchism 
are clear. As such, the FoD were simply arguing for a return to 
the traditional positions of anarchism and cannot be considered 
to have broken with it. If Stack or Morrow knew anything about 
anarchism, then they would have known this.

(See "Did the Friends of Durruti 'break with' anarchism?" in the 
"Marxists and Spanish Anarchism" appendix for a much fuller 
discussion of this topic.)

As such, the failure of the Spanish anarchists was not the "stark
choice" between "workers' power" and "capitalist power" but rather
the making of the wrong choice in the real dilemma of introducing 
anarchism (which would, by definition, be based on workers' power, 
organisation and self-management) or collaborating with other 
anti-fascist groups in the struggle against the greater enemy of 
Franco (i.e. fascist reaction). That Stack does not see this
suggests that he simply has no appreciation of the dynamics of
the Spanish Revolution and prefers abstract sloganeering to a
serious analysis of the problems facing it.

Stack ends by summarising:

"The most important lesson . . . is that whatever ideals and gut 
instincts individual anarchists may have, anarchism, both in 
word and deed, fails to provide a roadworthy vehicle for human 
liberation. Only Marxism, which sees the centrality of the working 
class under the leadership of a political party, is capable of 
leading the working class to victory."

As a useful antidote to these claims, we need simply quote Trotsky 
on what the Spanish anarchists should have done. In his words: 
"Because the leaders of the CNT renounced dictatorship *for 
themselves* they left the place open for the Stalinist dictatorship." 
[our emphasis, _Writings 1936-7_, p. 514] Hardly an example of
"workers' power"!

Or, as he put it in his essay "Stalinism and Bolshevism," 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." [_Stalinism and Bolshevism_] Rather than 
seeing "democratic organs of power, juntas or soviets, in the 
overthrow of capitalism" as being the key issue, Trotsky 
considered the party as being the decisive factor. Indeed, 
the idea that such organs ("juntas" or "soviets," to use 
Stack's words) could replace the party dictatorship is 
dismissed:

"Those who propose the abstraction of Soviets to the party 
dictatorship should understand that only thanks to the party 
dictatorship were the Soviets able to lift themselves out of 
the mud of reformism and attain the state form of the proletariat." 
[Op. Cit.]

Clearly, the leading Marxist at the time was not arguing for the
"centrality of the working class under the leadership of a political
party." He was arguing for the dictatorship of a "revolutionary"
party *over* the working class. Rather than the working class being 
"central" to the running of a revolutionary regime, Trotsky saw the 
party being in the central position. What sort of "victory" is 
possible when the party has dictatorial power over the working class 
and the "sovereign ruler" of society? Simply the kind of "victory"
that leads to Stalinism.

Anarchists reject this vision. They also reject the first step along 
this path, namely the identification of party power with workers' power. 
Simply put, if the "revolutionary" party is in power then the working 
class is not. Rather than seeing working class organisations as the 
means by which working people run society, Leninists see them purely 
in instrumental terms -- the means by which the party can seize power.
As the Russian Revolution proved beyond doubt, in a conflict between
workers' power and party power Leninists will suppress the former
to ensure the latter (see section H.6). As Trotsky argued in 1939
(18 years after he made similar arguments when he was in power)
the "very same masses are at different times inspired by different 
moods and objectives. It is just for this reason that a centralised 
organisation of the vanguard is indispensable. Only a party, wielding 
the authority it has won, is capable of overcoming the vacillation 
of the masses themselves." [_The Moralists and Sycophants_, p. 59]

To paraphrase Stack, the most important lesson from both the Russian
and Spanish revolutions is that whatever ideals and gut instincts 
individual Leninists may have, Leninism, both in word and deed, fails 
to provide a roadworthy vehicle for human liberation. Only Anarchism, 
which sees the centrality of the working class management of the class
struggle and revolution, is capable of ensuring the creation of a
real, free, socialist society. 

Therefore, rather than see the failure of anarchism, the Spanish 
Revolution showed the failure of anarchists to apply their politics 
due to exceptionally difficult objective circumstances, a mistake
which almost all anarchists acknowledge and have learned from. 
This does not justify the decision, rather it helps to explain 
it. Moreover, the Spanish Revolution also has a clear example of 
anarchism being applied in the Council of Aragon. As such, it is 
hard to blame anarchism for the failure of the CNT when the same 
organisation applied its ideas successfully there. Simply put, 
Marxist claims that the Spanish Revolution shows the failure of 
anarchist ideas are not only wrong, they are extremely superficial 
and not rooted in the objective circumstances of the time.

H.3 What are the myths of state socialism?

Ask most people what socialism means and they will point to 
the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba and a host of other 
authoritarian, centralised and oppressive party dictatorships. 
These regimes have in common two things. Firstly, the claim 
that their rulers are Marxists or socialists. Secondly, that
they have successfully alienated millions of working class 
people from the very idea of socialism. Indeed, the supporters 
of capitalism simply had to describe the "socialist paradises" 
as they really were in order to put people off socialism. 
Moreover, the Stalinist regimes (and their various apologists 
and even "opponents", like the Trotskyists, who defended them 
as "degenerated workers' states") let the bourgeoisie have an
easy time in dismissing all working-class demands and struggles 
as so many attempts to set up similar party dictatorships. 

The association of "socialism" or "communism" with these 
dictatorships has often made anarchists wary of calling 
themselves socialists or communists in case our ideas are 
associated with them. As Errico Malatesta argued in 1924:

"I foresee the possibility that the communist anarchists
will gradually abandon the term 'communist': it is growing
in ambivalence and falling into disrepute as a result of
Russian 'communist' despotism. If the term is eventually
abandoned this will be a repetition of what happened with 
the word 'socialist.' We who, in Italy at least, were the
first champions of socialism and maintained and still maintain
that we are the true socialists in the broad and human sense
of the word, ended by abandoning the term to avoid confusion
with the many and various authoritarian and bourgeois 
deviations of socialism. Thus too we may have to abandon 
the term 'communist' for fear that our ideal of free human
solidarity will be confused with the avaricious despotism 
which has for some time triumphed in Russia and which one
party, inspired by the Russian example, seeks to impose 
worldwide." [_The Anarchist Revolution_, p. 20]

That, to a large degree happened, with anarchists simply 
calling themselves by that name, without adjectives, to avoid 
confusion. This, sadly, resulted in two problems. Firstly, 
it gave Marxists even more potential to portray anarchism as 
being primarily against the state and not as equally opposed
to capitalism, hierarchy and inequality (as we argue in section 
H.2.4, anarchists have opposed the state as just one aspect 
of class society). Secondly, extreme right-wingers tried to 
appropriate the names "libertarian" and "anarchist" to describe 
their vision of extreme capitalism as "anarchism," they claimed, 
was simply "anti-government" (see section F for discussion on 
why "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist). To counter these 
distortions of anarchist ideas, many anarchists have recently 
re-appropriated the use of the words "socialist" and "communist," 
although always in combination with the words "anarchist" and 
"libertarian."

Such combination of words is essential as the problem Malatesta
predicted still remains. If one thing can be claimed for the 
20th century, it is that it has seen the word "socialism" become 
narrowed and restricted into what anarchists call "state 
socialism" -- socialism created and run from above, by the 
state (i.e. by the state bureaucracy). This restriction of 
"socialism" has been supported by both Stalinist and Capitalist 
ruling elites, for their own reasons (the former to secure 
their own power and gain support by associating themselves
with socialist ideals, the latter by discrediting those ideas
by associating them with the horror of Stalinism). 

This means that anarchists and other libertarian socialists 
have a major task on their hands -- to reclaim the promise of
socialism from the distortions inflicted upon it by both its
enemies (Stalinists and capitalists) and its erstwhile and
self-proclaimed supporters (Social Democracy and its various
offspring like the Bolsheviks and its progeny like the 
Trotskyists). A key aspect of this process is a critique of
both the practice and ideology of Marxism and its various 
offshoots. Only by doing this can anarchists prove, to quote
Rocker, that "*Socialism will be free, or it will not be at
all*." [_Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 20]

Such a critique raises the problem of which forms of "Marxism" 
to discuss. There is an extremely diverse range of Marxist  viewpoints and groups in existence. Indeed, the different
groups spend a lot of time indicating why all the others are 
not "real" Marxists (or Marxist-Leninists, or Trotskyists, 
and so on) and are just "sects" without "real" Marxist theory 
or ideas. This "diversity" is, of course, a major problem 
(and somewhat ironic, given that some Marxists like to insult 
anarchists by stating there are as many forms of anarchism as 
anarchists!). Equally, many Marxists go further than dismissing
specific groups. Some even totally reject other branches of 
their movement as being non-Marxist (for example, some Marxists 
dismiss Leninism as having little, or nothing, to do with what 
they consider the "real" Marxist tradition to be). This means 
that discussing Marxism can be difficult as Marxists can argue 
that our FAQ does not address the arguments of this or that 
Marxist thinker, group or tendency.

With this in mind, this section of the FAQ will concentrate on
the works of Marx and Engels (and so the movement they generated,
namely Social Democracy) as well as the Bolshevik tradition 
started by Lenin and continued (by and large) by Trotsky. These
are the core ideas (and the recognised authorities) of most 
Marxists and so latter derivations of these tendencies can be 
ignored (for example Maoism, Castroism and so on). It should 
also be noted that even this grouping will produce dissent 
as some Marxists argue that the Bolshevik tradition is
not part of Marxism. This perspective can be seen in the
"impossiblist" tradition of Marxism (e.g. the Socialist Party
of Great Britain and its sister parties) as well as in the
left/council communist tradition (e.g. in the work of such
Marxists as Anton Pannekoek and Paul Mattick). The arguments
for their positions are strong and well worth reading (indeed,
any honest analysis of Marxism and Leninism cannot help but
show important differences between the two). However, as 
the vast majority of Marxists today are also Leninists, we
have to reflect this in our FAQ (and, in general, we do so
by referring to "mainstream Marxists" as opposed to the
small minority of libertarian Marxists).

Another problem arises when we consider the differences not
only between Marxist tendencies, but also within a specific
tendency before and after its representatives seize power.
For example, "there are . . . very different strains of 
Leninism . . . there's the Lenin of 1917, the Lenin of the
'April Theses' and _State and Revolution_. That's one Lenin.
And then there's the Lenin who took power and acted in ways
that are unrecognisable . . . compared with, say, the doctrines
of 'State and Revolution.' . . . this [is] not very hard to
explain. There's a big difference between the libertarian
doctrines of a person who is trying to associate himself 
with a mass popular movement to acquire power and the 
authoritarian power of somebody who's taken power and is
trying to consolidate it. . . that is true of Marx also.
There are competing strains in Marx." [Noam Chomsky,
_Language and Politics_, p. 177]

As such, this section of our FAQ will try and draw out 
the contradictions within Marxism and indicate what 
aspects of the doctrine aided the development of the 
"second" Lenin. The seeds from which authoritarianism 
grew post-October 1917 existed from the start. Anarchists 
agree with Noam Chomsky when he stated that he considered
it "characteristic and unfortunate that the lesson that 
was drawn from Marx and Lenin for the later period was 
the authoritarian lesson. That is, it's the authoritarian 
power of the vanguard party and destruction of all popular 
forums in the interests of the masses. That's the Lenin who 
became know to later generations. Again, not very 
surprisingly, because that's what Leninism really was 
in practice." [Ibid.]


Ironically, given Marx's own comments on the subject, a key 
hindrance to such an evaluation is the whole idea and history 
of Marxism itself. While, as Murray Bookchin noted "to his 
lasting credit," Marx tried (to some degree) "to create a 
movement that looks to the future instead of to the past," 
his followers have not done so. "Once again," Bookchin 
argues, "the dead are walking in our midst -- ironically, 
draped in the name of Marx, the man who tried to bury the 
dead of the nineteenth century. So the revolution of our own 
day can do nothing better than parody, in turn, the October 
Revolution of 1918 and the civil war of 1918-1920 . . . The 
complete, all-sided revolution of our own day . . . follows 
the partial, the incomplete, the one-sided revolutions of 
the past, which merely changed the form of the 'social 
question,' replacing one system of domination and hierarchy 
by another." [_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_, p. 174 and p. 175] 
In Marx's words, the "tradition of all the dead generations 
weighs down like a nightmare on the brain of the living." 
Marx's own work, and the movements it inspired, now add to 
this dead-weight. In order to ensure, as Marx put it, the 
social revolution draws is poetry from the future rather 
than the past, Marxism itself must be transcended.

Which, of course, means evaluating both the theory *and* 
practice of Marxism. For anarchists, it seems strange that 
for a body of work whose followers stress is revolutionary
and liberating, its results have been so bad. If Marxism is 
so obviously revolutionary and democratic, then why have so 
few of the people who read it drawn those conclusions? How
could it be transmuted so easily into Stalinism? Why are 
there so few *libertarian* Marxists, if it was Lenin (or
Social Democracy) which "misinterpreted" Marx and Engels?
So when Marxists argue that the problem is in the 
interpretation of the message not in the message itself, 
anarchists reply that the reason these numerous, allegedly 
false, interpretations exist at all simply suggests that 
there are limitations within Marxism *as such* rather than 
the readings it has been subjected to. When something 
repeatedly fails (and produces such terrible results), 
then there has to be a fundamental flaw somewhere. 

Thus Cornelius Castoriadis:

"Marx was, in fact, the first to stress that the significance
of a theory cannot be grasped independently of the historical
and social practice it inspires and initiates, to which it
gives rise, in which it prolongs itself and under cover of
which a given practice seeks to justify itself.

"Who, today, would dare proclaim that the only significance
of Christianity for history is to be found in reading 
unaltered versions of the Gospels or that the historical
practice of various Churches over a period of some 2,000
years can teach us nothing fundamental about the significance
of this religious movement? A 'faithfulness to Marx' which
would see the historical fate of Marxism as something 
unimportant would be just as laughable. It would in fact
be quite ridiculous. Whereas for the Christian the revelations
of the Gospels have a transcendental kernel and an intemporal
validity, no theory could ever have such qualities in the
eyes of a Marxist. To seek to discover the meaning of 
Marxism only in what Marx wrote (while keeping quiet about
what the doctrine has become in history) is to pretend --
in flagrant contradiction with the central ideas of that
doctrine -- that real history doesn't count and that the 
truth of a theory is always and exclusively to be found 
'further on.' It finally comes to replacing revolution 
by revelation and the understanding of events by the
exegesis of texts." ["The Fate of Marxism," pp. 75-84
_The Anarchist Papers_, Dimitrios Roussopoulos (ed.), 
p. 77]

This does not mean forsaking the work of Marx and Engels. It
means rejecting once and for all the idea that two people,
writing over a period of decades over a hundred years ago 
have all the answers. As should be obvious! Ultimately, 
anarchists think we have to *build* upon the legacy of the
past, not squeeze current events into it. We should stand 
on the shoulders of giants, not at their feet.

Thus this section of our FAQ will attempt to explain the various
myths of Marxism and provide an anarchist critique of Marxism and
its offshoots. Of course, the ultimate myth of Marxism is what 
Alexander Berkman called "The Bolshevik Myth," namely the idea 
that the Russian Revolution was a success. However, as we discuss 
this revolution in section H.6 we will not do so here except
when it provides useful empirical evidence for our critique. Our
discussion here will concentrate for the most part on Marxist
theory, showing its inadequacies, its problems, where it 
appropriated anarchist ideas and how anarchism and Marxism 
differ. This is a big task and this section of the FAQ can 
only be a small contribution to it. 

As noted above, there are minority trends in Marxism which are 
libertarian in nature (i.e. close to anarchism). As such, it 
would be simplistic to say that anarchists are "anti-Marxist" 
and we generally do differentiate between the (minority) 
libertarian element and the authoritarian mainstream of Marxism 
(i.e. Social-Democracy and Leninism in its many forms). Without 
doubt, Marx contributed immensely to the enrichment of socialist 
ideas and analysis (as acknowledged by Bakunin, for example). 
His influence, as to be expected, was both positive and negative. 
For this reason he must be read and discussed critically. This 
FAQ is a contribution to this task of transcending the work of 
Marx. As with anarchist thinkers, we must take what is useful 
from Marx and reject the rubbish. But never forget that 
anarchists are anarchists precisely because we think that 
anarchist thinkers have got more right than wrong and we reject 
the idea of tying our politics to the name of a long dead thinker. 

H.3.1 Do Anarchists and Marxists want the same thing?

Ultimately, the greatest myth of Marxism is the idea that 
anarchists and most Marxists want the same thing. Indeed, 
it could be argued that it is anarchist criticism of Marxism 
which has made them stress the similarity of long term goals 
with anarchism.  "Our polemics against them [the Marxists],"
Bakunin argued, "have forced them to recognise that freedom, 
or anarchy -- that is, the voluntary organisation of the 
workers from below upward -- is the ultimate goal of social 
development." He continued by stressing that the means to 
this apparently similar end were different. The Marxists, he
argues, "say that [a] state yoke, [a] dictatorship, is a 
necessary transitional device for achieving the total 
liberation of the people: anarchy, or freedom, is the goal, 
and the state, or dictatorship, is the means . . . We reply 
that no  dictatorship can have any other objective than to 
perpetuate itself, and that it can engender and nurture 
only slavery in the people who endure it. Liberty can be 
created only by liberty, by an insurrection of all the 
people and the voluntary organisation of the workers from 
below upwards." [_Statism and Anarchy_, p. 179]

As such, it is commonly taken for granted that the ends of
both Marxists and Anarchists are the same, we just disagree
over the means. However, within this general agreement over 
the ultimate end (a classless and stateless society), the 
details of such a society are somewhat different. This, 
perhaps, is to be expected given the differences in means. 
As is obvious from Bakunin's argument, anarchists stress 
the unity of means and goals, that the means which are 
used affect the goal reached. This unity between means 
and ends is expressed well by Martin Buber's observation 
that "[o]ne cannot in the nature of things expect a little 
tree that has been turned into a club to put forth leaves." 
[_Paths in Utopia_, p. 127] In summary, we cannot expect 
to reach our end destination if we take a path going 
in the opposite direction. As such, the agreement on ends
may not be as close as often imagined.

So when it is stated that anarchists and state socialists 
want the same thing, the following should be borne in mind. 
Firstly, there are key differences on the question of current 
tactics. Secondly, there is the question of the immediate 
aims of a revolution. Thirdly, there is the long term goals 
of such a revolution. These three aspects form a coherent 
whole, with each one logically following on from the last. 
As we will show, the anarchist and Marxist vision of each 
aspect are distinctly different, so suggesting that the short, 
medium *and* long term goals of each theory are, in fact, 
different. We will discuss each aspect in turn.

Firstly, the question of the nature of the revolutionary 
movement. Here anarchists and most Marxists have distinctly 
opposing ideas. The former argue that both the revolutionary 
organisation (i.e. an anarchist federation) and the wider 
labour movement should be organised in line with the vision 
of society which inspires us. This means that it should be 
a federation of self-managed groups based on the direct 
participation of its membership in the decision making 
process. Power, therefore, is decentralised and there is 
no division between those who make the decisions and those 
who execute them. We reject the idea of others acting on 
our behalf or on behalf of the people and so urge the use 
of direct action and solidarity, based upon working class 
self-organisation, self-management and autonomy. Thus, 
anarchists apply their ideas in the struggle against the 
current system, arguing what is "efficient" from a 
hierarchical or class position is deeply inefficient from 
a revolutionary perspective.

Marxists disagree. Most Marxists are also Leninists. They 
argue that we must form "vanguard" parties based on the 
principles of "democratic centralism" complete with 
institutionalised leaderships. They argue that how we 
organise today is independent of the kind of society we 
seek and that the party should aim to become the 
recognised leadership of the working class. Every thing
they do is subordinated to this end, meaning that no  
struggle is seen as an end in itself but rather as a 
means to gaining membership and influence for the party
until such time as it gather enough support to seize power.
As this is a key point of contention between anarchists 
and Leninists, we discuss this in some detail in section 
H.5 and its related sections and so not do so here. 

Obviously, in the short term anarchists and Leninists 
cannot be said to want the same thing. While we seek 
a revolutionary movement based on libertarian (i.e. 
revolutionary) principles, the Leninists seek a party 
based on distinctly bourgeois principles of centralisation, 
delegation of power and representative over direct democracy. 
Both, of course, argue that only their system of organisation 
is effective and efficient (see section H.5.8 on a discussion 
why anarchists argue that the Leninist model is not effective 
from a revolutionary perspective). The anarchist perspective 
is to see the revolutionary organisation as part of the 
working class, encouraging and helping those in struggle to 
clarify the ideas they draw from their own experiences and 
its role is to provide a lead rather than a new set of leaders 
to be followed (see section J.3.6 for more on this). The 
Leninist perspective is to see the revolutionary party as 
the leadership of the working class, introducing socialist 
consciousness into a class which cannot generate itself 
(see section H.5.1).

Given the Leninist preference for centralisation and a leadership 
role by hierarchical organisation, it will come as no surprise 
that their ideas on the nature of post-revolutionary society are 
distinctly different from anarchists. While there is a tendency
for Leninists to deny that anarchists have a clear idea of what
will immediately be created by a revolution (see section H.1.4),
we do have concrete ideas on the kind of society a revolution 
will immediately create. This vision is in almost every way 
different from that proposed by most Marxists. 

Firstly, there is the question of the state. Anarchists, 
unsurprisingly enough, seek to destroy it. Simply put, while 
anarchists want a stateless and classless society and advocate 
the means appropriate to those ends, most Marxists argue that 
in order to reach a stateless society we need a new "workers'"
state, a state, moreover, in which their party will be in 
charge. Trotsky, writing in 1906, made this clear when he
argued that "[e]very political party deserving of the name 
aims at seizing governmental power and thus putting the state 
at the service of the class whose interests it represents." 
[quoted by Israel Getzler, "Marxist Revolutionaries and the 
Dilemma of Power", pp. 88-112, _Revolution and Politics in
Russia_, Alexander and Janet Rabinowitch and Ladis K.D. 
Kristof (eds,), p. 105] This fits in with Marx's 1852 
comments that "Universal Suffrage 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.*" [_Collected Works_, 
vol. 11, pp. 335-6] In other words, "political power" 
simply means the ability to nominate a government. Thus 
Engels:

"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 demanded universal suffrage
and yearly general elections], which was to give it that 
political power." [_Collected Works_, vol. 24, p. 386]

While Marxists like to portray this new government as "the 
dictatorship of the proletariat," anarchist argue that, 
in fact, it will be the dictatorship *over* the proletariat. 
This is because if the working class *is* the ruling class 
(as Marxists claim) then, anarchists argue, how can they 
delegate their power to a government and remain so? Either 
the working class directly manages its own affairs (and so 
society) or the government does. We discuss this issue in 
section H.3.7 any state is simply rule by a few and so 
is incompatible with socialism. The obvious implication of 
this is that Marxism seeks party rule, not working class 
direct management of society (as we discuss in section
H.3.8, the Leninist tradition is extremely clear on this 
matter). 
Then there is the question of the building blocks of 
socialism. Yet again, there is a clear difference between 
anarchism and Marxism. Anarchists have always argued that 
the basis of socialism is working class organisations,
created in the struggle against capitalism and the state
(see section H.1.4 for details). This applies to both
the social and economic structure of a post-revolutionary
society. For most forms of Marxism, a radically different
picture has been the dominant one. As we discuss in section 
H.3.10, Marxists only reached a similar vision for the
political structure of socialism in 1917 when Lenin 
supported the soviets as he framework of his workers' state.
However, as we prove in section H.3.11, he did so for 
instrumental purposes only, namely as the best means of 
assuring Bolshevik power. If the soviets clashed with the
party, it was the latter which took precedence. Unsurprisingly,
the Bolshevik mainstream moved from "All Power to the Soviets"
to "dictatorship of the party" rather quickly. Thus, unlike
anarchism, most forms of Marxism aim for party power, a
"revolutionary" government above the organs of working class 
self-management.

Economically, there are also clear differences. Anarchists have 
consistently argued that the workers "ought to be the real 
managers of industries." [Peter Kropotkin, _Fields, Factories 
and Workshops Tomorrow_, p. 157] To achieve this, we have 
pointed to various organisations over time, such as factory
committees and labour unions as the "medium which Socialist
forms of life could find . . . realisation." Thus they would 
"not only [be] an instrument for the improvement of the 
conditions of labour, but also of [were capable of] becoming 
an organisation which might . . . take into its hands the 
management of production." [Kropotkin, _The Conquest of 
Bread_, pp. 22-3]

As we discuss in more detail in section H.3.12, Lenin, in 
contrast, saw socialism as being constructed on the basis 
of structures and techniques (including management ones) 
developed under capitalism. Rather than see socialism as 
being built around new, working class organisations, Lenin 
saw it being constructed on the basis of developments in 
capitalist organisation. "The Leninist road to socialism,"
notes one expert on Lenin, "emphatically ran through the 
terrain of monopoly capitalism. It would, according to Lenin, 
abolish neither its advanced technological base nor its 
institutionalised means for allocating resources or 
structuring industry. . . The institutionalised framework 
of advanced capitalism could, to put it shortly, be utilised
for realisation of specifically socialist goals. They were 
to become, indeed, the principal (almost exclusive) 
instruments of socialist transformation." [Neil Harding,
_Leninism_, p.145] As Lenin explained, socialism is 
"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." [_The 
Threatening Catastrophe and how to avoid it_, p. 37]

The role of workers' in this vision was basically unchanged. 
Rather than demand, like anarchists, workers' self-management 
of production in 1917, Lenin raised the demand for "universal, 
all-embracing workers' control over the capitalists." [_Will 
the Bolsheviks Maintain Power_, p. 52] Once the Bolsheviks
were in power, the workers' own organs (the factory committees) 
were integrated into a system of state control, losing whatever 
power they once held at the point of production. Lenin then 
modified this vision by raising "one-man management" over the 
workers (see section H.3.14). In other words, a form of *state* 
capitalism in which workers would still be wage slaves under 
bosses appointed by the state. Unsurprisingly, the "control" 
workers exercised over their bosses (i.e. those with *real* 
power in production) proved to be as elusive in production 
as it was in the state. In this, Lenin undoubtedly followed 
the lead of the _Communist Manifesto_ which stressed state 
ownership of the means of production without a word about 
workers' self-management of production. As we discuss in 
section H.3.13, state "socialism" cannot help being "state 
capitalism" by its very nature.

Needless to say, as far as means go, few anarchists and
syndicalists are complete pacifists. As syndicalist Emile 
Pouget argued, "[h]istory teaches that the privileged have 
never surrendered their privileges without having been compelled 
so to do and forced into it by their rebellious victims. It 
is unlikely that the bourgeoisie is blessed with an exceptional 
greatness of soul and will abdicate voluntarily." This meant
that "[r]ecourse to force . . . will be required." [_The Party 
Of Labour_] This does not mean that libertarians glorify
violence or argue that all forms of violence are acceptable
(quite the reverse!), it simply means that for self-defence
against violent opponents violence is, unfortunately, sometimes
required.

The way an anarchist revolution would defend itself also shows
a key difference between anarchism and Marxism. As we discussed
in section H.2.1, anarchists (regardless of Marxist claims) have
always argued that a revolution needs to defend itself. This
would be organised in a federal, bottom-up way as the social
structure of a free society. It would be based on voluntary 
working class militias. As Bakunin put it, "the peasants, like 
the industrial city workers, should unite by federating the 
fighting battalions, district by district, this assuring a 
common co-ordinated defence against internal and external 
enemies." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 190] This model of working 
class self-defence was applied successfully in both the Spanish 
and Ukrainian revolutions (by the CNT-FAI and the Makhnovists, 
respectively). In contrast, the Bolshevik method of defending a 
revolution was the top-down, hierarchical and centralised "Red 
Army" (see section H.6.14 for details). As the example of the 
Makhnovists (see section H.11) showed, the "Red Army" was not 
the only way the Russian Revolution could have been defended
although it was the only way Bolshevik power could be.

So while Anarchists have consistently argued that socialism 
must be based on working class self-management of production
and society based on working class organisations, the Leninist 
tradition has not supported this vision (although it has 
appropriated some of its imagery to gain popular support). 
Clearly, in terms of the immediate aftermath of a revolution, 
anarchists and Leninists do not seek the same thing. The former 
want a free society organised and run from below-upwards by the
working class based on workers self-management of production
while the latter seek party power in a new state structure 
which would preside over an essentially state capitalist 
economy.

Lastly, there is the question of the long term goal. Even 
in this vision of a classless and stateless society there 
is very little in common between anarchist communism and 
Marxist communism, beyond the similar terminology used to 
describe it. This is blurred by the differences in terminology 
used by both theories. Marx and Engels had raised in the 1840s 
the (long term) goal of "an association, in which the free 
development of each is the condition for the free development 
of all" replacing "the old bourgeois society, with its classes 
and class antagonisms," in the _Communist Manifesto_. Before 
this "vast association of the whole nation" was possible, the 
proletariat would be "raise[d] . . . to the position of ruling 
class" and "all capital" would be "centralise[d] . . . in the 
hands of the State, i.e. of the proletariat organised as the 
ruling class." As economic classes would no longer exist, 
"the public power would lose its political character" as 
political power "is merely the organised power of one class 
for oppressing another." [_Manifesto of the Communist Party_, 
p. 53] 

It was this, the means to the end, which was the focus of much 
debate (see section H.1.1 for details). However, it cannot be
assumed that the ends desired by Marxists and anarchists are 
identical. The argument that the "public power" could stop being
"political" (i.e. a state) is a tautology, and a particularly 
unconvincing one at that. After all, if "political power" is 
defined as being an instrument of class rule it automatically 
follows that a classless society would have a non-political 
"public power" and so be without a state! This does not imply 
that a "public power" would no longer exist as a structure 
within (or, more correctly, over) society, it just implies 
that its role would no longer be "political" (i.e. an 
instrument of class rule). Given that, according to the
Manifesto, the state would centralise the means of production,
credit and transportation and then organise it "in accordance
with a common plan" using "industrial armies, especially for
agriculture" this would suggest that the state structure 
would remain even after its "political" aspects had, to use
Engels term, "withered away." [Marx and Engels, Op. Cit., 
pp. 52-3]

From this perspective, the difference between anarchist
communism and Marxist-communism is clear. "While both,"
notes John Clark, "foresee the disappearance of the state, 
the achievement of social management of the economy, the 
end of class rule, and the attainment of human equality, 
to mention a few common goals, significant differences 
in ends still remain. Marxist thought has inherited a
vision which looks to high development of technology 
with a corresponding degree of centralisation of social
institutions which will continue even after the coming 
of the social revolution. . . . The anarchist vision sees
the human scale as essential, both in the techniques which
are used for production, and for the institutions which
arise from the new modes of association . . . In addition,
the anarchist ideal has a strong hedonistic element which
has seen Germanic socialism as ascetic and Puritanical."
[_The Anarchist Moment_, p. 68] 

Moreover, it is unlikely that such a centralised system
could become stateless and classless in actuality. As 
Bakunin argued, in the Marxist state "there will be no 
privileged class. Everybody will be equal, not only from 
the judicial and political but also from the economic 
standpoint. This is the promise at any rate . . . So there 
will be no more class, but a government, and, please note, 
an extremely complicated government which, not content 
with governing and administering the masses politically 
. . . will also administer them economically, by taking 
over the production and *fair* sharing of wealth, 
agriculture, the establishment and development of factories, 
the organisation and control of trade, and lastly the 
injection of capital into production by a single banker, 
the State." Such a system would be, in fact, "the reign 
of the *scientific mind,* the most aristocratic, despotic, 
arrogant and contemptuous of all regimes" base on "a new 
class, a new hierarchy of real or bogus learning, and
the world will be divided into a dominant, science-based
minority and a vast, ignorant majority." [_Michael Bakunin:
Selected Writings_, p. 266] 

George Barrett's words also seem appropriate:

"The modern Socialist . . . have steadily worked for 
centralisation, and complete and perfect organisation 
and control by those in authority above the people. The 
anarchist, on the other hand, believes in the abolition 
of that central power, and expects the free society to 
grow into existence from below, starting with those 
organisations and free agreements among the people
themselves. It is difficult to see how, by making a 
central power control everything, we can be making a 
step towards the abolition of that power." [_Objections 
to Anarchism_]

As Brain Morris notes, "Bakunin's fears that under Marx's 
kind of socialism the workers would continue to labour 
under a regimented, mechanised, hierarchical system of 
production, without direct control over their labour, has 
been more than confirmed by the realities of the Bolshevik 
system. Thus, Bakunin's critique of Marxism has taken on an 
increasing relevance in the age of bureaucratic State 
capitalism." [_Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom_, p. 132]

Therefore, anarchists are not convinced that a highly 
centralised structure (as a state is) managing the 
economic life of society can be part of a truly classless 
society. While economic class as defined in terms of 
property may not exist, social classes (defined in 
terms of inequality of power and wealth) will continue 
simply because the state is designed to create and 
protect minority rule (see section H.3.7). As Bolshevik 
and Stalinist Russia showed, nationalising the means of 
production does not end class society. As Malatesta argued:

"When F. Engels, perhaps to counter anarchist criticisms, 
said that once classes disappear the State as such has no 
*raison d'etre* and transforms itself from a government of 
men into an administration of thing, he was merely playing 
with words. Whoever has power over things has power over men; 
whoever governs production also governs the producers; who 
determines consumption is master over the consumer.

"This is the question; either things are administered on the 
basis of free agreement of the interested parties, and this 
is anarchy; or they are administered according to laws made 
by administrators and this is government, it is the State, 
and inevitably it turns out to be tyrannical.

"It is not a question of the good intentions or the good will 
of this or that man, but of the inevitability of the situation, 
and of the tendencies which man generally develops in given 
circumstances." [_Life and Ideas_, p. 145]

The anarchist vision of the future society, therefore, does not 
exactly match the state communist vision, as much as the latter 
would like to suggest it does. The difference between the two is 
authority, which cannot be anything but the largest difference
possible. Anarchist economic and organisational theories are 
built around an anti-authoritarian core and this informs both 
our means and aims. For anarchists, the Leninist vision of 
socialism is unattractive. Lenin continually stressed that his 
conception of socialism and "state capitalism" were basically 
identical. Even in _State and Revolution_, allegedly Lenin's 
most libertarian work, we discover this particularly unvisionary 
and uninspiring vision of "socialism":

"*All* citizens are transformed into the salaried employees of
the state . . . *All* citizens become employees and workers of
a *single* national state 'syndicate' . . .  The whole of 
society will have become a single office and a single factory 
with equality of work and equality of pay." [_Essential Works 
of Lenin_, p. 348]

To which, anarchists point to Engels and his comments on the
tyrannical and authoritarian character of the modern factory
(as we discuss in section H.4.4). Engels, let us not forget,
had argued against the anarchists that large-scale industry 
(or, indeed, any form of organisation) meant that "authority" 
was required (organisation meant that "the will of a single 
individual will always have to subordinate itself, which means 
that questions are settled in an authoritarian way."). He (like
the factory owner he was) stated that factories should have 
"Lasciate ogni autonomia, voi che entrate" ("Leave, ye that 
enter in, all autonomy behind") written above their doors. 
This obedience, Engels argued, was necessary even under 
socialism, as applying the "forces of nature" meant "a 
veritable despotism independent of all social organisation." 
This meant that "[w]anting to abolish authority in large-scale 
industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself." 
[_Marx-Engels Reader_, p. 731] Clearly, Lenin's idea of turning 
the world into one big factory takes on an extremely frightening
nature given Engels lovely vision of the lack of freedom in 
industry. 

For these reasons anarchists reject the simplistic Marxist
analysis of inequality being rooted simply in economic class. 
Such an analysis, as the comments of Lenin and Engels prove, 
show that social inequality can be smuggled in by the backdoor 
of a proposed classless and stateless society. Thus Bookchin:

"Basic to anti-authoritarian Socialism ---specifically, 
to Anarchist Communism -- is the notion that hierarchy and
domination cannot be subsumed by class rule and economic
exploitation, indeed, that they are more fundamental to
an understanding of the modern revolutionary project.
Before 'man' began to exploit 'man,' he began to dominate
woman . . . Power of human over human long antedates *the
very formation of classes and economic modes of social
oppression.* . . . This much is clear: it will no longer
do to insist that a classless society, freed from material
exploitation, will necessarily be a liberated society.
There is nothing in the social future to suggest that
bureaucracy is incompatible with a classless society,
the domination of women, the young, ethnic groups or
even professional strata." [_Toward an Ecological 
Society_, pp. 208-9]

Ultimately, anarchists see that "there is a realm of domination 
that is broader than the realm of material exploitation. The 
tragedy of the socialist movement is that, steeped in the past, 
it uses the methods of domination to try to 'liberate' us from 
material exploitation." Needless to say, this is doomed to 
failure. Socialism "will simply mire us in a world we are 
trying to overcome. A non-hierarchical society, self-managed 
and free of domination in all its forms, stands on the agenda 
today, not a hierarchical system draped in a red flag." [Murray
Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 272 and pp. 273-4]

In summary, it cannot be said that anarchists and most Marxists 
want the same thing. While they often use the same terms, these 
terms often hide radically different concepts. Just because, say, 
anarchists and mainstream Marxists talk about "social revolution," 
"socialism," "all power to the soviets" and so on, it does not 
mean that we mean the same thing by them. For example, the phrase 
"all power to the soviets" for anarchists means exactly that (i.e. 
that the revolution must be directly managed by working class 
organs). Leninists mean "all power to a central government 
elected by a national soviet congress." Similarly with other 
similar phrases (which shows the importance of looking at the 
details of any political theory and its history). 

We have shown that discussion over ends is as important 
as discussion over means as they are related. As Kropotkin 
once pointed out, those who downplay the importance of 
discussing the "order of things which . . . should emerge 
from the coming revolution" in favour of concentrating on 
"practical things" are being less than honest as "far from 
making light of such theories, they propagate them, and all 
that they do now is a logical extension of their ideas. In 
the end those words 'Let us not discuss theoretical questions' 
really mean: 'Do not subject our theory to discussion, but 
help us to put it into execution.'" [_Words of a Rebel_, 
p. 200]

Hence the need to critically evaluate both ends and means.
This shows the weakness of the common argument that anarchists
and Leftists share some common visions and so we should work 
with them to achieve those common things. Who knows what 
happens after that? As can be seen, this is not the case. 
Many aspects of anarchism and Marxism are in opposition and 
cannot be considered similar (for example, what a Leninist 
considers as socialism is extremely different to what an 
anarchist thinks it is). If you consider "socialism" as
being a "workers' state" presided over by a "revolutionary"
government, then how can this be reconciled with the 
anarchist vision of a federation of self-managed communes
and workers' associations? As the Russian Revolution shows,
only by the armed might of the "revolutionary" government 
crushing the anarchist vision.

The only thing we truly share with these groups is a mutual 
opposition to existing capitalism. Having a common enemy does
not make someone friends. Hence anarchists, while willing 
to work on certain mutual struggles, are well aware there is 
substantial differences in both terms of means and goals. The
lessons of revolution in the 20th Century is that once in power,
Leninists will repress anarchists, their current allies against
the capitalist system. This is does not occur by accident, it 
flows from the differences in vision between the two movements,
both in terms of means and goals.

H.3.2 Is Marxism "socialism from below"?

Some Marxists, such as the _International Socialist Tendency_,
like to portray their tradition as being "socialism from 
below." Under "socialism from below," they place the ideas
of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, arguing that they and
they alone have continued this, the true, ideal of socialism
(Hal Draper's essay "The Two Souls of Socialism" seems to have
been the first to argue along these lines). They contrast this 
idea of "democratic" socialism "from below" with "socialism 
from above," in which they place reformist socialism (social 
democracy, Labourism, etc.), elitist socialism (Lassalle and 
others who wanted educated and liberal members of the middle 
classes to liberate the working class) and Stalinism 
(bureaucratic dictatorship over the working class). 

For those who uphold this idea, "Socialism from below" is simply 
the self-emancipation of the working class by its own efforts. 
To anarchist ears, the claim that Marxism (and in particular
Leninism) is socialism "from below" sounds paradoxical, indeed
laughable. This is because anarchists from Proudhon onwards 
have used the imagery of socialism being created and run from 
below upwards. They have been doing so for far longer than 
Marxists have. As such, "socialism from below" simply sums 
up the *anarchist* ideal! 

Thus we find Proudhon in 1848 talking about being a 
"revolutionary *from below*" and that every "serious and 
lasting Revolution" was "made *from below,* by the people." 
A "Revolution *from above*" was "pure governmentalism," 
"the negation of collective activity, of popular 
spontaneity" and is "the oppression of the wills of 
those below." [quoted by George Woodcock, _Pierre-Joseph 
Proudhon_, p. 143] For Proudhon, the means of this revolution
"from below" would be working class associations for both 
credit (mutual banks) and production (workers' associations
or co-operatives). The workers, "organised among themselves,
without the assistance of the capitalist" would march by
"Work to the conquest of the world" by the "force of 
principle." Thus capitalism would be reformed away by 
the actions of the workers themselves. The "problem of
association," Proudhon argues, "consists in organising
 . . . the *producers,* and by this subjecting capital 
subordinating power. Such is the war of liberty against
authority, a war of the producer against the non-producer;
a war of equality against privilege . . . An agricultural
and industrial combination must be found by means of 
which power, today the ruler of society, shall become its
slave." [quoted by K. Steven Vincent, _Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
and the Rise of French Republican Socialism_, p. 148 and 
p. 157]

Similarly, Bakunin saw an anarchist revolution as coming 
"from below." As he put it, "liberty can be created only by 
liberty, by an insurrection of all the people and the voluntary 
organisation of the workers from below upward." [_Statism
and Anarchy_, p. 179] Elsewhere he writes that "popular
revolution" would "create its own organisation from the 
bottom upwards and from the circumference inwards, in 
accordance with the principle of liberty, and not from 
the top downwards and from the centre outwards, as in the
way of authority." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_,
p. 170] His vision of revolution and revolutionary 
self-organisation and construction from below was a 
core aspect of his anarchist ideas, arguing repeatedly
for "the free organisation of the people's lives in 
accordance with their needs -- not from the top down, 
as we have it in the State, but from the bottom up,
an organisation formed by the people themselves . . . a
free union of associations of agricultural and factory 
workers, of communes, regions, and nations." He stressed
that "the politics of the Social Revolution" was "the
abolition of the State" and "the economic, altogether free
organisation of the people, an organisation from below
upward, by means of federation." [_The Political Philosophy
of Bakunin_, pp. 297-8]

While Proudhon wanted to revolutionise society, he rejected 
revolutionary means to do so (i.e. collective struggle, 
strikes, insurrection, etc.). Bakunin, however, was a 
revolutionary in this, the popular, sense of the word. Yet 
he shared with Proudhon the idea of socialism being created 
by the working class itself. As he put it, in "a social 
revolution, which in everything is diametrically opposed 
to a political revolution, the actions of individuals 
hardly count at all, whereas the spontaneous action of 
the masses is everything. All that individuals can do is 
clarify, propagate and work out the ideas corresponding 
to the popular instinct, and, what is more, to contribute 
their incessant efforts to revolutionary organisation of 
the natural power of the masses -- but nothing else beyond 
that; the rest can and should be done by the people themselves 
. . . revolution can be waged and brought to its full 
development only through the spontaneous and continued 
mass action of groups and associations of the people." 
[Op. Cit., pp. 298-9]

Therefore, the idea of "socialism from below" is a distinctly
anarchist notion, one found in the works of Proudhon and
Bakunin and repeated by anarchists ever since. As such, to
hear Marxists appropriate this obviously anarchist terminology
and imagery appears to many anarchists as opportunistic and 
attempt to cover the authoritarian reality of mainstream Marxism 
with anarchist rhetoric. However, there are "libertarian" 
strains of Marxism which are close to anarchism. Does this mean 
that there are no elements of a "socialism from below" to be 
found in Marx and Engels? 

If we look at Marx, we get contradictory impressions. On the one 
hand, he argued that freedom "consists in converting the state 
from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely 
subordinate to it." Combine this with his comments on the Paris 
Commune (see his "The Civil War in France"), we can say that 
there are clearly elements of "socialism from below" in Marx's 
work. On the other hand, he often stresses the need for strict 
centralisation of power. In 1850, for example, he argued that 
the workers must "not only strive for a single and indivisible 
German republic, but also within this republic for the most 
determined centralisation of power in the hands of the state 
authority." This was because "the path of revolutionary 
activity" can "proceed only from the centre." This meant that 
the workers must be opposed to the "federative republic" 
planned by the democrats and "must not allow themselves to be 
misguided by the democratic talk of freedom for the 
communities, of self-government, etc." This centralisation 
of power was essential to overcome local autonomy, which 
would allow "every village, every town and every province" 
to put "a new obstacle in the path" the revolution due to 
"local and provincial obstinacy." Decades later, Marx 
dismisses Bakunin's vision of "the free organisation of the 
worker masses from bottom to top" as "nonsense." [_Marx-Engels 
Reader_, p. 537, p. 509 and p. 547]

Thus we have a contradiction. While arguing that the state 
must become subordinate to society, we have a central power
imposing its will on "local and provincial obstinacy." This 
implies a vision of revolution in which the centre (indeed, 
"the state authority") forces its will on the population, 
which (by necessity) means that the centre power is 
"superimposed upon society" rather than "subordinate" 
to it. Given his dismissal of the idea of organisation from
bottom to top, we cannot argue that by this he meant simply
the co-ordination of local initiatives. Rather, we are struck
by the "top-down" picture of revolution Marx presents. Indeed,
his argument from 1850 suggests that Marx favoured centralism
not only in order to prevent the masses from creating obstacles
to the revolutionary activity of the "centre," but also to
prevent them from interfering with their own liberation.

Looking at Engels, we discover him writing that "[a]s soon 
as our Party is in possession of political power it has 
simply to expropriate the big landed proprietors just like the 
manufacturers in industry . . . thus restored to the community 
[they] are to be turned over by us to the rural workers who
are already cultivating them and are to be organised into
co-operatives." He even states that this expropriation may
"be compensated," depending on "the circumstances which we
obtain power, and particularly by the attitude adopted by 
these gentry." [_Marx-Engels Selected Writings_, pp. 638-9] 
Thus we have the party taking power, then expropriating the 
means of life *for the workers* and, lastly, "turning over" 
these to them. While this fits into the general scheme of 
the _Communist Manifesto_, it cannot be said to be "socialism 
from below" which can only signify the direct expropriation 
of the means of production by the workers themselves, 
organising themselves into free producer associations 
to do so. 

This vision of revolution as the party coming to power can
be seen from Engels' warning that the "worse thing that can
befall the leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to
assume power at a time when the movement is not yet ripe 
for the domination of the class he represents and for the 
measures this domination implies." [_Collected Works_, 
vol. 10, p. 469] Needless to say, such a vision is hard to 
equate with "socialism from below" which implies the active 
participation of the working class in the direct management 
of society from the bottom-up. If the leaders "assume power"
then *they* have the real power, not the class they claim 
to "represent." Equally, it seems strange that socialism can
be equated with a vision which equates "domination" of a 
class being achieved by the fact a leader "represents" it.
Can the working class really be said to be the ruling class
if its role in society is to select those who exercise power
on its behalf (i.e. to select representatives)? Bakunin quite
rightly answered in the negative. While representative 
democracy may be acceptable to ensure bourgeois rule, it 
cannot be assumed that it be utilised to create a socialist 
society. It was designed to defend class society and its 
centralised and top-down nature reflects this role. 

Moreover, Marx and Engels had argued in _The Holy Family_ 
that the "question is not what this or that proletarian, 
or even the whole of the proletariat at the moment *considers*
as its aim. The question is *what the proletariat is*, and 
what, consequent on that *being*, it will be compelled to do." 
[quoted by Murray Bookchin, _The Spanish Anarchists_, p. 280] 
As Murray Bookchin argues:

"These lines and others like them in Marx's writings were
to provide the rationale for asserting the authority of
Marxist parties and their armed detachments over and
even against the proletariat. Claiming a deeper and
more informed comprehension of the situation then
'even the whole of the proletariat at the given moment,'
Marxist parties went on to dissolve such revolutionary
forms of proletarian organisation as factory committees
and ultimately to totally regiment the proletariat 
according to lines established by the party leadership."
[Op. Cit., p. 289]

Thus the ideological underpinning of a "socialism from
above" is expounded, one which dismisses what the members 
of the working class actually want or desire at a given
point (a position which Trotsky, for one, explicitly 
argued). A few years later, they argued in _The Communist 
Manifesto_ that "a portion of the bourgeois goes over to 
the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the 
bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to
the level of comprehending theoretically the historical
movement as a whole." They also noted that the Communists
are "the most advanced and resolute section of the 
working-class parties . . . [and] they have over the
great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly
understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the 
general results of the proletarian movement." [_Selected 
Works_, p. 44 and p. 46] This gives a privileged place to 
the party (particularly the "bourgeois ideologists" who
join it), a privileged place which their followers had no
problem abusing in favour of party power and hierarchical 
leadership from above. As we discuss in section H.5, 
Lenin was just expressing orthodox Social-Democratic (i.e. 
Marxist) policy when he argued that socialist consciousness 
was created by bourgeois intellectuals and introduced into 
the working class from outside. Against this, we have to 
note that the Manifesto states that the proletarian movement 
was "the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense 
majority, in the interests of the immense majority" 
(although, as discussed in section H.1.1, when they wrote
this the proletariat was a *minority* in all countries bar
Britain). [Op. Cit., p. 45] 

Looking at the tactics advocated by Marx and Engels, we 
see a strong support for "political action" in the sense
of participating in elections. This support undoubtedly 
flows from Engel's comments that universal suffrage "in
an England two-thirds of whose inhabitants are industrial
proletarians means the exclusive political rule of the
working class with all the revolutionary changes in social
conditions which are inseparable from it." [_Collected 
Works_, vol. 10, p. 298 Marx argued along identical lines. 
[Op. Cit., vol. 11, pp. 335-6] However, how could an entire 
class, the proletariat organised as a "movement" exercise 
its power under such a system? While the atomised voting 
to nominate representatives (who, in reality, held the 
real power in society) may be more than adequate to 
ensure bourgeois, i.e. minority, power, could it be used 
for proletarian, i.e. majority, power?

This is because such institutions are designed to place 
policy-making in the  hands of representatives and do not 
(indeed, cannot) constitute a "proletariat organised as a 
ruling class." If public policy, as distinguished from 
administrative activities, is not made by the people 
themselves, in federations of self-managed assemblies, 
then a movement of the vast majority in the precise sense 
of the term cannot exist. For people to acquire real power 
over their lives and society, they must establish 
institutions organised and run, as Bakunin constantly 
stressed, from below. This would necessitate that they 
themselves directly manage their own affairs, communities 
and workplaces and, for co-ordination, mandate federal 
assemblies of revocable and strictly controllable delegates, 
who will execute their decisions. Only in this sense can a 
majority class, especially one committed to the abolition 
of all classes, organise as a class to manage society.

As such, Marx and Engels tactics are at odds with any idea of
"socialism from below." While, correctly, supporting strikes
and other forms of working class direct action (although,
significantly, Engels dismissed the general strike) they 
placed that support within a general political strategy which 
emphasised electioneering and representative forms. This,
however, is a form of struggle which can only really be
carried out by means of leaders. The role of the masses 
is minor, that of voters. The focus of the struggle is at
the top, in parliament, where the duly elected leaders are.
As Luigi Galleani argued, this form of action involved the
"ceding of power by all to someone, the delegate, the 
representative, individual or group." This meant that 
rather than the anarchist tactic of "direct pressure 
put against the ruling classes by the masses," the Socialist
Party "substituted representation and the rigid discipline 
of the parliamentary socialists," the inevitably resulted
in it "adopt[ing] class collaboration in the legislative
arena, without which all reforms would remain a vain hope."
It also resulted in the socialists needing "authoritarian
organisations", i.e. ones which are centralised and disciplined 
from above down. [_The End of Anarchism?_, p. 14, p. 12 and
p. 14] The end result was the encouragement of a viewpoint
that reforms (indeed, the revolution) would be the work of
leaders acting on behalf of the masses whose role would be
that of voters and followers, not active participants in the
struggle (see section J.2 for a discussion on direct action
and why anarchists reject electioneering). 

By the 1890s, the top-down and essentially reformist nature
of these tactics had made their mark in both Engels politics
and the practical activities of the Social-Democratic parties.
Engels "introduction" to Marx's _The Class Struggles in France_
indicated how far Marxism had progressed. Engels, undoubtedly
influenced by the rise of Social-Democracy as an electoral
power, stressed the use of the ballot box as the ideal way, 
if not the only way, for the party to take power. He notes
that "[w]e, the 'revolutionists', the 'overthrowers'" were
"thriving far better on legal methods than on illegal methods
and overthrow" and the bourgeoisie "cry despairingly . . .
legality is the death of us" and were "much more afraid of
the legal than of the illegal action of the workers' party,
of the results of elections than of those of rebellion." He 
argued that it was essential "not to fitter away this daily 
increasing shock force [of party voters] in vanguard skirmishes, 
but to keep it intact until the decisive day." [_Selected 
Writings_, p. 656, p. 650 and p. 655] 

The net effect of this would simply be keeping the class 
struggle within the bounds decided upon by the party leaders, 
so placing the emphasis on the activities and decisions of 
those at the top rather than the struggle and decisions of 
the mass of working class people themselves. As we noted in 
section H.1.1, when the party was racked by the "revisionism" 
controversy after Engels death, it was fundamentally a 
conflict between those who wanted the party's rhetoric to 
reflect its reformist tactics and those who sought the 
illusion of radical words to cover the reformist practice. 
The decision of the Party to support their state in the
First World War simply proved that radical words cannot 
defeat reformist tactics. 

Needless to say, from this contradictory inheritance, Marxists
had two ways of proceeding. Either they become explicitly 
anti-state (and so approach anarchism) or become explicitly
in favour of party and state power and so, by necessity, 
"revolution from above." The council communists and other 
libertarian Marxists followed the first path, the Bolsheviks 
and their followers the second. As we discuss in the next
section, Lenin explicitly dismissed the idea that Marxism 
proceeded "only from below," stating that this was an 
anarchist principle. Nor was he shy in equating party power
with working class power. Indeed, this vision of socialism 
as involving party power was not alien to the mainstream 
social-democracy Leninism split from. The leading left-wing 
Menshevik Martov argued as follows:

"In a class struggle which has entered the phase of civil war,
there are bound to be times when the advance guard of the
revolutionary class, representing the interests of the broad
masses but ahead of them in political consciousness, is 
obliged to exercise state power by means of a dictatorship
of the revolutionary minority. Only a short-sighted and
doctrinaire viewpoint would reject this prospect as such. 
The real question at stake is whether this dictatorship, which
is unavoidable at a certain stage of any revolution, is 
exercised in such a way as to consolidate itself and create
a system of institutions enabling it to become a permanent
feature, or whether, on the contrary, it is replaced as soon
as possible by the organised initiative and autonomy of the
revolutionary class or classes as a whole. The second of 
these methods is that of the revolutionary Marxists who,
for this reason, style themselves Social Democrats; the
first is that of the Communists." [_The Mensheviks in the
Russian Revolution_, Abraham Ascher (Ed.), p. 119]

All this is to be expected, given the weakness of the Marxist
theory of the state. As we discuss in section H.3.7, Marxists
have always had an a-historic perspective on the state, 
considering it as purely an instrument of class rule rather
than what it is, an instrument of *minority* class rule. For 
anarchists, the "State is the minority government, from the 
top downward, of a vast quantity of men."  This automatically 
means that a socialism, like Marx's, which aims for a socialist 
government and a workers' state automatically becomes, against 
the wishes of its best activists, "socialism from above."
As Bakunin argued, Marxists are "worshippers of State power, 
and necessarily also prophets of political and social discipline 
and champions of order established from the top downwards, 
always in the name of universal suffrage and the sovereignty 
of the masses, for whom they save the honour and privilege of 
obeying leaders, elected masters." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected 
Writings_, p. 265 and pp. 237-8]

For this reason anarchists from Bakunin onwards have argued for 
a bottom-up federation of workers' councils as the basis of 
revolution and the means of managing society after capitalism 
and the state have been abolished. If these organs of workers' 
self-management are co-opted into a state structure (as happened 
in Russia) then their power will be handed over to the real power 
in any state -- the government and its bureaucracy. The state 
is the delegation of power -- as such, it means that the idea 
of a "workers' state" expressing "workers' power" is a logical 
impossibility. If workers are running society then power rests 
in their hands. If a state exists then power rests in the hands 
of the handful of people at the top, not in the hands of all. 
The state was designed for minority rule. No state can be an 
organ of working class (i.e. majority) self-management due to 
its basic nature, structure and design.

So, while there are elements of "socialism from below" in the 
works of Marx and Engels they are placed within a distinctly 
centralised and authoritarian context which undermines them. 
As John Clark summarises, "in the context of Marx's consistent 
advocacy of centralist programmes, and the part these programmes 
play in his theory of social development, the attempt to construct 
a *libertarian* Marxism by citing Marx's own proposals for social 
change would seem to present insuperable difficulties." [Op. Cit.,
p. 93]

H.3.3 Is Leninism "socialism from below"?

As discussed in the last section, Marx and Engels left their
followers with an ambiguous legacy. On the one hand, there *are* elements of "socialism from below" in their politics
(most explicitly in Marx's comments on the libertarian 
influenced Paris Commune). On the other, there are distinctly
centralist and statist themes in their work. 

From this legacy, Leninism took the statist themes. Which 
explains why anarchists think the idea of Leninism being 
"socialism from below" is incredible. Simply put, the actual 
comments and actions of Lenin and his followers show that 
they had no commitment to a "socialism from below." As we 
will indicate, Lenin disassociated himself repeatedly from 
the idea of politics "from below," considering it (quite 
rightly) an anarchist idea. In contrast, he stressed the 
importance of a politics which somehow combined action 
"from above" and "from below." For those Leninists who 
maintain that their tradition is "socialism from below" 
(indeed, the only "real" socialism "from below"), this is 
a major problem and, unsurprisingly, they generally fail 
to mention it. 

So what was Lenin's position on "from below"? In 1904, during 
the debate over the party split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, 
Lenin stated that the argument "[b]ureaucracy *versus* democracy 
is in fact centralism *versus* autonomism; it is the organisational 
principle of revolutionary Social-Democracy as opposed to the 
organisational principle of opportunist Social-Democracy. The 
latter strives to proceed from the bottom upward, and, therefore, 
wherever possible . . . upholds autonomism and 'democracy,' 
carried (by the overzealous) to the point of anarchism. The 
former strives to proceed from the top downward. . ." [_Collected 
Works_, vol. 7, pp. 396-7] Thus it is the non-Bolshevik 
("opportunist") wing of Marxism which bases itself on the 
"organisational principle" of "from the bottom upward," not 
the Bolshevik tradition (as we note in section H.5.5, Lenin 
also rejected the "primitive democracy" of mass assemblies as 
the basis of the labour and revolutionary movements). Moreover, 
this vision of a party run from the top down was enshrined in 
the Bolshevik ideal of "democratic centralism" (see section H.5). 
How you can have "socialism from below" when your "organisational 
principle" is "from the top downward" is not explained by Leninist 
exponents of "socialism from below."

Lenin repeated this argument in his discussion on the right 
tactics to apply during the near revolution of 1905. He 
mocked the Mensheviks for only wanting "pressure from below" 
which was "pressure by the citizens on the revolutionary 
government." Instead, he argued for "pressure . . . from above 
as well as from below," where "pressure from above" was 
"pressure by the revolutionary government on the citizens." 
He notes that Engels "appreciated the importance of action 
from above" and that he saw the need for "the utilisation of 
the revolutionary governmental power." Lenin summarised his 
position (which he considered as being in line with that of 
orthodox Marxism) by stating that "[l]imitation, in principle, 
of revolutionary action to pressure from below and renunciation
of pressure also from above is *anarchism.*" [Marx, Engels and 
Lenin, _Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism_, pp. 189-90, p. 193,
p. 195 and p. 196] This seems to have been a common Bolshevik 
position at the time, with Stalin stressing in the same year 
that "action only from 'below'" was "an anarchist principle, 
which does, indeed, fundamentally contradict Social-Democratic 
tactics." [_Collected Works_, vol. 1, p. 149]

It is in this context of "above and below" in which we must
place Lenin's comments in 1917 that socialism was "democracy
from below, without a police, without a standing army,
voluntary social duty by a *militia* formed from a universally
armed people." [_Collected Works_, vol. 24, p. 170] Given 
that Lenin had rejected the idea of "only from below" as
an anarchist principle (which it is), we need to bear in
mind that this "democracy from below" was *always* placed 
in the context of a Bolshevik government. Lenin always 
stressed that the *Bolsheviks* would "take over full state 
power," that they "can and must take state power into their 
own hands." His "democracy from below" always meant representative
government, *not* popular power or self-management. The role of 
the working class was that of voters and so the Bolsheviks' first 
task was "to convince the majority of the people that its programme 
and tactics are correct." The second task "that confronted our 
Party was to capture political power." The third task was for 
"the Bolshevik Party" to "*administer* Russia." [_Selected Works_, 
vol. 2, p. 352, p. 328 and p. 589] Thus Bolshevik power was
equated with working class power.

Towards the end of 1917, he stressed this vision of a Bolshevik
run "democracy from below" by arguing that "[a]fter the 1905 
revolution Russia was ruled by 130,000 landowners . . . yet 
they tell us that Russia will not be able to be governed by 
the 240,000 members of the Bolshevik party." He even equated 
rule by the party with rule by the class -- "the power of the 
Bolsheviks -- that is, the power of the proletariat," while 
admitting that the proletariat could not actually govern itself. 
As he put it, "[w]e know that just any labourer or any cook 
would be incapable of taking over immediately the administration 
of the State . . . We demand that the teaching of the business 
of government be conducted by the class-conscious workers and 
soldiers." The "conscious workers must be in control, but they
can attract to the actual work of management the real labouring 
and oppressed masses." Ironically, he calls this system "real 
popular self-administration" and "teaching the people to manage 
their own affairs."  He also indicated that once in power, the 
Bolsheviks "shall be fully and unreservedly for a strong 
government and centralism." [_Will the Bolsheviks Maintain 
Power_, pp. 61-2, p. 66, p. 69 and p. 75] 

Clearly, Lenin's position had not changed. The goal of the 
revolution was simply a Bolshevik government, which, if it 
was to be effective, had to have the real power in society.
Thus, socialism would be implemented from above, by the 
"strong" government of the "conscious workers" who
would be "in control." While, eventually, the "labouring" 
masses would take part in the administration of state 
decisions, the initial role of the workers could be the
same as under capitalism. And, we must note, there is a
difference between making policy and taking part in 
administration (i.e. between the "work of management" 
and management itself), a difference Lenin obscures. 

All of which, perhaps, explains the famous leaflet 
addressed to the workers of Petrograd immediately after 
the October Revolution, informing that "the revolution 
has won." The workers were called upon to "show . . . 
*the greatest firmness and endurance,* in order to 
facilitate the execution of all the aims of the new 
People's Government." They were asked to "cease 
immediately all economic and political strikes, to 
take up your work, and do it in perfect order . . . All 
to your places." It stated that the "best way to support 
the new Government of Soviets in these days" was "by 
doing your job." [cited by John Read, _Ten Days that 
Shook the World_, pp. 341-2] Which smacks far more of
"socialism from above" than "socialism from below"!

The implications of Lenin's position became clearer after the 
Bolsheviks had taken power in 1917. In that situation, it
was not a case of "dealing with the general question of 
principle, whether in the epoch of the democratic revolution
it is *admissible* to pass from pressure from below to
pressure from above." [Lenin, _Collected Works_, vol. 24, 
p. 190] Rather, it was the concrete situation of a 
"revolutionary" government exercising power "from above" 
onto the very class it claimed to represent. Thus we have a 
power over the working class which was quite happy to exercise 
coercion to ensure its position. As Lenin explained to his 
political police, the Cheka, in 1920:

"Without revolutionary coercion directed against the avowed 
enemies of the workers and peasants, it is impossible to
break down the resistance of these exploiters. On the other
hand, revolutionary coercion is bound to be employed towards
the wavering and unstable elements among the masses 
themselves." [_Collected Works_, vol. 42, p. 170]

It could be argued that this position was forced on Lenin
by the problems facing the Bolsheviks in the Civil War, but
such an argument is flawed. This is for two reasons. Firstly,
according to Lenin himself civil war was inevitable and so,
unsurprisingly, Lenin considered his comments as universally
applicable. Secondly, this position fits in well with the idea 
of pressure "from above" exercised by the "revolutionary" 
government against the masses (and nothing to do with any 
sort of "socialism from below"). Indeed, "wavering" and 
"unstable" elements is just another way of saying "pressure
from below," the attempts by those subject to the "revolutionary" 
government to influence its policies. As we noted in section
H.1.2, it was in this period (1919 and 1920) that the Bolsheviks
openly argued that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was, in
fact, the "dictatorship of the party" (see section H.3.8 on how
the Bolsheviks modified the Marxist theory of the state in line
with this). Rather than the result of the problems facing Russia 
at the time, Lenin's comments simply reflect the unfolding of 
certain aspects of his ideology when his party held power (as
we make clear in section H.9, the ideology of the ruling party 
and the ideas held by the masses are also factors in history).

To show that Lenin's comments were not caused by circumstantial 
factors, we can turn to his infamous work _Left-Wing Communism_. 
In this 1920 tract, written for the Second Congress of the 
Communist International, Lenin lambasted those Marxists who 
argued for direct working class power against the idea of 
party rule (i.e. the various council communists around 
Europe). We have already noted in section H.1.2 that Lenin 
had argued in that work that it was "ridiculously absurd and 
stupid" to "a contrast in general between the dictatorship of 
the masses and the dictatorship of the leaders." [p. 25] 
Here we provide his description of the "top-down" nature of 
Bolshevik rule:

"The interrelations between leaders-Party-class-masses . . .
now present themselves concretely in Russia in the following
form. The dictatorship is exercised by the proletariat 
which is organised in the Soviets and is led by the 
Communist Party . . . The Party, which holds annual 
congresses . . . is directed by a Central Committee of 
nineteen elected at the congress, while the current work
in Moscow [the capital] had to be carried on by [two] still
smaller bodies . . . which are elected at the plenary sessions
of the Central Committee, five members of the Central 
Committee in each bureau. This, then, looks like a real
'oligarchy.' Not a single important political or organisational
question is decided by any State institution in our republic
[sic!] without the guiding instructions of the Central 
Committee of the Party.

"In its work the Party relies directly on the *trade unions* 
. . . In reality, all the controlling bodies of the overwhelming
majority of the unions . . . consists of Communists, who 
secure the carrying out of all the instructions of the Party.
Thus . . . we have a . . . very powerful proletarian apparatus, 
by means of which the Party is closely linked up with the 
*class* and with *the masses,* and by means of which, under 
the leadership of the Party, the *class dictatorship* of the
class is realised." [_Left-Wing Communism_, pp. 31-2]

Combined with "non-Party workers' and peasants' conferences"
and Soviet Congresses, this was "the general mechanism of
the proletarian state power viewed 'from above,' from the
standpoint of the practical realisation of the dictatorship"
and so "all 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." [Op. Cit., p. 33] Perhaps this explains why he
did not bother to view "proletarian" state power "from below,"
from the viewpoint of the proletariat? If he did, perhaps
he would have recounted the numerous strikes and protests
broken by the Cheka under martial law, the gerrymandering and
disbanding of soviets, the imposition of "one-man management"
onto the workers in production, the turning of the unions 
into agents of the state/party and the elimination of working 
class freedom by party power? After all, *if* the congresses 
of soviets were "more democratic" than anything in the "best 
democratic republics of the bourgeois world," the Bolsheviks 
would have no need for non-Party conferences "to be able to 
watch the mood of the masses, to come closer to them, to 
respond to their demands." [Op. Cit., p. 33 and p. 32] How
the Bolsheviks "responded" to these conferences and their 
demands is extremely significant. They disbanded them. This
was because "[d]uring the disturbances" of late 1920, "they
provided an effective platform for criticism of Bolshevik
policies." Their frequency was decreased and they "were 
discontinued soon afterward." [Richard Sakwa, _Soviet 
Communists in Power_, p. 203]

At the Comintern congress itself, Zinoviev announced that 
"the dictatorship of the proletariat is at the same time 
the dictatorship of the Communist Party." [_Proceedings and 
Documents of the Second Congress 1920_, vol. 1, p. 152]
Trotsky, for his part, also universalised Lenin's argument
when he pondered the important decisions of the revolution
and who would make them in his reply to the anarchist delegate
from the Spanish anarcho-syndicalist union the CNT:

"Who decides this question [and others like it]?  We have
the Council of People's Commissars but it has to be subject 
to some supervision. Whose supervision? That of the working
class as an amorphous, chaotic mass? No. The Central 
Committee of the party is convened to discuss . . . and to 
decide . . . Who will solve these questions in Spain? The
Communist Party of Spain." [Op. Cit., p. 174]

As is obvious, Trotsky was drawing general lessons for the
international revolutionary movement. Needless to say, he 
still argued that the "working class, represented and led 
by the Communist Party, [was] in power here" in spite of it 
being "an amorphous, chaotic mass" which did not make any 
decisions on important questions affecting the revolution!

Incidentally, his and Lenin's comments of 1920 disprove 
Trotsky's later assertion that it was "[o]nly after the 
conquest of power, the end of the civil war, and the 
establishment of a stable regime" when "the Central 
Committee little by little begin to concentrate the 
leadership of Soviet activity in its hands. Then would 
come Stalin's turn." [_Stalin_, vol. 1, p. 328] While it 
was definitely the "conquest of power" by the Bolsheviks 
which lead to the marginalisation of the soviets, this 
event cannot be shunted to after the civil war as Trotsky 
would like (particularly as Trotsky admitted that "[a]fter 
eight months of inertia and of democratic chaos, came the 
dictatorship of the Bolsheviks." [Op. Cit., vol. 2, p. 242]). 
We must note (see sections H.1.2 or H.3.8) Trotsky argued 
for the "objective necessity" of the "revolutionary 
dictatorship of a proletarian party" until his death.

Clearly, the claim that Leninism (and its various off-shoots
like Trotskyism) is "socialism from below" is hard to take
seriously. As proven above, the Leninist tradition is explicitly
against the idea of "only from below," with Lenin explicitly
stating that it was an "anarchist stand" to be for "'action 
only from below', not 'from below and from above'" which was 
the position of Marxism. [_Collected Works_, vol. 9, p. 77] 
Once in power, Lenin and the Bolsheviks implemented this vision
of "from below and from above," with the highly unsurprising
result that "from above" quickly repressed "from below" (which
was dismissed as "wavering" by the masses). This was to be 
expected, for a government to enforce its laws, it has to have
power over its citizens and so socialism "from above" is a 
necessary side-effect of Leninist theory. 

Ironically, Lenin's argument in _State and Revolution_ comes
back to haunt him. In that work 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." [_Essential 
Works of Lenin_, pp. 337-8] If the working class itself 
is being subject to "suppression" then, clearly, there 
is "no freedom, no democracy" for that class -- and the 
people "will feel no better if the stick with which they 
are being beaten is labelled 'the people's stick'." 
[Bakunin, _Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 338]

Thus, when Leninists argue that they stand for the "principles 
of socialism from below" and state that this means the direct 
and democratic control of society by the working class then, 
clearly, they are being less than honest. Looking at the 
tradition they place themselves, the obvious conclusion which 
must be reached is that Leninism is *not* based on "socialism 
from below" in the sense of working class self-management of 
society (i.e. the only condition when the majority can "rule" 
and decisions truly flow from below upwards). At best, they 
subscribe to the distinctly bourgeois vision of "democracy" 
as being simply the majority designating (and trying to 
control) its rulers. At worse, they defend politics which 
have eliminated even this form of democracy in favour of 
party dictatorship and "one-man management" armed with 
"dictatorial" powers in industry (most members of such parties 
do not know how the Bolsheviks gerrymandered and disbanded 
soviets to maintain power, raised the dictatorship of the 
party to an ideological truism and wholeheartedly advocated 
"one-man management" rather than workers' self-management of 
production). As we discuss in section H.5, this latter 
position flows easily from the underlying assumptions of 
vanguardism which Leninism is based on.

So, Lenin, Trotsky and so on simply cannot be considered as
exponents of "socialism from below." Any one who makes such a
claim is either ignorant of the actual ideas and practice of 
Bolshevism or they seek to deceive. For anarchists, "socialism 
from below" can only be another name, like libertarian socialism, 
for anarchism (as Lenin, ironically enough, acknowledged). This 
does not mean that "socialism from below," like "libertarian 
socialism," is identical to anarchism, it simply means that 
libertarian Marxists and other socialists are far closer to 
anarchism than mainstream Marxism.

H.3.4 Don't anarchists just quote Marxists selectively?

No, far from it. While it is impossible to quote everything
a person or an ideology says, it is possible to summarise
those aspects of a theory which influenced the way it 
developed in practice. As such, *any* account is "selective" 
in some sense, the question is whether this results in a 
critiqued rooted in the ideology and its practice or whether 
it presents a picture at odds with both. As Maurice Brinton 
puts it in the introduction to his classic account of workers' 
control in the Russian Revolution:

"Other charges will also be made. The quotations from Lenin
and Trotsky will not be denied but it will be stated that
they are 'selective' and that 'other things, too' were said.
Again, we plead guilty. But we would stress that there are 
hagiographers enough in the trade whose 'objectivity' . . . 
is but a cloak for sophisticated apologetics . . . It 
therefore seems more relevant to quote those statements of 
the Bolsheviks leaders of 1917 which helped determine Russia's 
evolution [towards Stalinism] rather those other statements 
which, like the May Day speeches of Labour leaders, were for 
ever to remain of rhetoric." [_The Bolsheviks and Workers' 
Control_, p. xv]

Hence the need to discuss all aspects of Marxism rather than
take what its adherents like to claim for it as granted. In 
this, we agree with Marx himself who argued that we cannot 
judge people by what they say about themselves but rather what 
they do. Unfortunately while many self-proclaimed Marxists 
(like Trotsky) may quote these comments, fewer apply them 
to their own ideology or actions (again, like Trotsky).

This can be seen from the almost ritualistic way many Marxists
response to anarchist (or other) criticisms of their ideas. 
When they complain that anarchists "selectively" quote from 
the leading proponents of Marxism, they are usually at pains 
to point people to some document which they have selected 
as being more "representative" of their tradition. Leninists 
usually point to Lenin's _State and Revolution_, for example,
for a vision of what Lenin "really" wanted. To this anarchists
reply by, as we discussed in section H.1.7 (Haven't you read 
Lenin's "State and Revolution"?), pointing out that much of 
that passes for 'Marxism' in _State and Revolution_ is anarchist 
and, equally important, it was not applied in practice. This
explains an apparent contradiction. Leninists point to the 
Russian Revolution as evidence for the democratic nature of 
their politics. Anarchists point to it as evidence of Leninism's 
authoritarian nature. Both can do this because there is a 
substantial difference between Bolshevism before it took power 
and afterwards. While the Leninists ask you to judge them by 
their manifesto, anarchists say judge them by their record! 

Simply put, Marxists quote selectively from their own 
tradition, ignoring those aspects of it which would be
unappealing to potential recruits. While the leaders may 
know their tradition has skeletons in its closet, they 
try their best to ensure no one else gets to know. Which, 
of course, explains their hostility to anarchists doing so! 
That there is a deep divide between aspects of Marxist 
rhetoric and its practice and that even its rhetoric is
not consistent we will now prove. By so doing, we can show
that anarchists do not, in fact, quote Marxist's "selectively."

As an example, we can point to the leading Bolshevik Grigorii
Zinoviev. In 1920, as head of the Communist International he
wrote a letter to the Industrial Workers of the World, a
revolutionary labour union, which stated that the "Russian 
Soviet Republic. . . is the most highly centralised government 
that exists. It is also the most democratic government in 
history. For all the organs of government are in constant 
touch with the working masses, and constantly sensitive to 
their will." [_Proceedings and Documents of the Second Congress 
1920_, vol. 2, p. 928] The same year, he explained 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 . . . All 
questions . . ., on which the fate of the proletarian 
revolution depends absolutely, are decided . . . in the 
framework of the party organisations." [quoted by Oskar 
Anweiler, _The Soviets_, pp. 239-40] It seems redundant to
note that the second quote is the accurate one, the one
which matches the reality of Bolshevik Russia. Therefore
it is hardly "selective" to quote the latter and not the
former, rather it expresses what was actually happening.

This duality and the divergence between practice and rhetoric
comes to the fore when Trotskyists discuss Stalinism and try
to counter pose the Leninist tradition to it. For example, 
we find the British SWP's Chris Harman arguing that the "whole 
experience of the workers' movement internationally teaches 
that only by regular elections, combined with the right of 
recall by shop-floor meetings can rank-and-file delegates be 
made really responsible to those who elect them." [_Bureaucracy 
and Revolution in Eastern Europe_, pp. 238-9] Significantly,
Harman does not mention that both Lenin and Trotsky rejected
this experience (see section H.3.8 for a full discussion on
how Leninism argues for state power explicitly to eliminate
such control from below). How can Trotsky's comment that the
"revolutionary dictatorship of a proletarian party is . . . 
an objective necessity" be reconciled with it? And what of 
the claim that the "revolutionary party (vanguard) which 
renounces its own dictatorship surrenders the masses to the 
counter-revolution"? [_Writings 1936-37_, pp. 513-4] Or his 
similar argument sixteen years earlier that the Party was 
"entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship 
clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy"? 
[quoted by Maurice Brinton, Op. Cit., p. 78]

The ironies do not stop there, of course. Harman correctly notes 
that under Stalinism, the "bureaucracy is characterised, like the 
private capitalist class in the West, by its control over the 
means of production." [Op. Cit., p. 147] However, he fails to
note that it was *Lenin,* in early 1918, who had raised and then
implemented such "control" in the form of "one-man management."
As he 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." [_Six Theses on the Immediate 
Tasks of the Soviet Government_, p. 44] To *fail* to note this
link between Lenin and the Stalinist bureaucracy on this issue
is quoting "selectively." 

The contradictions pile up. He argues that "people who seriously 
believe that workers at the height of revolution need a police 
guard to stop them handing their factories over to capitalists 
certainly have no real faith in the possibilities of a socialist 
future." [Op. Cit., p. 144] Yet this does not stop him praising 
the regime of Lenin and Trotsky and contrasting it with Stalinism, 
in spite of the fact that this was precisely what the Bolsheviks 
*did* from 1918 onwards! Indeed this tyrannical practice played a 
role in provoking the strikes in Petrograd which preceded the 
Kronstadt revolt in 1921, when "the workers wanted the special 
squads of armed Bolsheviks, who carried out a purely police 
function, withdrawn from the factories." Paul Avrich, _Kronstadt 
1921_, p. 42] It seems equally strange that Harman denounces
the Stalinist suppression of the Hungarian revolution for
workers' democracy and socialism while he defends the Bolshevik 
suppression of the Kronstadt revolt for the same goals (and 
as we discuss in section H.7, the rationales both regimes used 
to justify their actions were akin).

Similarly, when Harman argues that if by "political party" it
is "meant a party of the usual sort, in which a few leaders 
give orders and the masses merely obey . . . then certainly
such organisations added nothing to the Hungarian revolution."
However, as we discuss in section H.5, such a party was 
*precisely* what Leninism argued for and applied in practice. 
Simply put, the Bolsheviks were never a party "that stood for 
the councils taking power." [Op. Cit., p. 186 and p. 187] As 
Lenin repeatedly stressed, its aim was for the Bolshevik party 
to take power *through* the councils (see section H.3.11). 

This confusion between what was promised and what was done 
is a common feature of Leninism. Felix Morrow, for example,
wrote what is usually considered the definitive Trotskyist
work on the Spanish Revolution (in spite of it being, as we 
discuss in the appendix "Marxists and Spanish Anarchism," 
deeply flawed). In that work he states that the "essential 
points of a revolutionary program [are] all power to the 
working class, and democratic organs of the workers, 
peasants and combatants, as the expression of the workers' 
power." [_Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Spain_, p. 133] 
How this can be reconciled with Trotsky's comment, written 
in the same year, that "a revolutionary party, even after 
seizing power . . . is still by no means the sovereign ruler 
of society."? Or the opinion that it was "only thanks to 
the party dictatorship [that] were the Soviets able to lift 
themselves out of the mud of reformism and attain the state 
form of the proletariat"? [_Stalinism and Bolshevism_] Or 
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"? [_Collected 
Works_, vol. 32, p. 21] How can the working class "have all 
power" if power is held by a vanguard party? Particularly 
when this party has power specifically to enable it "overcom[e] 
the vacillation of the masses themselves." [Trotsky, _The 
Moralists and Sycophants_, p. 59]

Given all this, who is quoting who "selectively"? The Marxists
who ignore what the Bolsheviks did when in power and repeatedly
point to Lenin's _State and Revolution_ or the anarchists who 
link what they did with what they said outside of that holy text?
Considering this absolutely contradictory inheritance, anarchists
feel entitled to ask the question "Will the real Leninist please 
stand up?" What is it to be, popular democracy or party rule? If
we look at Bolshevik practice, the answer is the latter. As we
discuss in section H.3.8, the likes of Lenin and Trotsky concur,
incorporating the necessity of party power into their ideology
as a lesson of the revolution. As such, anarchists do not feel
they are quoting Leninism "selectively" when they argue that it 
is based on party power, not working class self-management. That
Leninists often publicly deny this aspect of their own ideology
or, at best, try to rationalise and justify it, suggests that 
when push comes to shove (as it does in every revolution) they
will make the same decisions and act in the same way!

In addition there is the question of what could be called the
"social context." Marxists often accuse anarchists of failing 
to place the quotations and actions of, say, the Bolsheviks 
into the circumstances which generated them. By this they mean
that Bolshevik authoritarianism can be explained purely in 
terms of the massive problems facing them (i.e. the rigours 
of the Civil War, the economic collapse and chaos in Russia
and so on). As we discuss this question in section H.8, we 
will simply summarise the anarchist reply by noting that this
argument has three major problems with it. Firstly, there is 
the problem that Bolshevik authoritarianism started *before* 
the start of the Civil War (as we discuss in section H.6) and,
moreover, continued *after* its ends. As such, the Civil War
cannot be blamed. The second problem is simply that Lenin 
continually stressed that civil war and economic chaos was 
inevitable during a revolution. If Leninist politics cannot 
handle the inevitable then they are to be avoided. Equally,
if Leninists blame what they should *know* is inevitable for
the degeneration of the Bolshevik revolution it would suggest
their understanding of what revolution entails is deeply 
flawed. The last problem is simply that the Bolsheviks did
not care. As Samuel Farber notes, "there is no evidence 
indicating that Lenin or any of the mainstream Bolshevik 
leaders lamented the loss of workers' control or of 
democracy in the soviets, or at least referred to these
losses as a retreat, as Lenin declared with the replacement
of War Communism by NEP in 1921." [_Before Stalinism_, p. 44]
Hence the continuation (indeed, intensification) of Bolshevik
authoritarianism after their victory in the civil war. Given 
this, it is significant that many of the quotes from Trotsky 
given above date from the late 1930s. To argue, therefore, 
that "social context" explains the politics and actions of 
the Bolsheviks seems incredulous. 

Lastly, it seems ironic that Marxists accuse anarchists of
quoting "selectively." After all, as proven in section H.2,
this is *exactly* what Marxists do to anarchism! Indeed, 
anarchists often make good propaganda out of such activity
by showing how selective their accounts are and how at odds
they are with want anarchism actually stands for and what
anarchists actually do (see the appendix of our FAQ on
"Anarchism and Marxism").

In summary, rather than quote "selectively" from the works 
and practice of Marxism, anarchists summarise those tendencies 
of both which, we argue, contribute to its continual failure in 
practice as a revolutionary theory. Moreover, Marxists themselves
are equally as "selective" as anarchists in this respect. Firstly,
as regards anarchist theory and practice and, secondly, as regards
their own. 

H.3.5 Has Marxist appropriation of anarchist ideas changed it?

As is obvious in any account of the history of socialism, 
Marxists (of various schools) have appropriated key anarchist 
ideas and (often) present them as if Marxists thought of them 
first. 

For example, as we discuss in section H.3.10, it was anarchists 
who first raised the idea of smashing the bourgeois state and 
replacing it with the fighting organisations of the working 
class (such as unions, workers' councils, etc.). It was only 
in 1917, decades after anarchists had first raised the idea, 
that Marxists started to argue these ideas but, of course, 
with a twist. While anarchists meant that working class 
organisations would be the basis of a free society, Lenin 
saw these organs as the best means of achieving Bolshevik 
party power. 

Similarly with the libertarian idea of the "militant 
minority." By this, anarchists and syndicalists meant 
groups of workers who gave an example by their direct 
action which their fellow workers could imitate (for 
example by leading wildcat strikes which would use 
flying pickets to get other workers to join in). This 
"militant minority" would be at the forefront of social 
struggle and would show, by example, practice and 
discussion, that their ideas and tactics were the 
correct ones. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, 
Bolsheviks argued that this idea was similar to their 
idea of a vanguard party. This ignored two key differences.
Firstly that the libertarian "militant minority" did not 
aim to take power on behalf of the working class but 
rather to encourage it, by example, to manage its own 
struggles and affairs (and, ultimately, society). 
Secondly, that "vanguard parties" are organised in 
hierarchical ways alien to the spirit of anarchism. While
both the "militant minority" and "vanguard party" approaches
are based on an appreciation of the uneven development of 
ideas within the working class, vanguardism transforms this 
into a justification for party rule *over* the working class 
by a so-called "advanced" minority (see section H.5 for a
full discussion). Other concepts, such as "workers' control," 
direct action, and so on have suffered a similar fate.

As such, while Marxists have appropriated certain anarchist
concepts, it does not mean that they mean exactly the same
thing by them. Rather, as history shows, radically different
concepts can be hidden behind similar sounding rhetoric. As
Murray Bookchin argued, many Marxist tendencies "attach 
basically alien ideas to the withering conceptual framework 
of Marxism -- not to say anything new but to preserve 
something old with ideological formaldehyde -- to the 
detriment of any intellectual growth that the distinctions
are designed to foster. This is mystification at its worst,
for it not only corrupts ideas but the very capacity of the
mind to deal with them. If Marx's work can be rescued for
our time, it will be by dealing with it as an invaluable
part of the development of ideas, not as pastiche that is
legitimated as a 'method' or continually 'updated' by 
concepts that come from an alien zone of ideas." [_Toward
an Ecological Society_, p. 242f]

This is not some academic point. The ramifications of Marxists
appropriating such "alien ideas" (or, more correctly, the 
rhetoric associated with those ideas) has had negative impacts
on actual revolutionary movements. For example, Lenin's 
definition of "workers' control" was radically different than
that current in the factory committee movement during the
Russian Revolution (which had more in common with anarchist
and syndicalist use of the term). The similarities in rhetoric,
allowed the factory committee movement to put its weight behind 
the Bolsheviks. Once in power, Lenin's position was implemented
while that of the factory committees was ignored. Ultimately,
Lenin's position was a key factor in creating state capitalism
rather than socialism in Russia (see section H.3.14 for more
details). 

This, of course, does not stop modern day Leninists appropriating 
the term workers' control "without bating an eyelid. Seeking to 
capitalise on the confusion of now rampant in the movement, these 
people talk of 'workers' control' as if a) they meant by those 
words what the politically unsophisticated mean (i.e. that working 
people should themselves decide about the fundamental matters 
relating to production) and b) as if they -- and the Leninist 
doctrine to which they claim to adhere -- had always supported 
demands of this kind, or as if Leninism had always seen in workers'
control the universally valid foundation of a new social order,
rather than just a *slogan* to be used for manipulatory purposes 
in specific and very limited historical contexts." [Maurice 
Brinton, _The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control_, p. iv] Section 
H.3.14 discusses this further.

Thus the fact that Leninists have appropriated libertarian (and 
working class) ideas and demands does not, in fact, mean that we 
aim for the same thing (as we discuss in section H.3.1, this is 
far from the case). The use of anarchist/popular rhetoric and 
slogans means little and we need to look at the content of the 
ideas proposed. Given the legacy of the appropriation of 
libertarian terminology to popularise authoritarian parties and 
its subsequent jettison in favour of authoritarian policies once 
the party is in power, anarchists have strong grounds to take
Leninist claims with a large pinch of salt!

Equally with examples of actual revolutions. As Martin Buber
notes, while "Lenin praises Marx for having 'not yet, in
1852, put the concrete question as to what should be set up
in place of the State machinery after it had been abolished,'"
Lenin argued that "it was only the Paris Commune that taught
Marx this." However, as Buber correctly points out, the Paris
Commune "was the realisation of the thoughts of people who had
put this question very concretely indeed . . . the historical
experience of the Commune became possible only because in the
hearts of passionate revolutionaries there lived the picture of
a decentralised, very much 'de-Stated'  society, which picture
they undertook to translate into reality. The spiritual fathers
of the Commune had such that ideal aiming at decentralisation
which Marx and Engels did not have, and the leaders of the
Revolution of 1871 tried, albeit with inadequate powers, to
begin the realisation of that idea in the midst of revolution."
[_Paths in Utopia_, pp. 103-4] Thus, while the Paris Commune
and other working class revolts are praised, their obvious 
anarchistic elements (as predicted by anarchist thinkers)
are not mentioned. This results in some strange dichotomies.
For example, Bakunin's vision of revolution is based on
a federation of workers' councils, predating Marxist support
for such bodies by decades, yet Marxists argue that Bakunin's 
ideas have nothing to teach us. Or, the Paris Commune being 
praised by Marxists as the first "dictatorship of the 
proletariat" when it implements federalism, delegates being 
subjected to mandates and recall and raises the vision of a 
socialism of associations while anarchism is labelled 
"petit-bourgeois" in spite of the fact that these ideas can 
be found in works of Proudhon and Bakunin which predate the 
1871 revolt!

From this, we can draw two facts. Firstly, anarchism has 
successfully predicted certain aspects of working class
revolution. Anarchist K.J. Kenafick stated the obvious when
he argues that any "comparison will show that the programme 
set out [by the Paris Commune] is . . . the system of Federalism, 
which Bakunin had been advocating for years, and which had first 
been enunciated by Proudhon. The Proudhonists . . . exercised 
considerable influence in the Commune. This 'political form' 
was therefore not 'at last' discovered; it had been discovered 
years ago; and now it was proven to be correct by the very fact 
that in the crisis the Paris workers adopted it almost 
automatically, under the pressure of circumstance, rather 
than as the result of theory, as being the form most suitable 
to express working class aspirations." [_Michael Bakunin and 
Karl Marx_, pp. 212-3] Thus, rather than being somehow alien
to the working class and its struggle for freedom, anarchism
in fact bases itself on the class struggle. This means that
it should come as no surprise when the ideas of anarchism are 
developed and applied by those in struggle, for those ideas 
are just generalisations derived from past working class 
struggles! If anarchism ideas are applied spontaneously by
those in struggle, it is because those involved are themselves 
drawing similar conclusions from their own experiences. 

The other fact is that while mainstream Marxism often appropriated 
certain aspects of libertarian theory and practice, it does 
so selectively and places them into an authoritarian context 
which undermines their libertarian nature. Hence anarchist 
support for workers councils becomes transformed into a means 
to ensure party power (i.e. state authority) rather than working 
class power or self-management (i.e. no authority). Similarly, 
anarchist support for leading by example becomes transformed 
into support for party rule (and often dictatorship). Ultimately, 
the practice of mainstream Marxism shows that libertarian ideas 
cannot be transplanted selectively into an authoritarian ideology 
and be expected to blossom. Significantly, those Marxists who *do* 
apply anarchist ideas honestly are usually labelled by their
orthodox comrades as "anarchists." 

As an example of Marxists appropriating libertarian ideas 
honestly, we can point to the council communist and currents
within autonomist Marxism. The council communists broke with
the Bolsheviks over the question of whether the party would
exercise power or whether the workers' councils would. Needless
to say, Lenin labelled them an "anarchist deviation." Currents 
within Autonomist Marxism have built upon the council communist 
tradition, stressing the importance of focusing analysis on 
working class struggle as the key dynamic in capitalist society. 

In this they go against the mainstream Marxist orthodoxy and 
embrace a libertarian perspective. As libertarian socialist 
Cornelius Castoriadis argued, "the economic theory expounded 
[by Marx] in _Capital_ is based on the postulate that capitalism 
has managed completely and effectively to transform the worker -- 
who only appears there only as labour power -- into a commodity; 
therefore the use value of labour power -- the use the capitalist 
makes of it -- is, as for any commodity, completely determined 
by the use, since its exchange value -- wages -- is determined 
solely by the laws of the market . . . This postulate is 
necessary for there to be a 'science of economics' along the 
physico-mathematical model Marx followed . . . But he contradicts 
the most essential fact of capitalism, namely, that the use value 
and exchange value of labour power are objectively indeterminate; 
they are determined rather by the struggle between labour and 
capital both in production and in society. Here is the ultimate 
root of the 'objective' contradictions of capitalism . . . The 
paradox is that Marx, the 'inventor' of class struggle, wrote a 
monumental work on phenomena determined by this struggle in which 
the struggle itself was entirely absent." [_Political and Social 
Writings_, vol. 2, p. 203] Castoriadis explained the limitations 
of Marx's vision most famously in his "Modern Capitalism and 
Revolution." [Op. Cit., pp. 226-343]

By rejecting this heritage which mainstream Marxism bases itself
on and stressing the role of class struggle, Autonomist Marxism
breaks decisively with the Marxist mainstream and embraces a 
position previously associated with anarchists and other libertarian
socialists. The key role of class struggle in invalidating all 
deterministic economic "laws" was expressed by French syndicalists 
at the start of the twentieth century. This insight predated the 
work of Castoriadis and the development of Autonomist Marxism by 
over 50 years and is worth quoting at length:

"the keystone of socialism [. . .] proclaimed that 'as a 
general rule, the average wage would be no more than what 
the worker strictly required for survival'. And it was said: 
'That figure is governed by capitalist pressure alone and this 
can even push it below the minimum necessary for the working 
man's subsistence . . . The only rule with regard to wage 
levels is the plentiful or scarce supply of man-power . . .'

"By way of evidence of the relentless operation of this law 
of wages, comparisons were made between the worker and a 
commodity: if there is a glut of potatoes on the market, 
they are cheap; if they are scarce, the price rises . . . It 
is the same with the working man, it was said: his wages 
fluctuate in accordance with the plentiful supply or dearth 
of labour! 

"No voice was raised against the relentless arguments of this 
absurd reasoning: so the law of wages may be taken as right 
. . . for as long as the working man [or woman] is content to 
be a commodity! For as long as, like a sack of potatoes, she 
remains passive and inert and endures the fluctuations of the 
market . . . For as long as he bends his back and puts up with 
all of the bosses' snubs, . . . the law of wages obtains. 

"But things take a different turn the moment that a glimmer of 
consciousness stirs this worker-potato into life. When, instead 
off dooming himself to inertia, spinelessness, resignation and 
passivity, the worker wakes up to his worth as a human being 
and the spirit of revolt washes over him: when he bestirs himself, 
energetic, wilful and active . . . [and] once the labour bloc 
comes to life and bestirs itself . . . then, the laughable 
equilibrium of the law of wages is undone." [Emile Pouget, 
_Direct Action_]

And Marx, indeed, had compared the worker to a commodity,
stating that labour power "is a commodity, neither more
nor less than sugar. The former is measured by the clock,
the latter by the scale." [_Marx-Engels Selected Works_,
p. 72] However, as Castoridas argued, unlike sugar the
extraction of the use value of labour power "is not a
technical operation; it is a process of bitter struggle
in which half the time, so to speak, the capitalists 
turn out to be losers." [Op. Cit., p. 248] A fact which
Pouget stressed in his critique of the mainstream 
socialist position:
 
"A novel factor has appeared on the labour market: the will 
of the worker! And this factor, not pertinent when it comes 
to setting the price of a bushel of potatoes, has a bearing 
upon the setting of wages; its impact may be large or small, 
according to the degree of tension of the labour force which 
is a product of the accord of individual wills beating in 
unison -- but, whether it be strong or weak, there is no 
denying it. 

"Thus, worker cohesion conjures up against capitalist might a 
might capable of standing up to it. The inequality between the 
two adversaries -- which cannot be denied when the exploiter is 
confronted only by the working man on his own -- is redressed in
proportion with the degree of cohesion achieved by the labour 
bloc. From then on, proletarian resistance, be it latent or 
acute, is an everyday phenomenon: disputes between labour and 
capital quicken and become more acute. Labour does not always 
emerge victorious from these partial struggles: however, even 
when defeated, the struggle workers still reap some benefit: 
resistance from them has obstructed pressure from the employers 
and often forced the employer to grant some of the demands put."
[Op. Cit.]

The best currents of autonomist Marxism share this anarchist
stress on the power of working people to transform society 
and to impact on how capitalism operates. Unsurprisingly,
most autonomist Marxists reject the idea of the vanguard 
party and instead, like the council communists, stress the
need for *autonomist* working class self-organisation and
self-activity (hence the name!). They agree with Pouget
when he argued that "Direct action spells liberation for the 
masses of humanity . . . [It] puts paid to the age of miracles 
-- miracles from Heaven, miracles from the State -- and, in 
contraposition to hopes vested in 'providence' (no matter 
what they may be) it announces that it will act upon the 
maxim: salvation lies within ourselves!" [Op. Cit.] As such,
they draw upon anarchistic ideas and rhetoric (for many, 
undoubtedly unknowingly) and draw anarchistic conclusions.
This can be seen from the works of the leading US Autonomist 
Marxist Harry Cleaver. His excellent essay "Kropotkin,
Self-Valorisation and the Crisis of Marxism" is by far the
best Marxist account of Kropotkin's ideas and shows the 
similarities between communist-anarchism and autonomist
Marxism. [_Anarchist Studies_, vol.2 , no. 2, pp. 119-36]
Both, he points out, share a "common perception and sympathy 
for the power of workers to act autonomously" regardless of 
the "substantial differences" on other issues. [_Reading 
Capital Politically_, p. 15]

As such, the links between the best Marxists and anarchism 
can be substantial. This means that some Marxists have taken
on board many anarchist ideas and have forged a version of
Marxism which is basically libertarian in nature. Unfortunately,
such forms of Marxism have always been a minority current 
within it. Most cases have seen the appropriation of anarchist
ideas by Marxists simply as part of an attempt to make mainstream, 
authoritarian Marxism more appealing and such borrowings have
been quickly forgotten once power has been seized.

Therefore appropriation of rhetoric and labels should not be
confused with similarity of goals and ideas. The list of groupings
which have used inappropriate labels to associate their ideas
with other, more appealing, ones is lengthy. Content is what
counts. If libertarian sounding ideas *are* being raised, the
question becomes one of whether they are being used simply 
to gain influence or whether they signify a change of heart.
As Bookchin argues:

"Ultimately, a line will have to be drawn that, by definition,
excludes any project that can tip decentralisation to the 
side of centralisation, direct democracy to the side of
delegated power, libertarian institutions to the side of
bureaucracy, and spontaneity to the side of authority. Such
a line, like a physical barrier, must irrevocably separate
a libertarian zone of theory and practice from the 
hybridised socialisms that tend to denature it. This zone
must build its anti-authoritarian, utopian, and revolutionary
commitments into the very recognition it has of itself, in
short, into the very way it defines itself. . . . to admit 
of domination is to cross the line that separates the 
libertarian zone from the [state] socialist." [Op. Cit., 
pp. 223-4] 
Unless we know exactly what we aim for, how to get there and 
who our *real* allies are we will get a nasty surprise once 
our self-proclaimed "allies" take power. As such, any attempt 
to appropriate anarchist rhetoric into an authoritarian ideology 
will simply fail and become little more than a mask obscuring 
the real aims of the party in question. As history shows.

H.3.6 Is Marxism the only revolutionary politics which 
      have worked?

Some Marxists will dismiss our arguments, and anarchism, out 
of hand. This is because anarchism has not lead a "successful"
revolution while Marxism has. The fact, they assert, that 
there has never been a serious anarchist revolutionary 
movement, let alone an anarchist revolution, in the whole 
of history proves that Marxism works. For some Marxists, 
practice determines validity. Whether something is true 
or not is not decided intellectually in wordy publications 
and debates, but in reality. 

For Anarchists, such arguments simply show the ideological
nature of most forms of Marxism. The fact is, of course,
that there has been many anarchistic revolutions which,
while ultimately defeated, show the validity of anarchist 
theory (the ones in Spain and in the Ukraine being the
most significant). Moreover, there have been serious 
revolutionary anarchist movements across the world, the
majority of them crushed by state repression (usually
fascist or communist based). However, this is not the most 
important issue, which is the fate of these "successful" 
Marxist movements and revolution. The fact that there has 
never been a "Marxist" revolution which has not become a 
party dictatorship proves the need to critique Marxism.

So, given that Marxists argue that Marxism is *the* 
revolutionary working class political theory, its actual 
track record has been appalling. After all, while many 
Marxist parties have taken part in revolutions and even 
seized power, the net effect of their "success" have been 
societies bearing little or no relationship to socialism. 
Rather, the net effect of these revolutions has been to 
discredit socialism by associating it with one-party 
states presiding over state capitalist economies. 

Equally, the role of Marxism in the labour movement has 
also been less than successful. Looking at the first 
Marxist movement, social democracy, it ended by becoming 
reformist, betraying socialist ideas by (almost always) 
supporting their own state during the First World War 
and going so far as crushing the German revolution and 
betraying the Italian factory occupations in 1920. Indeed, 
Trotsky stated that the Bolshevik party was "the only 
revolutionary" section of the Second International, 
which is a damning indictment of Marxism. [_Stalin_, 
vol. 1, p. 248] Just as damning is the fact that neither 
Lenin or Trotsky noticed it! Indeed, Lenin praised the 
"fundamentals of parliamentary tactics" of German and 
International Social Democracy, expressing the opinion 
that they were "at the same time implacable on questions 
of principle and always directed to the accomplishment of 
the final aim" in his obituary of August Bebel in 1913! 
[Marx, Engels and Lenin, _Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism_, 
p. 248] For those that way inclined, some amusement can be 
gathered comparing Engels glowing predictions for these 
parties and their actual performance (in the case of Spain 
and Italy, his comments seem particularly ironic).

As regards Bolshevism itself, the one "revolutionary" party 
in the world, it avoided the fate of its sister parties 
simply because there no question of applying social
democratic tactics within bourgeois institutions as 
these did not exist. Moreover, the net result of its 
seizure of power was, first, a party dictatorship and 
state capitalism under Lenin, then the creation of 
Stalinism and a host of Trotskyist sects who spend a 
considerable amount of time justifying and rationalising 
the ideology and actions of the Bolsheviks which helped 
create the Stalinism (see section H.6 for a discussion 
of the Russian revolution). 

Clearly, a key myth of Marxism is the idea that it has been 
a successful movement. In reality, its failures have been 
consistent and devastating so suggesting its time to 
re-evaluate the whole ideology and embrace a revolutionary 
theory like anarchism. Indeed, it would be no exaggeration 
to argue that every "success" of Marxism has, in fact, proved 
that the anarchist critique of Marxism was correct. Thus, as 
Bakunin predicted, the Social-Democratic parties became 
reformist and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" became 
the "dictatorship *over* the proletariat." With "victories" 
like these, Marxism does not need failures! Thus Murray 
Bookchin:

"A theory which is so readily 'vulgarised,' 'betrayed,' or, 
more sinisterly, institutionalised into bureaucratic power 
by nearly all its adherents may well be one that lends 
itself to such 'vulgarisations,' 'betrayals,' and bureaucratic
forms *as a normal condition of its existence.* What may
seem to be 'vulgarisations, 'betrayals,' and bureaucratic
manifestations of its tenets in the heated light of doctrinal
disputes may prove to be the fulfilment of its tenets in the
cold light of historical development." [_Toward an Ecological
Society_, p. 196]

Hence the overwhelming need to critically evaluate Marxist 
ideas and history (such as the Russian Revolution -- see 
sections H.6, H.7 and H.11). Unless we honestly discuss and 
evaluate all aspects of revolutionary ideas, we will never 
be able to build a positive and constructive revolutionary 
movement. By seeking the roots of Marxism's problems, we
can enrich anarchism by avoiding possible pitfalls and 
recognising and building upon its strengths (i.e. where 
anarchists have identified, however incompletely, problems 
in Marxism which bear on revolutionary ideas, practice and 
transformation).

If this is done, anarchists are sure that Marxist claims 
that Marxism is *the* revolutionary theory will be exposed 
for the baseless rhetoric they are. 

H.3.7 What is wrong with the Marxist theory of the state?

For anarchists, the idea that a state (any state) can be 
used for socialist ends is simply ridiculous. This is 
because of the nature of the state as an instrument of 
minority class rule. As such, it precludes the mass 
participation required for socialism and would create 
a new form of class society.

As we discussed in section B.2, the state is defined 
by certain characteristics (most importantly, the 
centralisation of power into the hands of a few). 
Thus, for anarchists, "the word 'State' . . . 
should be reserved for those societies with the 
hierarchical system and centralisation." [Peter 
Kropotkin, _Ethics_, p. 317f] This defining feature 
of the state has not come about by chance. As Kropotkin 
argued in his classic history of the state, "a social 
institution cannot lend itself to *all* the desired 
goals, since, as with every organ, [the state] developed 
according to the function it performed, in a definite 
direction and not in all possible directions." This 
means, by "seeing the State as it has been in history, 
and as it is in essence today" the conclusion anarchists 
"arrive at is for the abolition of the State." Thus the 
state has "developed in the history of human societies 
to prevent the direct association among men [and women] 
to shackle the development of local and individual
initiative, to crush existing liberties, to prevent their
new blossoming -- all this in order to subject the masses
to the will of minorities." [_The State: Its Historic Role_, 
p. 56] 

So if the state, as Kropotkin stresses, is defined by "the 
existence of a power situated above society, but also of a 
*territorial concentration* as well as the concentration 
*in the hands of a few of many functions in the life of 
societies*" then such a structure has not evolved by chance. 
Therefore "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," such as the popular participation from
below required by social revolution and socialism. [Op. Cit., 
p. 10, p. 59 and p. 56] Based on this evolutionary analysis
of the state, Kropotkin, like all anarchists, drew the
conclusion "that the State organisation, having been the
force to which the minorities resorted for establishing 
and organising their power over the masses, cannot be the
force which will serve to destroy these privileges." 
[_Evolution and Environment_, p. 82] 

This does *not* mean that anarchists dismiss differences 
between types of state, think the state has not changed 
over time or refuse to see that different states exist 
to defend different ruling minorities. Far from it. 
Anarchists argue that "[e]very economic phase has a 
political phase corresponding to it, and it would be 
impossible to touch private property unless a new mode 
of political life be found at the same time." "A society 
founded on serfdom," Kropotkin explained, "is in keeping 
with absolute monarchy; a society based on the wage system, 
and the exploitation of the masses by the capitalists 
finds it political expression in parliamentarianism."
As such, the state form changes and evolves, but its 
basic function (defender of minority rule) and structure 
(delegated power into the hands of a few) remains.
Which means that "a free society regaining possession 
of the common inheritance must seek, in free groups 
and free federations of groups, a new organisation, in 
harmony with the new economic phase of history." 
[_The Conquest of Bread_, p. 54]

So, as with any social structure, the state has evolved to 
ensure that it carries out its function. In other words, the 
state is centralised because it is an instrument of minority 
domination and oppression. Insofar as a social system is
based on decentralisation of power, popular self-management
and participation and free federation from below upwards,
it is not a state. If a social system is, however, marked
by delegated power and centralisation it is a state and
cannot be, therefore, a instrument of social liberation.
Rather it will become, slowly but surely, "whatever title
it adopts and whatever its origin and organisation may
be" what the state has always been, a instrument for 
"oppressing and exploiting the masses, of defending the
oppressors and the exploiters." [_Anarchy_, p. 20] Which, 
for obvious reasons, is why anarchists argue for the
destruction of the state by a free federation of 
self-managed communes and workers' councils (see 
sections I.5 and H.1.4 for further discussion).

This explains why anarchists reject the Marxist definition 
and theory of the state. For Marxists, "the state is nothing 
but a machine for the oppression of one class by another." 
While it has been true that, historically, it is "the state 
of the most powerful, economically dominant class, which, 
through the medium of the state, becomes also the politically 
dominant class, and this acquires the means of holding down 
and exploiting the oppressed class," this need not always be 
the case. The state is "at best an evil inherited by the 
proletariat after its victorious struggle for class supremacy," 
although it "cannot avoid having to lop off at once as much 
as possible" of it "until such time as a generation reared 
in new, free social conditions is able to throw the entire 
lumber of the state on the scrap heap." This new state, 
often called the "dictatorship of the proletariat," would 
slowly "wither away" (or "dies out") as classes disappear 
and the state "at last . . . becomes the real representative 
of the whole of society" and so "renders itself unnecessary." 
Engels is at pains to differentiate this position from that 
of the anarchists, who demand "the abolition of the state 
out of hand." [Engels, _Marx-Engels Selected Works_, p. 258, 
pp. 577-8, p. 528 and p. 424]

For anarchists, this argument has deep flaws. Simply put, 
unlike the anarchist one, this is not an empirically based 
theory of the state. Rather, we find such a theory mixed up 
with a metaphysical, non-empirical, a-historic definition 
which is based not on what the state *is* but rather what is 
*could* be. Thus the argument that the state "is nothing but 
a machine for the oppression of one class by another" is 
trying to draw out an abstract "essence" of the state rather
than ground what the state is on empirical evidence and 
analysis. This perspective, anarchists argue, simply confuses 
two very different things, namely the state and popular social
organisation, with potentially disastrous results. By calling
the popular self-organisation required by a social revolution
the same name as a hierarchical and centralised body constructed
for, and evolved to ensure, minority rule, the door is wide 
open to confuse popular power with party power, to confuse
rule by the representatives of the working class with 
working class self-management of the revolution and society.

As we discussed in section H.2.1, anarchist opposition to
the idea of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" should not
be confused with idea that anarchists do not think that a
social revolution needs to be defended. Rather, our opposition
to the concept rests on the confusion which inevitably occurs
when you mix up scientific analysis with metaphysical concepts.
By drawing out an a-historic definition of the state, Engels
helped ensure that the "dictatorship of the proletariat"
became the "dictatorship over the proletariat" by implying
that centralisation and delegated power into the hands of
the few can be considered as an expression of popular power.
 
To explain why, we need only to study the works of Engels
himself. Engels, in his famous account of the _Origin 
of the Family, Private Property and the State_, defined 
the state as follows:

"The state is . . . by no means a power forced on society from
without . . . Rather, it is a product of society at a certain
stage of development; it is an admission . . . that it has
split into irreconcilable antagonisms . . . in order that 
these antagonisms and classes with conflicting economic 
interests might not consume themselves and society in
fruitless struggle, it became necessary to have power 
seemingly standing above society that would alleviate the
conflict . . . this power, arisen out of society but placing
itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it,
is the state." [_Marx-Engels: Selected Writings_, p. 576]

The state has two distinguishing features, firstly (and least
importantly) it "divides its subjects *according to territory.*"
The second "is the establishment of a *public power* which
no longer directly coincides with the population organising
itself as an armed force. This special public power is necessary
because a self-acting armed organisation of the population 
has become impossible since the split into classes . . . This
public power exists in every state; it consists not merely of
armed men but also of material adjuncts, prisons and institutions
of coercion of all kinds." Thus "an essential feature of the 
state is a public power distinct from the mass of the people." 
[Op. Cit., pp. 576-7 and pp. 535-6]

In this, as can be seen, the Marxist position concurs with the
anarchist. He discusses the development of numerous ancient 
societies to prove his point. Talking of Greek society, he
argues that it was based on a popular assembly which was 
"sovereign" plus a council. This social system was not a 
state because "when every adult male member of the tribe 
was a warrior, there was as yet no public authority separated 
from the people that could have been set up against it. 
Primitive democracy was still in full bloom, and this must 
remain the point of departure in judging power and the status 
of the council." [Op. Cit., pp. 525-6] 

Discussing the descent of this society into classes, he argues
that this required "an institution that would perpetuate, not 
only the newly-rising class division of society, but the right 
of the possessing class to exploit the non-possessing class and 
the rule of the former over the latter." Unsurprisingly, "this 
institution arrived. The *state* was invented." The original 
communal organs of society were "superseded by real governmental 
authorities" and the defence of society ("the actual 'people in 
arms'") was "taken by an armed 'public power' at the service of 
these authorities and, therefore, also available against the 
people." With the rise of the state, the communal council was 
"transformed into a senate." [Op. Cit., p. 528 and p. 525] Thus
the state arises specifically to exclude popular self-government,
replacing it with minority rule conducted via a centralised,
hierarchical top-down structure ("government . . . is the 
natural protector of capitalism and other exploiters of popular 
labour." [Bakunin, _Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 239]).

This account of the rise of the state is at direct odds with
Engels argument that the state is simply an instrument of 
class rule. For the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to 
be a state, it would have to constitute a power above society, 
be different from the people armed, and so be "a public power 
distinct from the mass of the people." However, Marx and 
Engels are at pains to stress that the "dictatorship of 
the proletariat" will not be such a regime. However, how 
can you have something (namely "a public power distinct 
from the mass of the people") you consider as "an essential 
feature" of a state missing in an institution you call the 
same name? It is a bit like calling a mammal a "new kind 
of reptile" in spite of the former not being cold-blooded, 
something you consider as "an essential feature" of the 
latter! 

This contradiction helps explains Engels comments that 
"[w]e would therefore propose to replace *state* everywhere
by *Gemeinwesen,* a good old German word which can very 
well convey the meaning of the French word '*commune'*"
He even states that the Paris Commune "was no longer a 
state in the proper sense of the word." However, this 
comment does not mean that Engels sought to remove any 
possible confusion on the matter, for he still talked 
of "the state" as "only a transitional institution 
which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to 
hold down's one's adversaries by force . . . so long 
as the proletariat still *uses* the state, it does 
not use it the interests of freedom but in order to 
hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes
possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases 
to exist." [Op. Cit., p. 335] Thus the state would 
still exist and, furthermore, is *not* identified with 
the working class as a whole ("a self-acting armed 
organisation of the population"), rather it is an 
institution standing apart from the "people armed"
which is used, by the proletariat, to crush its enemies. 

(As an aside, we must stress that to state that it only 
becomes possible to "speak of freedom" after the state 
and classes cease to exist is a serious theoretical
error. Firstly, it means to talk about "freedom" in the 
abstract, ignoring the reality of class and hierarchical
society. To state the obvious, in class society working 
class people have their freedom restricted by the state,
wage labour and other forms of social hierarchy. The
aim of social revolution is the conquest of liberty by the
working class by overthrowing hierarchical rule. Freedom
for the working class, by definition, means stopping 
any attempts to restrict that freedom by its adversaries.
To state the obvious, it is not a "restriction" of the 
freedom of would-be bosses to resist their attempts to
impose their rule! As such, Engels, yet again, fails to
consider revolution from a working class perspective --
see section H.4.7 for another example of this flaw.
Moreover his comments have been used to justify 
restrictions on working class freedom, power and 
political rights by Marxist parties once they have 
seized power. "Whatever power the State gains," correctly
argues Bookchin, "it always does so at the expense of
popular power. Conversely, whatever power the people 
gain, they always acquire at the expense of the State.
To legitimate State power, in effect, is to delegitimate
popular power." [_Remaking Society_, p. 160])

Elsewhere, we have Engels arguing that "the characteristic
attribute of the former state" is that while society
"had created its own organs to look after its own
special interests" in the course of time "these organs, 
at whose head was the state power, transformed themselves 
from the servants of society into the masters of society." 
[Op. Cit., p. 257] Ignoring the obvious contradiction with 
his earlier claims that the state and communal organs were
different, with the former destroying the latter, we are 
struck yet again by the idea of the state as being defined 
as an institution above society. Thus, if the post 
revolutionary society is marked by "the state" being 
dissolved into society, placed under its control, then it 
is not a state. To call it a "new and truly democratic" 
form of "state power" makes as little sense as calling a 
motorcar a "new" form of bicycle. As such, when Engels 
argues that the Paris Commune "was no longer a state in 
the proper sense of the word" or that when the proletariat 
seizes political power it "abolishes the state as state" we 
may be entitled to ask what it is, a state or not a state. 
[Op. Cit., p. 335 and p. 424] It cannot be both, it cannot 
be a "public power distinct from the mass of the people" 
*and* "a self-acting armed organisation of the population." 
If it is the latter, then it does not have what Engels 
considered as "an essential feature of the state" and 
cannot be considered one. If it is the former, then any 
claim that such a regime is the rule of the working class 
is automatically invalidated. That Engels mocked the
anarchists for seeking a revolution "without a provisional 
government and in the total absence of any state or 
state-like institution, which are to be destroyed" we can 
safely say that it is the former. [Marx, Engels and Lenin, 
_Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 156] Given that 
"primitive democracy," as Engels noted, defended itself 
against its adversaries without such an institution shows 
that to equate the defence of working class freedom with 
the state is not only unnecessary, it simply leads to 
confusion. For this reason anarchists do not confuse the 
necessary task of defending and organising a social 
revolution with creating a state. 

Thus, the problem for Marxism is that the empirical definition 
of the state collides with the metaphysical, the actual state 
with its Marxist essence. As Italian Anarchist Camillo Berneri 
argued, "'The Proletariat' which seizes the state, bestowing 
on it the complete ownership of the means of production and 
destroying itself as proletariat and the state 'as the state' 
is a metaphysical fantasy, a political hypotasis of social 
abstractions." ["The Abolition and Extinction of the State," 
_Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review_, no. 4, p. 50] 

This is no academic point, as we explain in the next section 
this confusion has been exploited to justify party power 
*over* the proletariat. Thus, as Berneri argues, Marxists
"do not propose the armed conquest of the commune by the
whole proletariat, but they propose the conquest of the
State by the party which imagines it represents the 
proletariat. The Anarchists allow the use of direct power 
by the proletariat, but they understand by the organ of 
this power to be formed by the entire corpus of systems 
of communist administration -- corporate organisations
[i.e. industrial unions], communal institutions, both 
regional and national -- freely constituted outside and 
in opposition to all political monopoly by parties and 
endeavouring to a minimum administrational centralisation." 
Thus "the Anarchists desire the destruction of the classes 
by means of a social revolution which eliminates, with the 
classes, the State." ["Dictatorship of the Proletariat and 
State Socialism", Op. Cit., p. 52] Anarchists are opposed 
to the state because it is not neutral, it cannot be made 
to serve our interests. The structures of the state are 
only necessary when a minority seeks to rule over the 
majority. We argue that the working class can create our 
own structures, organised and run from below upwards, to 
ensure the efficient running of everyday life.

By confusing two radically different things, Marxism 
ensures that popular power is consumed and destroyed by 
the state, by a new ruling elite. In the words Murray 
Bookchin:

"Marx, in his analysis of the Paris Commune of 1871, has 
done radical social theory a considerable disservice. The 
Commune's combination of delegated policy-making with the 
execution of policy by its own administrators, a feature 
of the Commune which Marx celebrated, is a major failing 
of that body. Rousseau quite rightly emphasised that popular 
power cannot be delegated without being destroyed. One either 
has a fully empowered popular assembly or power belongs to 
the State." ["Theses on Libertarian Municipalism", pp. 9-22, 
_The Anarchist Papers_, Dimitrios Roussopoulos (ed.), p. 14]

If power belongs to the state, then the state is a 
public body distinct from the population and, therefore,
not an instrument of working class power. Rather, as an 
institution designed to ensure minority rule, it would
ensure its position within society and become either the 
ruling class itself or create a new class which instrument
it would be. As we discuss in section H.3.9 ("Is the state 
simply an agent of economic power?") the state cannot be 
considered as a neutral instrument of class rule, it has
specific interests in itself which can and does mean it 
can play an oppressive and exploitative role in society
independently of a ruling class.

Which brings us to the crux of the issue whether this
"new" state will, in fact, be unlike any other state 
that has ever existed. Insofar as this "new" state is 
based on popular self-management and self-organisation,
anarchists argue that such an organisation cannot be
called a state as it is *not* based on delegated power.
"As long as," as Bookchin stresses, "the institutions of 
power consisted of armed workers and peasants as 
distinguished from a professional bureaucracy, police 
force, army, and cabal of politicians and judges, they 
were no[t] a State . . . These institutions, in fact 
comprised a revolutionary people in arms . . . not a 
professional apparatus that could be regarded as a State 
in any meaningful sense of the term." ["Looking Back at 
Spain," pp. 53-96, _The Radical Papers_, p. 86]

This was why Bakunin was at pains to emphasis that a
"federal organisation, from below upward, of workers'
associations, groups, communes, districts, and 
ultimately, regions and nations" could not be considered
as the same as "centralised states" and "contrary to 
their essence." [_Statism and Anarchy_, p. 13] So 
when Lenin argues in _State and Revolution_ that 
in the "dictatorship of the proletariat" the "organ
of suppression is now the majority of the population,
and not the minority" and that "since the majority of
the people *itself* suppresses its oppressors, a 
'special force' for the suppression [of the bourgeoisie]
is *no longer necessary*" he is confusing two 
fundamentally different things. As Engels made clear, 
such a social system of "primitive democracy" is not a 
state. However, when Lenin argues that "the more the 
functions of state power devolve upon the people 
generally, the less need is there for the existence 
of this power," he is implicitly arguing that there 
would be, in fact, a "public power distinct from mass 
of the people" and so a state in the normal sense of 
the word based on delegated power, "special forces"
separate from the armed people and so on. [_Essential 
Works of Lenin_, p. 301] 

That such a regime would not "wither away" has been proven
by history. The state machine does not (indeed, *cannot*) 
represent the interests of the working classes due to its 
centralised, hierarchical and elitist nature -- all it can 
do is represent the interests of the party in power, its 
own bureaucratic needs and privileges and slowly, but 
surely, remove itself from popular control. This, as 
anarchists have constantly stressed, is why the state 
is based on the delegation of power, on hierarchy and 
centralisation. The state is organised in this way to 
facilitate minority rule by excluding the mass of people 
from taking part in the decision making processes within 
society. If the masses actually did manage society directly, 
it would be impossible for a minority class to dominate it. 
Hence the need for a state. Which shows the central fallacy 
of the Marxist theory of the state, namely it argues that 
the rule of the proletariat will be conducted by a structure, 
the state, which is designed to exclude the popular 
participation such a concept demands!

Considered another way, "political power" (the state) is 
simply the power of minorities to enforce their wills. This 
means that a social revolution which aims to create socialism 
cannot use it to further its aims. After all, if the state 
(i.e. "political power") has been created to further minority 
class rule (as Marxists and anarchists agree) then, surely,
this function has determined how the organ which exercises
it has developed. Therefore, we would expect organ and
function to be related and impossible to separate. 

So when Marx argued that the "conquest of political power
becomes the great duty of the proletariat" because "the lords 
of the land and of capital always make use of their political 
privileges to defend and perpetuate their economic monopolies
and enslave labour," he drew the wrong conclusion. [Marx, 
Engels and Lenin, _Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 85] 
Building on a historically based (and so evolutionary) 
understanding of the state, anarchists concluded that it 
was necessary not to seize political power (which could 
only be exercised by a minority within any state) but 
rather to destroy it, to dissipate power into the hands of 
the working class, the majority. By ending the regime of 
the powerful by destroying their instrument of rule, the 
power which was concentrated into their hands automatically 
falls back into the hands of society. Thus, working class 
power can only be concrete once "political power" is 
shattered and replaced by the social power of the working 
class based on its own class organisations (such as factory 
committees, workers' councils, unions, neighbourhood 
assemblies and so on). As Murray Bookchin put it:

"the slogan 'Power to the people' can only be put into 
practice when the power exercised by social elites is 
dissolved into the people. Each individual can then take 
control of his [or her] daily life. If 'Power to the people' 
means nothing more than power to the 'leaders' of the people, 
then the people remain an undifferentiated, manipulated mass, 
as powerless after the revolution as they were before." 
[_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_, p. 20f]

In practice, this means that any valid social revolution needs
to break the new state and *not* replace it with another one.
This is because, in order to be a state, any state structure 
must be based on delegated power, hierarchy and centralisation
("every State, even the most Republican and the most democratic
. . . . are in essence only machine governing the masses from
above" and "[i]f there is a State, there must necessarily be
domination, and therefore slavery; a State without slavery,
overt or concealed, is unthinkable -- and that is why we are
enemies of the State." [Bakunin, _The Political Philosophy of 
Bakunin_, p. 211 and p. 287]). This means that if power is 
devolved to the working class then the state no longer exists 
as its "essential feature" (of delegated power) is absent. 
What you have is a new form of the "primitive democracy" 
which existed before the rise of the state. While this new,
modern, form of self-management will have to defend itself
against those seeking to recreate minority power, this does
not mean that it becomes a state. After all, "primitive 
democracy" had to defend itself against its adversaries and
so that, in itself, does not (as Engels acknowledges) means 
it is a state. Thus defence of a revolution, as anarchists 
have constantly stressed, does not equate to a state as it 
fails to address the key issue, namely who has *power* in 
the system -- the masses or their leaders. 

This issue is fudged by Marx. In his comments on Bakunin's 
question in "Statism and Anarchy" about "Will the entire 
proletariat head the government?", Marx argues in response:

"Does in a trade union, for instance, the whole union 
constitute the executive committee? Will all division of 
labour in a factory disappear and also the various functions 
arising from it? And will everybody be at the top in Bakunin's 
construction built from the bottom upwards? There will in 
fact be no below then. Will all members of the commune also 
administer the common affairs of the region? In that case 
there will be no difference between commune and region. 
'The Germans [says Bakunin] number nearly 40 million. Will, 
for example, all 40 million be members of the government?' 
Certainly, for the thing begins with the self-government 
of the commune." [Marx, Engels and Lenin, _Anarchism and 
Anarcho-Syndicalism_, pp. 150-1]

As Alan Carter argues, "this might have seemed to Marx 
[over] a century ago to be satisfactory rejoinder, but 
it can hardly do today. In the infancy of the trade unions, 
which is all Marx knew, the possibility of the executives 
of a trade union becoming divorced from the ordinary members 
may not have seemed to him to be a likely outcome, We, 
however, have behind us a long history of union leaders
'selling out' and being out of touch with their members. 
Time has ably demonstrated that to reject Bakunin's fears 
on the basis of the practice of trade union officials 
constitutes a woeful complacency with regard to power 
and privilege -- a complacency that was born ample fruit 
in the form of present Marxist parties and 'communist' 
societies . . . [His] dispute with Bakunin shows quite 
clearly that Marx did not stress the continued control 
of the revolution by the mass of the people as a 
prerequisite for the transcendence of all significant 
social antagonisms." [_Marx: A Radical Critique_, 
pp. 217-8]

As we discussed in section H.3.1, Marx's "Address 
to the Communist League," with its stress on "the most
determined centralisation of power in the hands of 
the state authority" and that "the path of revolutionary
activity . . . can only proceed with full force from
the centre," suggests that Bakunin's fears were valid
and Marx's answer simply inadequate. [_Marx-Engels 
Reader_, p. 509] Simply put, if, as Engels argues, 
the "an essential feature of the state is a public 
power distinct from the mass of the people," then, 
clearly Marx's argument of 1850 (and others like it) 
signifies a state in the usual sense of the word, 
one which has to be "distinct" from the mass of the 
population in order to ensure that the masses are 
prevented from interfering with their own revolution. 

Ultimately, the question, of course, is one of power. Does 
the "executive committee" have the fundamental decision 
making power in society, or does that power lie in 
the mass assemblies upon which a federal socialist 
society is built? If the former, we have rule by a 
few party leaders and the inevitable bureaucratisation 
of the society and a state in the accepted sense of the
word. If the latter, we have a basic structure of a free 
and equal society and a new organisation of popular 
self-management which eliminates, by self-management,
the existence of a public power above society. This is 
not playing with words. It signifies the key issue of 
social transformation, an issue which Marxism tends to
ignore or confuse matters about when discussing. Bookchin 
clarifies what is at stake:

"To some neo-Marxists who see centralisation and 
decentralisation merely as difference of degree, the
word 'centralisation' may merely be an awkward way of
denoting means for *co-ordinating* the decisions made
by decentralised bodies. Marx, it is worth noting, 
greatly confused this distinction when he praised the
Paris Commune as a 'working, not a parliamentary body,
executive and legislative at the same time.' In point 
of fact, the consolidation of 'executive and legislative' 
functions in a single body was regressive. It simply 
identified the process of policy-making, a function that 
rightly should belong to the people in assembly, with the 
technical execution of these policies, a function that 
should be left to strictly administrative bodies subject 
to rotation, recall, limitations of tenure . . . 
Accordingly, the melding of policy formation with 
administration placed the institutional emphasis of 
classical [Marxist] socialism on centralised bodies, 
indeed, by an ironical twist of historical events, 
bestowing the privilege of formulating policy on the 
'higher bodies' of socialist hierarchies and their 
execution precisely on the more popular 'revolutionary 
committees' below." [_Toward an Ecological Society_, 
pp. 215-6]

By confusing co-ordination with the state (i.e. with
delegation of power), Marxism opens the door wide open
to the "dictatorship of the proletariat" being a state
"in the proper sense." Not only does Marxism open that
door, it even invites the state "in the proper sense" of 
the word in! This can be seen from Engels comment that 
just 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." [Marx, Engels and Lenin, 
_Anarchism and Anarcho-syndicalism_, p. 94] By confusing 
rule by the party "in the state" with "rule of the working 
class," Engels is confusing party power and popular power. 
For the party to "establish *its* rule," the state in 
the normal sense (i.e. a structure based on the delegation 
of power) has to be maintained. As such, the "dictatorship 
of the proletariat" signifies the delegation of power by 
the proletariat into the hands of the party and that 
implies a "public power distinct from the mass of the
people" and so minority rule. This aspect of Marxism, 
as we argue in the next section, was developed under the 
Bolsheviks and became "the dictatorship of the party" (i.e. 
the dictatorship *over* the proletariat).

It is for this reason why anarchists are extremely critical
of Marxist ideas of social revolution. As Alan Carter argues:

"It is to argue not against revolution, but against 
'revolutionary' praxis employing central authority. 
It is to argue that any revolution must remain in the 
hands of the mass of people and that they must be aware 
of the dangers of allowing power to fall into the hands 
of a minority in the course of the revolution. Latent 
within Marxist theory . . . is the tacit condoning of
political inequality in the course and aftermath of 
revolutionary praxis. Only when such inequality is openly 
and widely rejected can there be any hope of a libertarian 
communist revolution. The lesson to learn is that we must 
oppose not revolutionary practice, but *authoritarian* 
'revolutionary' practice. Such authoritarian practice
will continue to prevail in revolutionary circles as 
long as the Marxist theory of the state and the 
corresponding theory of power remain above criticism 
within them." [_Marx: A Radical Critique_, p. 231]

In summary, the Marxist theory of the state is simply 
a-historic and postulates some kind of state "essence" 
which exists independently of actual states and their
role in society. To confuse the organ required by a 
minority class to execute and maintain its rule and that
required by a majority class to manage society is to
make a theoretical error of great magnitude. It opens
the door to the idea of party power and even party 
dictatorship. As such, the Marxism of Marx and Engels 
is confused on the issue of the state. Their comments 
fluctuate between the anarchist definition of the state 
(based, as it is, on generalisations from historical 
examples) and the a-historic definition (based not on 
historical example but rather derived from a 
supra-historical analysis). Trying to combine the 
metaphysical with the scientific, the authoritarian 
with the libertarian, can only leave their followers 
with a confused legacy and that is what we find.

Since the death of the founding fathers of Marxism, their
followers have diverged into two camps. The majority have 
embraced the metaphysical and authoritarian concept of the
state and proclaimed their support for a "workers' state."
This is represented by social-democracy and it radical 
offshoot, Leninism. As we discuss in the next section, this
school has used the Marxist conception of the state to allow 
for rule over the working class by the "revolutionary" party.
The minority has become increasingly and explicitly anti-state,
recognising that the Marxist legacy is contradictory and that
for the proletarian to directly manage society then there can
be no power above them. To this camp belongs the libertarian
Marxists of the council communist, Situationist and other 
schools of thought which are close to anarchism.

H.3.8 What is wrong with the Leninist theory of the state?
 As discussed in the last section, there is a contradiction at
the heart of the Marxist theory of the state. On the one hand,
it acknowledges that the state, historically, has always been
an instrument of minority rule and is structured to ensure 
this. On the other, it argues that you can have a state (the 
"dictatorship of the proletariat") which transcends this 
historical reality to express an abstract essence of the 
state as an "instrument of class rule." This means that Marxism
usually confuses two very different concepts, namely the state
(a structure based on centralisation and delegated power) and 
the popular self-management and self-organisation required
to create and defend a socialist society.

This confusion between two fundamentally different concepts 
proved to be disastrous when the Russian Revolution broke out.
Confusing party power with working class power, the Bolsheviks
aimed to create a "workers' state" in which their party would
be in power (see section H.6.5). As the state was an instrument
of class rule, it did not matter if the new "workers' state"
was centralised, hierarchical and top-down like the old state
as the structure of the state was considered irrelevant in 
evaluating its role in society. Thus, while Lenin seemed to
promise a radical democracy in which the working class would
directly manage its own affairs in his _State and Revolution_,
in practice implemented a "dictatorship of the proletariat"
which was, in fact, "the organisation of the vanguard of the
oppressed as the ruling class." [_Essential Works of Lenin_,
p. 337] In other words, the vanguard party in the position 
of head of the state, governing on behalf of the working 
class which, as we argued in the last section, meant that
the new "workers' state" was fundamentally a state in the
usual sense of the word. This quickly lead to a dictatorship
*over,* not of, the proletariat (as Bakunin had predicted).

This development did not come as a surprise to anarchists,
who long argued that a state is an instrument of minority 
rule and cannot change its nature. To use the state to affect
socialist change is impossible, simply because it is not
designed for such a task. As we argued in section B.2,
the state is based on centralisation of power explicitly to
ensure minority rule and for this reason has to be abolished
during a social revolution.

Ironically, the theoretical lessons Leninists gained from 
the experience of the Russian Revolution confirm the 
anarchist analysis that the state structure exists to 
facilitate minority rule and marginalise and disempower 
the majority to achieve that rule. This can be seen from 
the significant revision of the Marxist position which 
occurred once the Bolshevik party become the ruling party.
Simply put, 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.

While we have discussed this position in section H.1.2 and
so will be repeating ourselves to some degree, it is worth
summarising again the arguments put forward to justify this
revision. This is because they confirm what anarchists have
always argued, namely that the state is an instrument of
minority rule and *not* one by which working class people 
can manage their own affairs directly. As the quotations
from leading Leninists make clear, it is *precisely* this
feature of the state which recommends it for party (i.e.
minority) power. In other words, the contradiction at the 
heart of the Marxist theory of the state we pointed out in 
the last section has been resolved in Leninism. It supports
the state precisely because it is "a public power distinct 
from the mass of the people," rather than an instrument of
working class self-management of society. 

Needless to say, latter day followers of Leninism point to 
Lenin's apparently democratic, even libertarian sounding, 
1917 work, _The State and Revolution_ when asked about the
Leninist theory of the state. As our discussion of the Russian
revolution in section H.6 proves, the ideas expounded in his 
pamphlet were rarely, if at all, applied in practice by the
Bolsheviks. Moreover, it was written before the seizure of
power. In order to see the validity of his argument we must
compare it to his and his fellow Bolshevik leaders opinions
once the revolution had "succeeded." What lessons did they
generalise from their experiences and how did these lessons
relate to _State and Revolution_?

This change can be seen from Trotsky, who argued quite
explicitly that "the proletariat can take power only through 
its vanguard" and that "the necessity for state power arises 
from an insufficient cultural level of the masses and their 
heterogeneity." Only with "support of the vanguard by the 
class" can there be the "conquest of power" and it was in
"this sense the proletarian revolution and dictatorship are 
the work of the whole class, but only under the leadership of 
the vanguard." Thus, rather than the working class as a whole 
seizing power, it is the "vanguard" which takes power -- "a 
revolutionary party, even after seizing power . . . is still 
by no means the sovereign ruler of society." [_Stalinism and 
Bolshevism_] 

Thus state power is required to *govern the masses,* who 
cannot exercise power themselves. As Trotsky put it, 
"[t]hose who propose the abstraction of Soviets to the 
party dictatorship should understand that only thanks to 
the party dictatorship were the Soviets able to lift 
themselves out of the mud of reformism and attain the 
state form of the proletariat." [Op. Cit.] Clearly, 
the state is envisioned as an instrument existing 
*above* society, above the working class, and its 
"necessity" is not driven by the need to defend the 
revolution, but rather in the "insufficient cultural 
level of the masses." Indeed, "party dictatorship" is 
required to create "the state form of the proletariat." 

This idea that state power was required due to the limitations
within the working class is reiterated a few years later in
1939:

"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." [_The 
Moralists and Sycophants_, p. 59]

Needless to say, *by definition* everyone is "backward"
when compared to the "vanguard of the proletariat." Moreover,
as it is this "vanguard" which is "armed with the resources
of the state" and *not* the proletariat as a whole we are
left with one obvious conclusion, namely party dictatorship
rather than working class democracy. How Trotsky's position 
is compatible with the idea of the working class as the 
"ruling class" is not explained. However, it fits in well 
with the anarchist analysis of the state as an instrument 
designed to ensure minority rule. Other, equally elitist 
arguments were expressed by Trotsky twenty years earlier 
when he held the reins of power.

In 1920, he argued that while the Bolsheviks have "more than 
once been accused of having substituted for the dictatorship
of the Soviets the dictatorship of the party," in fact "it 
can be said with complete justice that the dictatorship of 
the Soviets became possible only by means of the dictatorship 
of the party." This, just to state the obvious, was his 
argument seventeen years later. "In this 'substitution' of 
the power of the party for the power of the working class,"
Trotsky added, "there is nothing accidental, and in reality 
there is no substitution at all. The Communists express the 
fundamental interests of the working class." [_Terrorism and 
Communism_, p. 109] In early 1921, he argued again for Party 
dictatorship at the Tenth Party Congress. His comments made 
there against the _Workers' Opposition_ within the Communist 
Party make his position clear: 

"The Workers' Opposition has come out with dangerous slogans, 
making a fetish of democratic principles! They place the 
workers' right to elect representatives above the Party, as 
if the party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship 
even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing 
moods of the workers' democracy. It is necessary to create 
amongst us the awareness of the revolutionary birthright of 
the party, which is obliged to maintain its dictatorship, 
regardless of temporary wavering even in the working classes. 
This awareness is for us the indispensable element. The 
dictatorship does not base itself at every given moment on the 
formal principle of a workers' democracy." [quoted by Samuel 
Farber, _Before Stalinism_, p. 209] 

The similarities with his arguments of 1939 are obvious.
Unsurprisingly, he maintained this position in the intervening 
years. He stated in 1922 that "we maintain the dictatorship of our 
party!" [_The First Five Years of the Communist International_,
vol. 2, p. 255] The next year saw him arguing that "[i]f 
there is one question which basically not only does not 
require revision but does not so much as admit the 
thought of revision, it is the question of the dictatorship 
of the Party." He stressed that "[o]ur party is the ruling 
party" and that "[t]o allow any changes whatever in this 
field" meant "bring[ing] into question all the achievements 
of the revolution and its future." He indicated the fate of 
those who *did* question the party's "leading role": "Whoever 
makes an attempt on the party's leading role will, I hope, 
be unanimously dumped by all of us on the other side of
the barricade." [_Leon Trotsky Speaks_, p. 158 and p. 160]

By 1927, when Trotsky was in the process of being "dumped"
on the "other side of the barricade" by the ruling bureaucracy,
he *still* argued for Party dictatorship. The _Platform
of the Opposition_ includes "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." The document stresses the "dictatorship of the 
proletariat [sic!] demands as its very core a single 
proletarian party," that "the dictatorship of the proletariat 
demands a single and united proletarian party as the leader 
of the working masses and the poor peasantry." 

Ten years later, he explicitly argued that the "revolutionary 
dictatorship of a proletarian party" was "an objective 
necessity imposed upon us by the social realities -- the 
class struggle, the heterogeneity of the revolutionary
class, the necessity for a selected vanguard in order to 
assure the victory." This "dictatorship of a party" was
essential and "we can not jump over this chapter" of human
history. He stressed that the "revolutionary party (vanguard)
which renounces its own dictatorship surrenders the masses
to the counter-revolution" and argued that "the party 
dictatorship" could *not* be replaced by "the 'dictatorship' 
of the whole toiling people without any party." This was
because the "level of political development among the 
masses" was not "high" enough as "capitalism does not permit 
the material and the moral development of the masses." 
[Trotsky, _Writings 1936-37_, pp. 513-4]

Thus, for Trotsky over a twenty year period, the "dictatorship 
of the proletariat" was fundamentally a "dictatorship of the 
party." While the working class may be allowed some level of 
democracy, the rule of the party was repeatedly given precedence. 
While the party may be placed into power by a mass revolution, 
once there the party would maintain its position of power and
dismiss attempts by the working class to replace it as "wavering"
or "vacillation" due to the "insufficient cultural level of the 
masses and their heterogeneity." In other words, the party 
dictatorship was required to protect working class people
from themselves, their tendency to change their minds based
on debates between difference political ideas and positions, 
make their own decisions, reject what is in their best interests
(as determined by the party), and so on. Thus the underlying 
rationale for democracy (namely that it reflects the changing
will of the voters, their "passing moods" so to speak) is 
used to justify party dictatorship!

As noted in section H.1.2, Trotsky on this matter was simply
following Lenin's led, who had admitted at the end of 1920
that while "the dictatorship of the proletariat" was 
"inevitable" in the "transition of socialism," it is "not 
exercised by an organisation which takes in all industrial
workers." The reason, he states, "is given in the theses of
the Second Congress of the Communist International on the
role of political parties" (more on which later). This means
that "the Party, shall we say, absorbs the vanguard of the
proletariat, and this vanguard exercises the dictatorship
of the proletariat." This was required because "in all 
capitalist countries . . . the proletariat is still so divided, 
so degraded, and so corrupted in parts." Therefore, it "can be 
exercised only by a vanguard." [_Collected Works_, vol. 32, 
p. 20 and p. 21] As we pointed out in section H.3.3, Lenin
argued that "revolutionary coercion is bound to be employed 
towards the wavering and unstable elements among the masses 
themselves." [Op. Cit., vol. 42, p. 170] Needless to say, 
Lenin failed to mention this aspect of his system in _The 
State and Revolution_ (a failure usually repeated by his 
followers). It is, however, a striking confirmation of 
Bakunin's comments "the State cannot be sure of its own
self-preservation without an armed force to defend it 
against its own *internal enemies,* against the discontent
of its own people." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_,
p. 265]

Looking at the lessons leading leaders of Leninism gained from
the experience of the Russian Revolution, we have to admit that
the Leninist "workers' state" will not be, in fact, a "new" kind
of state, a "semi-state," or, to quote Lenin, a "new state" which
"is *no longer* a state in the proper sense of the word." If, as 
Lenin argued in early 1917, the state "in the proper sense of 
the term is domination over the people by contingents of armed
men divorced from the people," then Bolshevism in power quickly
saw the need for a state "in the proper sense." [_Selected Works_, 
vol. 2, p. 60] While this state "in the proper sense" had existed
from the start of Bolshevik rule (see section H.6), it was only
from 1919 onwards (at the latest) that the leaders of Bolshevism 
had openly brought what they said into line with what they did. 
It was only by being a "state in the proper sense" could the 
Bolshevik party rule and exercise "the dictatorship of the party" 
over the "wavering" working class.

So when Lenin states that "Marxism differs from anarchism in 
that it recognises *the need for a state* for the purpose of 
the transition to socialism," anarchists agree. Insofar as 
"Marxism" aims for, to quote Lenin, the party to "take state
power into [its] own hands," to become "the governing party"
and considers one of its key tasks for "our Party to capture 
political power" and to "administer" a country, then we can 
safely say that the state needed is a state "in the proper 
sense," based on the centralisation and delegation of power 
into the hands of a few. [Op. Cit., p. 60, p. 589, p. 328 
and p. 589]

This recreation of the state "in the proper sense" did not 
come about by chance or simply because of the "will to power" 
of the leaders of Bolshevism. Rather, there are strong 
institutional pressures at work within any state structure 
(even a "semi-state") to turn it back into a "proper" state. 
We discuss this in more detail in section H.3.9. However,
we should not ignore that many of the roots of Bolshevik 
tyranny can be found in the contradictions of the Marxist 
theory of the state. As noted in the last section, for 
Engels, the seizure of power by the party meant that the 
working class was in power. The Leninist tradition builds 
on this confusion between party and class power. It is clear 
that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is, in fact, rule 
by the party. In Lenin's words:

"Engels speaks of *a government that is required for the 
domination of a class* . . . Applied to the proletariat, 
it consequently means a government *that is required for 
the domination of the proletariat,* i.e. the dictatorship 
of the proletariat for the effectuation of the socialist 
revolution." [_Collected Works_, vol. 8, p. 279]

The role of the working class in this state was also indicated,
as "only a revolutionary dictatorship supported by the vast
majority of the people can be at all durable." [Op. Cit., 
p. 291] In other words the "revolutionary government" has the
power, not the working class in whose name it governs. In
1921 he made this explicit: "To govern you need an army of 
steeled revolutionary Communists. We have it, and it is 
called the Party." The "Party is the leader, the vanguard 
of the proletariat, which rules directly." For Lenin, as 
"long as we, the Party's Central Committee and the whole 
Party, continue to run things, that is govern we shall 
never -- we cannot -- dispense with . . . removals, transfers, 
appointments, dismissals, etc." [Op. Cit., vol. 32, p. 62, 
p. 98 and p. 99] So much for "workers' power," "socialism
from below" and other such rhetoric. 

This vision of "socialism" being rooted in party power over
the working class was the basis of the Communist International's
resolution of the role of the party. This resolution is, therefore, 
important and worth discussing. 

It argues that the Communist Party "is *part* of the working 
class," namely its "most advanced, most class-conscious, and 
therefore most revolutionary part." It is "distinguished from 
the working class as a whole in that it grasps the whole 
historic path of the working class in its entirety and at 
every bend in that road endeavours to defend not the interests 
of individual groups or occupations but the interests of the 
working class as a whole." [_Proceedings and Documents of the 
Second Congress 1920_, vol. 1, p. 191] However, in response it 
can be argued that this simply means the "interests of the 
party" as only it can understand what "the interests of the 
working class as a whole" actually are. Thus we have the 
possibility of the party substituting its will for that of 
the working class simply because of what Leninists term the 
"uneven development" of the working class. As Alan Carter 
argues, these "conceptions of revolutionary organisation 
maintain political and ideological domination by retaining 
supervisory roles and notions of privileged access to 
knowledge . . . the term 'class consciousness' is 
employed to facilitate such domination over the workers. 
It is not what the workers think, but what the party 
leaders think they ought to think that constitutes the 
revolutionary consciousness imputed to the workers." 
The ideological basis for a new class structure is 
created as the "Leninist revolutionary praxis . . . is 
carried forward to post-revolutionary institutions," 
[_Marx: A Radical Critique_, p. 175]

The resolution stresses that before the revolution, the 
party "will encompass . . . only a minority of the workers." 
Even after the "seizure of power," it will still "not be 
able to unite them all into its ranks organisationally." 
It is only after the "final defeat of the bourgeois order" 
will "all or almost all workers begin to join" it. Thus
the party is a *minority* of the working class. The 
resolution then goes on to state that "[e]very class 
struggle is a political struggle. This struggle, which 
inevitably becomes transformed into civil war, has as
its goal the conquest of political power. Political power
cannot be seized, organised, and directed other than by
some kind of political party." [Op. Cit., p. 192, p. 193]
And as the party is a "part" of the working class which 
cannot "unite" all workers "into its ranks," this means 
that political power can only be "seized, organised, and 
directed" by a *minority.* 

Thus we have minority rule, with the party (or more 
correctly its leaders) exercising political power. The 
idea that the party "must *dissolve* into the councils,
that the councils can *replace* the Communist Party" is 
"fundamentally wrong and reactionary." This is because, 
to "enable the soviets to fulfil their historic tasks, 
there must . . . be a strong Communist Party, one that
does not simply 'adapt' to the soviets but is able to 
make them renounce 'adaptation' to the bourgeoisie." 
[Op. Cit., p. 196] Thus rather than the workers' councils 
exercising power, their role is simply that of allowing
the Communist Party to seize political party. 

The underlying assumptions behind this resolution and its
implications were clear by Zinoviev during his introductory
speech to the congress meeting on the role of the party
which finally agreed the resolution: 

"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 . . . [T]he dictatorship
of the proletariat is at the same time the dictatorship of
the Communist Party." [Op. Cit., pp. 151-2]

Little wonder that Bertrand Russell, on his return from 
Lenin's Russia in 1920, wrote that "[f]riends of Russia 
here [in Britain] think of the dictatorship of the 
proletariat as merely a new form of representative 
government, in which only working men and women have 
votes, and the constituencies are partly occupational,
not geographical. They think that 'proletariat' means
'proletariat,' but 'dictatorship' does not quote mean
'dictatorship.' This is the opposite of the truth. When
a Russian Communist speak of a dictatorship, he means
the word literally, but when he speaks of the proletariat,
he means the word in a Pickwickian sense. He means the
'class-conscious' part of the proletariat, i.e. the 
Communist Party. He includes people by no means 
proletarian (such as Lenin and Tchicherin) who have 
the right opinions, and he excludes such wage-earners 
as have not the right opinions, whim he classifies as 
lackeys of the *bourgeoisie.*" Significantly, Russell 
pointed, like Lenin, to the Comintern resolution on the 
role of the Communist Party. In addition, Russell notes
the reason why this party dictatorship was required:
"No conceivable system of free elections would give
majorities to the Communists, either in the town or
country." [_The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism_, 
pp. 26-27 and pp. 40-1]

Nor are followers of Bolshevism shy in repeating its elitist 
conclusions. Tony Cliff, for example, showed his lack of 
commitment to working class democracy when he opined that 
the "actual level of democracy, as well as centralism, 
[during a revolution] depends on three basic factors: 
1. the strength of the proletariat; 2. the material and 
cultural legacy left to it by the old regime; and 3. the 
strength of capitalist resistance. The level of democracy 
feasible must be indirect proportion to the first two 
factors, and in inverse proportion to the third. The 
captain of an ocean liner can allow football to be played 
on his vessel; on a tiny raft in a stormy sea the level of 
tolerance is far lower." [_Lenin_, vol. 3, p. 179] That 
Cliff compares working class democracy to "football" says 
it all. Rather than seeing it as the core gain of a 
revolution, he relegates it to the level of a *game,* 
which may or may not be "tolerated"! 

And need we speculate who the paternalistic "captain" in charge 
of the ship of the state would be would be? Replacing Cliff's 
revealing analogies we get the following: "The party in charge 
of a workers' state can allow democracy when the capitalist class 
is not resisting; when it is resisting strongly, the level 
of tolerance is far lower." So, democracy will be "tolerated"
in the extremely unlikely situation that the capitalist class 
will not resist a revolution! That the party has no right to
"tolerate" democracy or not is not even entertained by Cliff,
its right to negate the basic rights of the working class 
is taken as a given. Clearly the key factor is that the party 
is in power. It *may* "tolerate" democracy, but ultimately 
his analogy shows that Bolshevism considers it as an added 
extra whose (lack of) existence in no way determines the 
nature of the "workers' state." Perhaps, therefore, we may 
add another "basic factor" to Cliff's three; namely "4. the 
strength of working class support for the party." The level 
of democracy feasible must be in direct proportion to this 
factor, as the Bolsheviks made clear. As long as the workers 
vote the party, then democracy is wonderful. If they do not, 
then their "wavering" and "passing moods" cannot be 
"tolerated" and democracy is replaced by the dictatorship 
of the party. Which is no democracy at all.

Obviously, then, if, as Engels argued, "an essential feature 
of the state is a public power distinct from the mass of 
the people" then the regime advocated by Bolshevism is 
not a "semi-state" but, in fact, a normal state. Trotsky 
and Lenin are equally clear that said state exists to ensure 
that the "mass of the people" do not participate in public 
power, which is exercised by a minority, the party (or, 
more correctly, the rulers of the party). One of the key aims
of this new state is to repress the "backward" or "wavering"
sections of the working class (although, by definition, 
all sections of the working class are "backward" in relation
to the "vanguard"). Hence the need for a "public power
distinct from the people" (as the suppression of the strike
wave and Kronstadt in 1921 shows, elite troops are always
needed to stop the army siding with their fellow workers).
And as proven by Trotsky's comments after he was squeezed
out of power, this perspective was *not* considered as a
product of "exceptional circumstances." Rather it was 
considered a basic lesson of the revolution, a position 
which was applicable to all future revolutions. In this,
Lenin and other leading Bolsheviks concurred.

The irony (and tragedy) of all this should not be lost. In
his 1905 diatribe against anarchism, Stalin had denied that
Marxists aimed for party dictatorship. He stressed that there
was "a dictatorship of the minority, the dictatorship of a
small group . . . which is directed against the people . . .
Marxists are the enemies of such a dictatorship, and they
fight such a dictatorship far more stubbornly and 
self-sacrificingly than do our noisy Anarchists." The 
practice of Bolshevism and the ideological revisions it
generated easily refutes Stalin's claims. The practice of
Bolshevism shows that his claims that "[a]t the head" of
the "dictatorship of the proletarian majority . . . stand
the masses" stand in sharp contradiction with Bolshevik
support for "revolutionary" governments. Either you have
(to use Stalin's expression) "the dictatorship of the 
streets, of the masses, a dictatorship directed against 
all oppressors" or you have party power *in the name of 
the street, of the masses.* The fundamental flaw in Leninism 
is that it confuses the two and so lays the group for the
very result anarchists predicted and Stalin denied. 
[_Collected Works_, vol. 1, p. 371-2]

While anarchists are well aware of the need to defend a 
revolution (see section H.2.1), we do not make the mistake 
of equating this with a state. Ultimately, the state 
cannot be used as an instrument of liberation -- it is
not designed for it. Which, incidentally, is why we have
not discussed the impact of the Russian Civil War on the
development of Bolshevik ideology. Simply put, the "workers'
state" is proposed, by Leninists, as the means to defend 
a revolution. As such, you cannot blame what it is meant to
be designed to withstand (counter-revolution and civil war) 
for its "degeneration." If the "workers' state" cannot handle
what its advocates claim it exists for, then its time to
look for an alternative and dump the concept in the dustbin
of history. We discuss this further in sections H.6 and 
H.8.

In summary, Bolshevism is based on a substantial revision of 
the Marxist theory of the state. While Marx and Engels were 
at pains to stress the accountability of their new state to 
the population under it, Leninism has made a virtue of the 
fact that the state has evolved to exclude that mass 
participation in order to ensure minority rule. Leninism has 
done so explicitly to allow the party to overcome the 
"wavering" of the working class, the very class it claims 
is the "ruling class" under socialism! In doing this, the 
Leninist tradition exploited the confused nature of the 
state theory of traditional Marxism (see last section). 
The Leninist theory of the state is flawed simply because 
it is based on creating a "state in the proper sense
of the word," with a public power distinct from the mass of
the people. This was the major lesson gained by the leading
Bolsheviks (including Lenin and Trotsky) and has its roots in
the common Marxist error of confusing party power with working 
class power. So when Leninists point to Lenin's _State and
Revolution_ as the definitive Leninist theory of the state,
anarchists simply point to the lessons Lenin himself gained
from actually conducting a revolution. Once we do, the 
slippery slope to the Leninist solution to the contradictions
inherit in the Marxist theory of the state can be seen, 
understood and combated.

H.3.9 Is the state simply an agent of economic power?

As we discussed in section H.3.7, the Marxist theory of
the state confuses an empirical analysis of the state with
a metaphysical one. While Engels is aware that the state
developed to ensure minority class rule and, as befits its
task, evolved specific characteristics to execute that 
role, he also raised the idea that the state ("as a rule") 
is "the state of the most powerful, economically dominant 
class" and "through the medium of the state, becomes also 
the politically dominant class." Thus the state can be 
considered, in essence, as "nothing but a machine for the 
oppression of one class by another." [_Marx-Engels Selected 
Works_, pp. 577-8 and p. 258] 

The clear implication is that the state is simply an
instrument, without special interests of its own. If this
is the case, the use of a state by the proletariat is,
therefore, unproblematic (and so the confusion between
working class self-organisation and the state we have
discussed in various sections above is irrelevant). This 
argument can lead to simplistic conclusions, such as
once a "revolutionary" government is in power in a "workers
state" we need not worry about abuses of power or even 
civil liberties (this position was commonplace in Bolshevik
ranks during the Russian Civil War, for example). It also
is at the heart of Trotsky's contortions with regards to
Stalinism, refusing to see the state bureaucracy as a new
ruling class simply because the state, by definition, could 
not play such a role.

For anarchists, this position is a fundamental weakness 
of Marxism, a sign that the mainstream Marxist position 
significantly misunderstands the nature of society and 
the needs of social revolution. However, we must stress
that anarchists would agree that state generally does
serve the interests of the economically dominant classes.
Bakunin, for example, argued that the State "is authority, 
domination, and forced, organised by the property-owning
and so-called enlightened classes against the masses." He 
saw the social revolution as destroying capitalism and the 
state at the same time, that is "to overturn the State's 
domination, and that of the privileged classes whom it 
solely represents." [_The Basic Bakunin_, p. 140] 

However, anarchists do not reduce our analysis and 
understanding of the state to this simplistic Marxist
level. While being well aware that the state is the 
means of ensuring the domination of an economic elite, 
anarchists recognise that the state machine also has 
interests of its own. The state, for anarchists, is the 
delegation of power into the hands of a few. This creates, 
by its very nature, a privileged position for those at 
the top of the hierarchy:

"A government [or state], that is a group of people entrusted 
with making the laws and empowered to use the collective 
force to oblige each individual to obey them, is already 
a privileged class and cut off from the people. As any 
constituted body would do, it will instinctively seek to 
extend its powers, to be beyond public control, to impose 
its own policies and to give priority to its special 
interests. Having been put in a privileged position,
the government is already at odds with the people whose 
strength it disposes of." [Malatesta, _Anarchy_, p. 34]

Thus, while Malatesta was under no doubts that under capitalism
the state was essentially "the bourgeoisie's servant and 
*gendarme,*" it did not mean that it did not have interests
of its own. As he put it, "the government, though springing
from the bourgeoisie and its servant and protector, tends,
as with every servant and protector, to achieve its own 
emancipation and to dominate whoever it protects." [Op. Cit.,
p. 20 and p. 22] 

Why this would happen is not hard to discover. Given that 
the state is a highly centralised, top-down structure it is 
unsurprising that it develops around itself a privileged 
class, a bureaucracy, around it. The inequality in power 
implied by the state is a source of privilege and 
oppression independent of property and economic class. 
Those in charge of the state's institutions would aim 
to protect (and expand) their area of operation, ensuring
that they select individuals who share their perspectives 
and who they can pass on their positions. By controlling the
flow of information, of personnel and resources, the members
of the state's higher circles can ensure its, and their own,
survival and prosperity. As such, politicians who are elected 
are at a disadvantage. The state is the permanent collection 
of institutions that have entrenched power structures and 
interests. The politicians come and go while the power in 
the state lies in its institutions due to their permanence. 
It is to be expected that such institutions would have their
own interests and would pursue them whenever they can. 

This would not fundamentally change in a new "workers' 
state" if it is, like all states, based on the delegation 
and centralisation of power into a few hands. Any 
"workers' government" would need a new apparatus to 
enforce its laws and decrees. It would need effective 
means of gathering and collating information. It would 
thus create "an entirely new ladder of administration 
to extend it rule and make itself obeyed." While a
social revolution needs mass participation, the state
limits initiative to the few who are in power and 
"it will be impossible for one or even a number of
individuals to elaborate the social forms" required,
which "can only be the collective work of the masses
. . . Any kind of external authority will merely be
an obstacle, a hindrance to the organic work that
has to be accomplished; it will be no better than a
source of discord and of hatreds." [Kropotkin, _Words 
of a Rebel_, p. 169 and pp. 176-7] 

Rather than "withering away," any "workers' state" would 
tend to grow in terms of administration and so the 
government creates around itself a class of bureaucrats 
whose position is different from the rest of society. 
This would apply to production as well. Being unable to 
manage everything, the state would have to re-introduce 
hierarchical management in order to ensure its orders are 
met and that a suitable surplus is extracted from the 
workers to feed the needs of the state machine. By 
creating an economically powerful class which it can rely 
on to discipline the workforce, it would simply recreate 
capitalism anew in the form of "state capitalism" (this is 
precisely what happened during the Russian Revolution). To 
enforce its will onto the people it claims to represent, 
specialised bodies of armed people (police, army) would be 
required and soon created. All of which is to be expected, 
as state socialism "entrusts to a few the management of 
social life and [so] leads to the exploitation and oppression 
of the masses by the few." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 46]

This process does not happen instantly, it takes time.
However, the tendency for government to escape from popular 
control and to generate privileged and powerful institutions 
around it can be seen in all revolutions, including the Paris 
Commune and the Russian Revolution. In the former, the 
Communal Council was "largely ignored . . . after it was 
installed. The insurrection, the actual management of the 
city's affairs and finally the fighting against the 
Versaillese, were undertaken mainly by popular clubs, the 
neighbourhood vigilance committees, and the battalions of 
the National Guard. Had the Paris Commune (the Municipal 
Council) survived, it is extremely doubtful that it could 
have avoided conflict with these loosely formed street and 
militia formations. Indeed, by the end of April, some 
six weeks after the insurrection, the Commune constituted 
an 'all-powerful' Committee of Public Safety, a body 
redolent with memories of the Jacobin dictatorship 
and the Terror , which suppressed not only the right 
in the Great [French] Revolution of a century earlier, 
but also the left." [Murray Bookchin, _Post-Scarcity
Anarchism_, pp. 148-9] A minority of council members
(essentially those active in the International) stated 
that "the Paris Commune has surrendered its authority
to a dictatorship" and it was "hiding behind a dictatorship
that the electorate have not authorised us to accept
or to recognise." [_The Paris Commune of 1871: The View 
from the Left_, Eugene Schulkind (ed.), p. 187] The 
Commune was crushed before this process could fully 
unfold, but the omens were there (although it would 
have undoubtedly been hindered by small-scale of the 
institutions involved). As we discuss in section H.6, a 
similar process of a "revolutionary" government escaping 
from popular control occurred right from the start of the 
Russian Revolution. The fact the Bolshevik regime lasted 
longer and was more centralised (and covered a larger area) 
ensured that this process developed fully, with the 
"revolutionary" government creating around itself the 
institutions (the bureaucracy) which finally subjected the 
politicians and party leaders to its influence and then 
domination.

Simply put, the vision of the state as merely an instrument 
of class rule blinds its supporters to the dangers of 
*political* inequality in terms of power, the dangers 
inherent in giving a small group of people power over 
everyone else. The state has certain properties *because 
it is a state* and one of these is that it creates a 
bureaucratic class around it due to its centralised, 
hierarchical nature. Within capitalism, the state bureaucracy 
is (generally) under the control of the capitalist class. 
However, to generalise from this specific case is wrong 
as the state bureaucracy is a class in itself -- and so 
trying to abolish classes without abolishing the state is 
doomed to failure:

"The State has always been the patrimony of some privileged 
class: the sacerdotal class, the nobility, the bourgeoisie
-- and finally, when all the other classes have exhausted 
themselves, the class of the bureaucracy enters upon the 
stage and then the State falls, or rises, if you please to
the position of a machine." [Bakunin, _The Political
Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 208]

Thus the state cannot simply be considered as an instrument 
of rule by economic classes. It can be quite an effective
parasitical force in its own right, as both anthropological 
and historical evidence suggest. The former raises the 
possibility that the state arose before the classes and 
that its roots are in inequalities in power (i.e. hierarchy) 
within society, not inequalities of wealth. The latter 
points to examples of societies in which the state was 
not, in fact, an instrument of (economic) class rule but 
rather pursued an interest of its own.

As regards anthropology, Michael Taylor summarises that the 
"evidence does not give [the Marxist] proposition [that the 
rise in classes caused the creation of the state] a great 
deal of support. Much of the evidence which has been offered 
in support of it shows only that the primary states, not long 
after their emergence, were economically stratified. But this 
is of course consistent also with the simultaneous rise . . . 
of political and economic stratification, or with the *prior* 
development of the state -- i.e. of *political* stratification 
-- and the creation of economic stratification by the ruling 
class." [_Community, Anarchy and Liberty_, p. 132] He quotes
Elman Service on this:

"In all of the archaic civilisations and historically known
chiefdoms and primitive states the 'stratification' was . . .
mainly of two classes, the governors and the governed -- 
political strata, not strata of ownership groups." [quoted
by Taylor, Op. Cit., p. 133]

Talyor argues that it the "weakening of community and the 
development of gross inequalities are the *concomitants*
and *consequences* of state formation." He points to the
"germ of state formation" being in the informal social
hierarchies which exist in tribal societies. [Op. Cit., 
p. 133 and p. 134] Thus the state is not, initially, a 
product of economic classes but rather an independent 
development based on inequalities of social power. Harold 
Barclay, an anarchist who has studied anthropological
evidence on this matter, concurs:

"In Marxist theory power derives primarily, if not exclusively,
from control of the means of production and distribution of
wealth, that is, from economic factors. Yet, it is evident that
power derived from knowledge -- and usually 'religious' style
knowledge -- is often highly significant, at least in the social
dynamics of small societies. . . Economic factors are hardly the
only source of power. Indeed, we see this in modern society as
well, where the capitalist owner does not wield total power.
Rather technicians and other specialists command it as well, 
not because of their economic wealth, but because of their
knowledge." [quoted by Alan Carter, _Marx: A Radical Critique_, 
p. 191]

If, as Bookchin summarises, "hierarchies precede classes" then
trying to use a hierarchical structure like the state to abolish
them is simply wishful thinking. 

As regards more recent human history, there have been numerous 
examples of the state existing without being an instrument of 
class rule. Rather, the state *was* the "ruling class." While 
the most obvious example is the Stalinist regimes where the 
state bureaucracy ruled over a state capitalist regime, there
have been plenty of others, as Murray Bookchin points out:

"Each State is not necessarily an institutionalised system
of violence in the interests of a specific ruling class, 
as Marxism would have us believe. There are many examples
of States that *were* the 'ruling class' and whose own
interests existed quite apart from -- even in antagonism
to -- privileged, presumably 'ruling' classes in a given
society. The ancient world bears witness to distinctly 
capitalistic classes, often highly privileged and 
exploitative, that were bilked by the State, circumscribed
by it, and ultimately devoured by it -- which is in part
why a capitalist society never emerged out of the ancient 
world. Nor did the State 'represent' other class interests,
such as landed nobles, merchants, craftsmen, and the like.
The Ptolemaic State in Hellenistic Egypt was an interest
in its own right and 'represented' no other interest than
its own. The same is true of the Aztec and the Inca States
until they were replaced by Spanish invaders. Under the
Emperor Domitian, the Roman State became the principal 
'interest' in the empire, superseding the interests of
even the landed aristocracy which held such primacy in
Mediterranean society. . . 

"Near-Eastern State, like the Egyptian, Babylonian, and 
Persian, were virtually extended households of individual
monarchs . . . Pharaohs, kings, and emperors nominally
held the land (often co-jointly with the priesthood)
in the trust of the deities, who were either embodied in 
the monarch or were represented by him. The empires of
Asian and North African kings were 'households' and the
population was seen as 'servants of the palace' . . .

"These 'states,' in effect, were not simply engines of 
exploitation or control in the interests of a privileged
'class.' . . . The Egyptian State was very real but it
'represented' nothing other than itself." [_Remaking 
Society_, pp. 67-8]

Bakunin pointed to Turkish Serbia, where economically
dominant classes "do not even exist -- there is only a
bureaucratic class. Thus, the Serbian state will crush
the Serbian people for the sole purpose of enabling 
Serbian bureaucrats to live a fatter life." [_Statism
and Anarchy_, p. 54] Leninist Tony Cliff, in his attempt
to prove that Stalinist Russia was state capitalist and
its bureaucracy a ruling class, pointed to various 
societies in which "had deep class differentiation, 
based not on private property but on state property.
Such systems existed in Pharaonic Egypt, Moslem Egypt,
Iraq, Persia and India." He discusses the example of Arab 
feudalism in more detail, where "the feudal lord had no 
permanent domain of his own, but a member of a class 
which collectively controlled the land and had the right
to appropriate rent." This was "ownership of the land by
the state" rather than by individuals. [_State Capitalism
in Russia_, pp. 316-8] As such, the idea that the state 
is simply an instrument of class rule seems unsupportable. 
As Gaston Leval argued, "the State, by its nature, tends 
to have a life of its own." [quoted by Sam Dolgoff, _A 
Critique of Marxism_, p. 10]

Alan Carter summarises the obvious conclusion:

"By focusing too much attention on the economic structure of
society and insufficient attention on the problems of political
power, Marx has left a legacy we would done better not to 
inherit. The perceived need for authoritarian and centralised
revolutionary organisation is sanctioned by Marx's theory 
because his theoretical subordination of political power to
economic classes apparently renders post-revolutionary 
political power unproblematic." [_Marx: A Radical Critique_, 
p. 231]

Given this blindness of orthodox Marxism to this issue, it
seems ironic that one of the people responsible for it also 
provides anarchists with evidence to back up our argument
that the state is not simply an instrument of class role but
rather has interests of its own. Thus we find Engels arguing
that proletariat, "in order not to lose again its only just
conquered supremacy," would have "to safeguard itself against 
its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without 
exception, subject to recall at any moment." [_Marx-Engels
Selected Works_, p. 257] Yet, if the state was simply an 
instrument of class rule such precautions would not be 
necessary. As such, this shows an awareness that the state 
can have interests of its own, that it is not simply an 
machine of class rule. 

Aware of the obvious contradiction, he argues that the state 
"is, as a rule, the state of the most powerful, economically 
dominant class which, through the medium of the state, becomes 
the politically dominant class . . . By way of exception, 
however, periods occur in which the warring classes balance 
each other, so nearly that the state power, as ostensible 
mediator, acquires, for the moment, a certain degree of 
independence of both." And points to "the Bonapartism of 
the First, and still more of the Second French Empire." 
[Op. Cit., pp. 577-8] But if the state can become 
"independent" of economic classes, then that implies 
that it is no mere machine, no mere "instrument" of 
class rule. It implies the anarchist argument that the 
state has interests of its own, generated by its essential 
features and so, therefore, cannot be used by a majority 
class as part of its struggle for liberation is correct. 
Simply put, Anarchists have long "realised -- feared -- that 
any State structure, whether or not socialist or based on 
universal suffrage, has a certain independence from 
society, and so may serve the interests of those within 
State institutions rather than the people as a whole or 
the proletariat." [Brian Morris, _Bakunin: The Philosophy 
of Freedom_, p. 134]

Ironically, arguments and warnings about the "independence" 
of the state by Marxists imply that the state has interests 
of its own and cannot be considered simply as an instrument 
of class rule. Rather, it suggests that the anarchist 
analysis of the state is correct, namely that any structure
based on delegated power, centralisation and hierarchy must,
inevitably, have a privileged class in charge of it, a class 
whose position enables it to not only exploit and oppress
the rest of society but also to effectively escape from 
popular control and accountability. This is no accident.
The state is structured to enforce minority rule and 
exclude the majority.

H.3.10 Has Marxism always supported the idea of workers' councils?

One of the most widespread myths associated with Marxism is the
idea that Marxism has consistently aimed to smash the current
(bourgeois) state and replace it by a "workers' state" based
on working class organisations created during a revolution. 

This myth is sometimes expressed by those who should know 
better (i.e. Marxists). According to John Rees (of the 
British Socialist Workers Party) it has been a "cornerstone 
of revolutionary theory" that "the soviet is a superior form 
of democracy because it unifies political and economic power." 
This "cornerstone" has, apparently, existed "since Marx's 
writings on the Paris Commune." ["In Defence of October," 
_International Socialism_, no. 52, p. 25] In fact, nothing 
could be further from the truth, as Marx's writings on the 
Paris Commune prove beyond doubt. 

The Paris Commune, as Marx himself noted, was "formed 
of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage 
in the various wards of the town." ["The Civil War in 
France", _Selected Works_, p. 287] As Marx made clear, 
it was definitely *not* based on delegates from workplaces 
and so could *not* unify political and economic power. 
Indeed, to state that the Paris Commune was a soviet is 
simply a joke, as is the claim that Marxists supported 
soviets as revolutionary organs to smash and replace 
the state from 1871. In fact Marxists did not subscribe 
to this "cornerstone of revolutionary theory" until 1917 
when Lenin argued that the Soviets would be the best means 
of ensuring a Bolshevik government. Which explains why 
Lenin's use of the slogan "All Power to the Soviets" and
call for the destruction of the bourgeois state came as 
such a shock to his fellow Marxists. Unsurprisingly, given 
the long legacy of anarchist calls to smash the state and
their vision of a socialist society built from below by 
workers councils, many Marxists called Lenin an anarchist!
Therefore, the idea that Marxists have always supported 
workers councils' is untrue and any attempt to push this
support back to 1871 simply a farcical.

Before 1917, when Lenin claimed to have discovered what 
had eluded all the previous followers of Marx and Engels 
(including himself!), it was only anarchists (or those 
close to them such as the Russian SR-Maximalists) who 
argued that the future socialist society would be 
structurally based around the organs working class 
people themselves created in the process of the class
struggle and revolution (see sections H.1.4 and I.2.3). 
To re-quote Bakunin:

"The future social organisation must be made solely from 
the bottom up, by the free association or federation of 
workers, firstly in their unions, then in the communes, 
regions, nations and finally in a great federation, 
international and universal." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected 
Writings_, pp. 170-2]

So, ironically, the idea of the superiority of workers' councils
has existed from around the time of the Paris Commune, but in
only in Bakunin's writings and others in the libertarian wing of the First International!

Not all Marxists are as ignorant of their political tradition
as Rees. As his fellow party member Chris Harman recognised, 
"[e]ven the 1905 [Russian] revolution gave only the most 
embryonic expression of how a workers' state would in fact 
be organised. The fundamental forms of workers' power -- the 
soviets (workers' councils) -- were not recognised." It was 
"[n]ot until the February revolution [of 1917 that] soviets 
became central in Lenin's writings and thought." [_Party and 
Class_, p. 18 and p. 19] 

Before continuing it should be noted that Harman's summary
is correct only if we are talking about the Marxist movement.
Looking at the wider revolutionary movement, two groups 
definitely "recognised" the importance of the soviets as 
a form of working class power. These were the anarchists 
and the Social-Revolutionary Maximalists, both of whom 
"espoused views that corresponded almost word for word
with Lenin's April 1917 program of 'All power to the 
soviets.'" The "aims of the revolutionary far left in 
1905 . . . Lenin combined in his call for soviet power
[in 1917], when he apparently assimilated the anarchist
program to secure the support of the masses for the 
Bolsheviks." [Oskar Anweiler, _The Soviets_, p. 94 and 
p. 96] Unsurprisingly, both the anarchists and Maximalists
were extremely influential in that paradigm of soviet 
power and democracy, the Kronstadt commune (see section 
H.5 for more details).

Thus, in anarchist circles, the soviets were must definitely  
"recognised" as the practical confirmation of anarchist 
ideas of working class self-organisation as being the 
framework of a socialist society. For example, the
syndicalists "regarded the soviets . . . as admirable 
versions of the *bourses du travail*, but with a revolutionary
function added to suit Russian conditions. Open to all
leftist workers regardless of specific political affiliation,
the soviets were to act as nonpartisan labour councils 
improvised 'from below' . . . with the aim of bringing 
down the old regime." The anarchists of _Khleb i Volia_
"also likened the 1905 Petersburg Soviet -- as a nonparty
mass organisation -- to the central committee of the 
Paris Commune of 1871." [Paul Avrich, _The Russian 
Anarchists_, pp. 80-1] Kropotkin argued that anarchists
should take part in the soviets as long as they "are
organs of the struggle against the bourgeoisie and the
state, and not organs of authority." [quoted by Graham
Purchase, _Evolution and Revolution_, p. 30]

So, if Marxists did not support workers' councils until
1917, what *did* Marxists argue should be the framework 
of a socialist society before this date? To discover this, 
we must look to Marx and Engels. Once we do, we discover 
that their works suggest that their vision of socialist 
transformation was fundamentally based on the bourgeois 
state, suitably modified and democratised to achieve this 
task. As such, rather than present the true account of the 
Marxist theory of the state Lenin interpreted various 
inexact and ambiguous statements by Marx and Engels 
(particularly from Marx's defence of the Paris Commune) to 
justify his own actions in 1917. Whether his 1917 revision 
of Marxism in favour of workers' councils as the framework 
of socialism is in keeping with the *spirit* of Marx is 
another matter of course. Given that libertarian Marxists 
(like the council communists) embraced the idea of workers' 
councils and broke with the Bolsheviks over the issue of 
whether the councils or the party had power, we can say that 
perhaps it is not. In this, they express the best in Marx. 
When faced with the Paris Commune and its libertarian 
influences he embraced it, distancing himself (for a while 
at least) with many of his previous ideas.

So what was the original (orthodox) Marxist position?
It can be seen from Lenin who, as late December 1916 
argued that "Socialists are in favour of utilising the 
present state and its institutions in the struggle for 
the emancipation of the working class, maintaining also
that the state should be used for a specific form of
transition from capitalism to socialism." Lenin attacked
Bukharin for "erroneously ascribing this [the anarchist]
view to the socialist" when he had stated socialists
wanted to "abolish" the state or "blow it up." He called
this "transitional form" the dictatorship of the 
proletariat, "which is *also* a state." [_Collected
Works_, vol. 23, p. 165] In other words, the socialist
party would aim to seize power within the existing state
and, after making suitable modifications to it, use it
to create socialism. This conquest of state power would
be achieved either by insurrection or by the ballot box,
the latter being used for political education and struggle 
under capitalism.

That this position was the orthodox one is hardly surprising,
given the actual comments of both Marx and Engels. For example,
Engels argued in 1886 while he and Marx saw "the gradual 
dissolution and ultimate disappearance of that political
organisation called *the State*" as "*one* of the final
results of the future revolution," they "at the same time
. . . have always held that . . . the proletarian class will
first have to possess itself of the organised political 
force of the State and with its aid stamp out the resistance
of the Capitalist class and re-organise society." The idea
that the proletariat needs to "possess" the existing state
is made clear when he argues while the anarchists "reverse
the matter" by arguing that the revolution "has to *begin* 
by abolishing the political organisation of the State,"
for Marxists "the only organisation the victorious working
class finds ready-made for use, is that of the State. It
may require adaptation to the new functions. But to destroy
that at such a moment, would be to destroy the only organism
by means of which the working class can exert its newly 
conquered power." [_Collected Works_, vol. 47, p. 10] 

Obviously the only institution which the working class "finds 
ready-made for use" is the bourgeois state, although, as Engels 
stresses, it "may require adaptation." This schema is repeated
five years later, in Engels introduction to Marx's "The 
Civil War in France." Arguing that the state "is nothing but
a machine for the oppression of one class by another" he
notes that it is "at best an evil inherited by the proletariat
after its victorious struggle for class supremacy, whose 
worst sides the victorious proletariat, just like the Commune,
cannot avoid having to lop off at once as much as possible."
[_Marx-Engels Selected Works_, p. 258] Simply put, if the 
proletariat creates a *new* state system to replace the 
bourgeois one, then how can it be "an evil inherited" by it?
If, as Lenin argued, Marx and Engels thought that the
working class had to smash the bourgeois state and replace
it with a new one, why would it have "to lop off at once as 
much as possible" from the state it had just "inherited"?

In the same year, Engels repeats this argument in his critique 
of the draft of the Erfurt program of the German Social Democrats:

"If one thing is certain it is that our Party and the working 
class can only come to power under the form of a democratic 
republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship 
of the proletariat, as the Great French Revolution has already 
shown." [quoted by David W. Lovell, _From Marx to Lenin_, p. 81]

Clearly Engels does not speak of a "commune-republic" or anything 
close to a soviet republic, as expressed in Bakunin's work or the 
libertarian wing of the First International with their ideas of a 
"trade-union republic" or a free federation of workers' 
associations. Clearly and explicitly he speaks of the democratic 
republic, the current state ("an evil inherited by the proletariat") 
which is to be seized and transformed as in the Paris Commune. 
Unsurprisingly, when Lenin comes to quote this passage in _State 
and Revolution_ he immediately tries to obscure its meaning. 
"Engels," he says, "repeats here in a particularly striking manner 
the fundamental idea which runs like a red thread through all of 
Marx's work, namely, that the democratic republic is the nearest 
approach to the dictatorship of the proletariat." [_Essential 
Works of Lenin_, p. 324] However, clearly Engels does not speak 
of the political form which "is the nearest approach" to the 
dictatorship, rather he speaks only of "the specific form" of 
the dictatorship, the "only" form in which "our Party" can come 
to power.

This explains Engels 1887 comments that in the USA the workers 
"next step towards their deliverance" was "the formation of a 
political workingmen's party, with a platform of its own, and 
the conquest of the Capitol and the White House for its goal." 
This new party "like all political parties everywhere . . . aspires 
to the conquest of political power." Engels then discusses the 
"electoral battle" going on in America. [Marx & Engels, _Basic 
Writings on Politics and Philosophy_, pp. 527-8 and p. 529] Six
years previously he had argued along the same lines as regards
England, "where the industrial and agricultural working class forms
the immense majority of the people, democracy means the dominion
of the working class, neither more nor less. Let, then, that
working class prepare itself for the task in store for it -- 
the ruling of this great Empire . . . And the best way to do
this is to use the power already in their hands, the actual 
majority they possess . . . to send to Parliament men of their
own order." In case this was not clear enough, he lamented that
"[e]verywhere the labourer struggles for political power, for
direct representation of his class in the legislature -- 
everywhere but in Great Britain." [_Collected Works_, vol. 24,
p. 405]

All of which, of course, fits into Marx's account of the Paris 
Commune. In that work he stresses that the Commune was formed by 
elections, by universal suffrage in a democratic republic. Once 
voted into office, the Commune then smashes the state machine 
inherited by it from the old state, recognising that "the working 
class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and
wield it for its own purposes." The "first decree of the Commune 
. . . was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution 
for it of the armed people." Thus the Commune lops off one of the 
"ubiquitous organs" associated with the "centralised State power" 
once it had inherited the state via elections. [_Marx-Engels 
Selected Works_, p. 285, p. 287 and p. 285] 

It is, of course true, that Marx expresses in his defence of 
the Commune the opinion that new "Communal Constitution" was 
to become a "reality by the destruction of the State power" 
yet he immediately argues that "the merely repressive organs 
of the old government power were to be amputated" and "its 
legitimate functions were to be wrestles from" it and "restored 
to the responsible agents of society." [Op. Cit., pp. 288-9] This 
corresponds to Engels arguments about removing aspects from the 
state inherited by the proletariat and signifies the "destruction" 
of the state machinery (its bureaucratic-military aspects) rather 
than the state itself.

The source of Lenin's restatement of the Marxist theory of the 
state which came as such a shock to so many Marxists can be 
found in the nature of the Paris Commune. After all, the major 
influence in terms of "political vision" of the Commune was 
anarchism. The "rough sketch of national organisation which 
the Commune had no time to develop" which Marx praises but 
does not quote was written by a follower of Proudhon. [Marx, 
Op. Cit., p. 288] It expounded a clearly *federalist* and 
"bottom-up" organisational structure. It clearly implied "the 
destruction of the State power" rather than seeking to "inherit" 
it. Based on this libertarian revolt, it is unsurprising that 
Marx's defence of it took on a libertarian twist. As noted by 
Bakunin, who argues that its "general effect was so striking 
that the Marxists themselves, who saw their ideas upset by the 
uprising, found themselves compelled to take their hats off to 
it. They went further, and proclaimed that its programme and 
purpose where their own, in face of the simplest logic . . . 
This was a truly farcical change of costume, but they were 
bound to make it, for fear of being overtaken and left behind 
in the wave of feeling which the rising produced throughout 
the world." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 261]

This opinion was shared by almost all Marxists before 1917
(including Lenin). As Franz Mehring (considered by many as 
the best student and commentator of Marx in pre-world war 
social democracy and a extreme left-winger) argued, the 
"opinions of _The Communist Manifesto_ could not be 
reconciled with the praise lavished . . . on the Paris 
Commune for the vigorous fashion in which it had begun to 
exterminate the parasitic State." He notes that "both Marx 
and Engels were well aware of the contradiction" and in 
the June 1872 preface to their work "they revised their 
opinions . . . declaring that the workers could not
simply lay hold of the ready-made State machinery and 
wield it for their own purposes. At a later date, and 
after the death of Marx, Engels was compelled to engage
in a struggle against the anarchist tendencies in the 
working-class movement, and he let this proviso drop 
and once again took his stand on the basis of the 
Manifesto." [_Karl Marx_, p. 453] 

The fact that Marx did not mention anything about abolishing 
the existing state and replacing it with a new one in his 
contribution to the "Program of the French Workers Party" in 
1880 is significant. It said that the that "collective 
appropriation" of the means of production "can only proceed 
from a revolutionary action of the class of producers -- the 
proletariat -- organised in an independent political party."
This would be "pursued by all the means the proletariat has 
at its disposal including universal suffrage which will thus 
be transformed from the instrument of deception that it 
has been until now into an instrument of emancipation." 
[_Collected Works_, vol. 24, p. 340] There is nothing about 
overthrowing the existing state and replacing it with a 
new state, rather the obvious conclusion which is to be 
drawn is that universal suffrage was the tool by which the 
workers would achieve socialism. It does fit in, however,
with Marx's comments in 1852 that "Universal Suffrage 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.*" [Op. Cit., vol. 11, pp. 335-6] Or,
indeed, Engels similar comments from 1881 quoted above.

It is for this reason that orthodox Marxism up until 1917
held the position that the socialist revolution would be
commenced by seizing the existing state (usually by the
ballot box, or by insurrection if that was impossible).
Martov, the leading left-Menshevik, in his discussion of
Lenin's "discovery" of the "real" Marxist theory on the 
state (in _State and Revolution_) stresses that the idea
that the state should be smashed by the workers who would
then "transplant into the structure of society the forms
of *their own* combat organisations" was a libertarian idea,
alien to Marx and Engels. While acknowledging that "in our
time, working people take to 'the idea of the soviets' after 
knowing them as combat organisations formed in the process 
of the class struggle at a sharp revolutionary stage," he 
distances Marx and Engels quite successfully from such a 
position. As such, he makes a valid contribution to
Marxism and presents a necessary counter-argument to Lenin's
claims in _State and Revolution_ (at which point, we are 
sure, nine out of ten Leninists will dismiss our argument!). 
[_The State and Socialist Revolution_, p. 42]

All this may seem a bit academic to many. Does it matter? 
After all, most Marxists today subscribe to some variation 
of Lenin's position and so, in some aspects, what Marx and
Engels really thought is irrelevant. Indeed, it is likely 
that Marx, faced with workers' councils as he was with the
Commune, would have embraced them (perhaps not, as he was
dismissive of similar ideas expressed in the libertarian 
wing of the First International). What is important is that
the idea that Marxists have always subscribed to the idea
that a social revolution would be based on the workers' own
combat organisations (be they unions, soviets or whatever)
is a relatively new one to the ideology. While Bakunin and
other anarchists argued for such a revolution, Marx and 
Engels did not. Given this, the shock which met Lenin's
arguments in 1917 can be easily understood.

Rather than being rooted in the Marxist vision of revolution,
as it has been in anarchism since the 1860s, workers councils
have played, rhetoric aside, the role of fig-leaf for party 
power (libertarian Marxism being a notable exception). They
have been embraced by its Leninist wing purely as a means of
ensuring party power. Rather than being seen as the most 
important gain of a revolution as they allow mass participation,
workers' councils have been seen, and used, simply as a means
by which the party can seize power. Once this is achieved, 
the soviets can be marginalised and ignored without affecting
the "proletarian" nature of the revolution in the eyes of the
party:

"while it is true that Lenin recognised the different functions 
and democratic raison d'etre for both the soviets and his party, 
in the last analysis it was the party that was more important 
than the soviets. In other words, the party was the final 
repository of working-class sovereignty. Thus, Lenin did not 
seem to have been reflected on or have been particularly 
perturbed by the decline of the soviets after 1918." [Samuel 
Farber, _Before Stalinism_, p. 212]

This perspective can be traced back to the lack of interest
Marx and Engels expressed in the forms which a proletarian 
revolution would take, as exemplified by Engels comments on
having to "lop off" aspects of the state "inherited" by the
working class. The idea that the organisations people create 
in their struggle for freedom may help determine the outcome
of the revolution is missing. Rather, the idea that any 
structure can be appropriated and (after suitable modification) 
used to rebuild society is clear. This perspective cannot help 
take emphasis away from the mass working class organisations 
required to rebuild society in a socialist manner and place it 
on the group who will "inherit" the state and "lop off" its 
negative aspects, namely the party and the leaders in charge 
of both it and the new "workers' state." 

This focus towards the party became, under Lenin (and the 
Bolsheviks in general) a purely instrumental perspective 
on workers' councils and other organisations. They were of 
use purely in so far as they allowed the Bolshevik party to 
take power (indeed Lenin constantly identified workers' power 
and soviet power with Bolshevik power and as Martin Buber 
noted, for Lenin "All power to the Soviets!" meant, at bottom, 
"All power to the Party through the Soviets!"). It can, therefore,
be argued that his book _State and Revolution_ was a means 
to use Marx and Engels to support his new found idea of the 
soviets as being the basis of creating a Bolshevik government
rather than a principled defence of workers' councils as the
framework of a socialist revolution. We discuss this issue in 
the next section.

H.3.11 Does Marxism aim to place power into the hands of workers 
       organisations? 

The short answer depends on which branch of Marxism you mean.

If you are talking about libertarian Marxists such as council
communists, Situationists and so on, then the answer is a 
resounding "yes." Like anarchists, these Marxists see a social
revolution as being based on working class self-management 
and, indeed, criticised (and broke with) Bolshevism precisely
on this question (as can be seen from Lenin's comments in 
_Left-wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder_ on the question
of class or party dictatorship). However, if we look at the 
mainstream Marxist tradition (namely Bolshevism), the answer 
has to be an empathic "no." 

As we noted in section H.1.4, anarchists have long argued that
the organisations created by the working class in struggle 
would be the initial framework of a free society. These organs,
created to resist capitalism and the state, would be the means 
to overthrow both as well as extending and defending the 
revolution (such bodies have included the "soviets" and "factory
committees" of the Russian Revolution, the collectives in the
Spanish revolution, popular assemblies as in the current 
Argentine revolt and the French Revolution, revolutionary 
unions and so on). Thus working class self-management is at the 
core of the anarchist vision and so we stress the importance 
(and autonomy) of working class organisations in the revolutionary
movement and the revolution itself. Anarchists work within such
bodies at the base, in the mass assemblies, and do not seek to
replace their power with that of their own organisation (see
section J.3.6).

Leninists, in contrast, have a different perspective on such 
bodies. Rather than placing them at the heart of the revolution,
Leninism views them purely in instrumental terms -- namely, as
a means of achieving party power. Writing in 1907, Lenin argued
that "Social-Democratic Party organisations may, in case of
necessity, participate in inter-party Soviets of Workers'
Delegates . . . and in congresses . . . of these organisations,
and may organise such institutions, provided this is done on
strict Party lines for the purpose of developing and strengthening
the Social-Democratic Labour Party." The party would "utilise"
such organs "for the purpose of developing the Social-Democratic
movement." Significantly, given the fate of the soviets 
post-1917, Lenin notes that the party "must bear in mind that if
Social-Democratic activities among the proletarian masses are
properly, effectively and widely organised, such institutions
may actually become superfluous." [Marx, Engels and Lenin, 
_Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 210] Thus the means
by which working class can manage their own affairs would become
"superfluous" once the party was in power. How the working 
class could be considered the "ruling class" in such a society 
is hard to understand.

As Oscar Anweiler summarises in his account of the soviets
during the two Russian Revolutions:

"The drawback of the new 'soviet democracy' hailed by 
Lenin in 1906 is that he could envisage the soviets only
as *controlled* organisations; for him they were instruments
by which the party controlled the working masses, rather
than true forms of a workers democracy. The basic 
contradiction of the Bolshevik soviet system -- which
purports to be a democracy of all working people but in
reality recognises only the rule of one party -- is already
contained in Lenin's interpretation of the soviets during
the first Russian revolution." [_The Soviets_, p. 85]

Thirteen years later, Lenin repeated this same vision of party 
power as the goal of revolution. In his infamous diatribe
against "Left-wing" Communism (i.e. those Marxists close 
to anarchism), Lenin argued that "the correct understanding 
of a Communist of his tasks" lies in "correctly gauging 
the conditions and the moment when the vanguard of the 
proletariat can successfully seize power, when it will be 
able during and after this seizure of power to obtain support 
from sufficiently broad strata of the working class and of 
the non-proletarian toiling masses, and when, thereafter, it 
will be able to maintain, consolidate, and extend its rule, 
educating, training and attracting ever broader masses of 
the toilers." He stressed that "to go so far . . . as to 
draw a contrast in general between the dictatorship of the 
masses and the dictatorship of the leaders, is ridiculously 
absurd and stupid." [_Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile 
Disorder_, p. 35 and p. 27] As we noted in section H.1.2,
the Bolsheviks had this stage explicitly argued for party 
dictatorship and considered it a truism that (to re-quote 
Lenin) "an organisation taking in the whole proletariat 
cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be 
exercised only by a vanguard . . . the dictatorship of the 
proletariat cannot be exercised by a mass proletarian 
organisation." [_Collected Works_, vol. 32, p. 21]

Therefore, rather than seeing revolution being based upon 
the empowerment of working class organisation and the 
socialist society being based on this, Leninists see workers 
oorganisations in purely instrumental terms as the means of 
achieving a Leninist government:

"With all the idealised glorification of the soviets as
a new, higher, and more democratic type of state, Lenin's
principal aim was revolutionary-strategic rather than
social-structural . . . The slogan of the soviets was
primarily tactical in nature; the soviets were in theory
organs of mass democracy, but in practice tools for the
Bolshevik Party. In 1917 Lenin outlined his transitional
utopia without naming the definitive factor: the party.
To understand the soviets' true place in Bolshevism, it
is not enough, therefore, to accept the idealised picture
in Lenin's state theory. Only an examination of the actual
give-and-take between Bolsheviks and soviets during the
revolution allows a correct understanding of their 
relationship." [Oscar Anweiler, Op. Cit., pp. 160-1]

Simply out, Leninism confuses the party power and workers' 
power. An example of this "confusion" can be found in most 
Leninist works. For example, John Rees argues that "the 
essence of the Bolsheviks' strategy . . . was to take power 
from the Provisional government and put it in the hands of 
popular organs of working class power -- a point later made 
explicit by Trotsky in his _Lessons of October_." ["In 
Defence of October," _International Socialism_, no. 52, 
p. 73] However, in reality, as noted in section H.3.3, 
Lenin had always been clear that the essence of the 
Bolsheviks' strategy was the taking of power by the 
Bolshevik party *itself.* He explicitly argued for 
Bolshevik power during 1917, considering the soviets 
as the best means of achieving this. He constantly 
equated Bolshevik rule with working class rule. Once in 
power, this identification did not change. As such, rather 
than argue for power to be placed into "the hands of popular 
organs of working class power" Lenin argued this only 
insofar as he was sure that these organs would then 
*immediately* pass that power into the hands of a Bolshevik 
government. 

This explains his turn against the soviets after July 1917 
when he considered it impossible for the Bolsheviks to gain 
a majority in them. It can be seen when the Bolshevik party's 
Central Committee opposed the idea of a coalition government 
immediately after the overthrow of the Provisional Government 
in October 1917. As it explained, "a purely Bolshevik 
government" was "impossible to refuse" since "a majority at 
the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets . . . handed power 
over to this government." [quoted by Robert V. Daniels, _A
Documentary History of Communism_, pp. 127-8] A mere ten days 
after the October Revolution the Left Social Revolutionaries 
charged that the Bolshevik government was ignoring the Central 
Executive Committee of the Soviets, established by the second 
Congress of Soviets as the supreme organ in society. Lenin 
dismissed their charges, stating that "the new power could 
not take into account, in its activity, all the rigmarole 
which would set it on the road of the meticulous observation
of all the formalities." [quoted by Frederick I. Kaplan, 
_Bolshevik Ideology and the Ethics of Soviet Labour_, p. 124]
Clearly, the soviets did not have "All Power," they promptly 
handed it over to a Bolshevik government (and Lenin implies 
that he was not bound in any way to the supreme organ of the 
soviets in whose name he ruled). All of which places Rees' 
assertions into the proper context and shows that the slogan 
"All Power to the Soviets" is used by Leninists in a radically 
different way than most people would understand by it! It also  
explains why soviets were disbanded if the opposition won 
majorities in them in early 1918:

"Menshevik newspapers and activists in the trade unions, the 
Soviets, and the factories had made a considerable impact on 
a working class which was becoming increasingly disillusioned 
with the Bolshevik regime, so much so that in many places the 
Bolsheviks felt constrained to dissolve Soviets or prevent 
re-elections where Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries 
had gained majorities." [Israel Getzler, _Martov_, p. 179]

Thus the Bolsheviks expelled the Mensheviks in the context of 
political loses *before* the Civil War. The Civil War gave the
Bolsheviks an excuse and they "drove them underground, just on 
the eve of the elections to the Fifth Congress of Soviets in 
which the Mensheviks were expected to make significant gains" 
and while the Bolsheviks "offered some formidable fictions to 
justify the expulsions" there was "of course no substance 
in the charge that the Mensheviks had been mixed in 
counter-revolutionary activities on the Don, in the Urals, 
in Siberia, with the Czechoslovaks, or that they had joined 
the worst Black Hundreds." [Getzler, Op. Cit., p. 181]

While we will discuss this in more detail in section H.6, 
we can state here that the facts are that the Bolsheviks only 
supported "Soviet power" when the soviets were Bolshevik. As 
recognised by Martov, who argued that the Bolsheviks loved 
Soviets only when they were "in the hands of the Bolshevik 
party." [quoted by Getzler, Op. Cit., p. 174] Which, perhaps,
explains Lenin's comment that "[o]nly the development of this 
war [Kornilov's counter-revolutionary rebellion in August 1917] 
can bring *us* to power but we must *speak* of this as little 
as possible in our agitation (remembering very well that even 
tomorrow events may put us in power and then we will not let it 
go)." [quoted by Neil Harding, _Leninism_, p. 253]

All this can be confirmed, unsurprisingly enough, by looking at
the essay Rees references. When studying Trotsky's _Lessons of 
October_ we find the same instrumentalist approach to the 
question of the "popular organs of working class power." This 
is stated quite clearly by Trotsky in his essay when he argued 
that the "essential aspect" of Bolshevism was the "training, 
tempering, and organisation of the proletarian vanguard as 
enables the latter to seize power, arms in hand." As such,
the vanguard seizes power, *not* "popular organs of working 
class power." Indeed, the idea that the working class can
seize power itself is raised and dismissed:

"But the events have proved that without a party capable of 
directing the proletarian revolution, the revolution itself 
is rendered impossible. The proletariat cannot seize power by 
a spontaneous uprising . . . there is nothing else that can
serve the proletariat as a substitute for its own party."

Hence "popular organs of working class power" are not considered 
as the "essence" of Bolshevism, rather the "fundamental instrument 
of proletarian revolution is the party." Popular organs are 
seen purely in instrumental terms, always discussing such organs
of "workers' power" in terms of the strategy and program of the 
party, not in terms of the value that such organs have as forms
of working class self-management of society. 
 
This can be clearly seen from Trotsky's discussion of the
"October Revolution" of 1917 in _Lessons of October_. 
Commenting on the Bolshevik Party conference of April 1917, 
he states that the "whole of . . . [the] Conference was devoted 
to the following fundamental question: Are we heading toward 
the conquest of power in the name of the socialist revolution 
or are we helping (anybody and everybody) to complete the 
democratic revolution? . . . Lenin's position was this: . . . 
the capture of the soviet majority; the overthrow of the 
Provisional Government; the seizure of power through the 
soviets." Note, *through* the soviets not *by* the soviets, 
thus indicating the fact the Party would hold the real power, 
not the soviets of workers' delegates. This is confirmed when 
Trotsky states that "to prepare the insurrection and to carry 
it out under cover of preparing for the Second Soviet Congress 
and under the slogan of defending it, was of inestimable 
advantage to us" and that it was "one thing to prepare an 
armed insurrection under the naked slogan of the seizure of 
power by the party, and quite another thing to prepare and 
then carry out an insurrection under the slogan of defending 
the rights of the Congress of Soviets." The Soviet Congress 
just provided "the legal cover" for the Bolshevik plans 
rather than a desire to see the Soviets actually start 
managing society. [_The Lessons of October_]

Thus we have the "seizure of power through the soviets"
with "an armed insurrection under the naked slogan of
the seizure of power by the party" being hidden by 
"the slogan" ("the legal cover") of defending the Soviets!
Hardly a case of placing power in the hands of working 
class organisations. Trotsky *does* note that in 1917 
the "soviets had to either disappear entirely or take 
real power into their hands." However, he immediately 
adds that "they could take power . . . only as the 
dictatorship of the proletariat directed by a single party." 
Clearly, the "single party" has the real power, *not* 
the soviets. Unsurprisingly, in practice, the rule of
"a single party" also amounted to the soviets effectively
disappearing as they quickly became mere ciphers for party 
rule. Soon the "direction" by "a single party" became
the dictatorship of that party *over* the soviets, which
(it should be noted) Trotsky defended wholeheartedly until
his death (see section H.3.8).

This cannot be considered as a one-off. Trotsky repeated this 
analysis in his _History of the Russian Revolution_, when he 
stated that the "question, what mass organisations were to 
serve the party for leadership in the insurrection, did not 
permit an *a priori,* much less a categorical, answer." Thus 
the "mass organisations" serve the party, not vice versa. This 
instrumentalist perspective can be seen when Trotsky notes that 
when "the Bolsheviks got a majority in the Petrograd Soviet, 
and afterward a number of others," the "phrase 'Power to the 
Soviets' was not, therefore, again removed from the order of 
the day, but received a new meaning: All power to the *Bolshevik* 
soviets." This meant that the "party was launched on the road 
of armed insurrection through the soviets and in the name of 
the soviets." As he put it in his discussion of the July days 
in 1917, the army "was far from ready to raise an insurrection 
in order to give power to the Bolshevik Party." Ultimately, 
"the state of popular consciousness . . . made impossible the 
seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in July." [vol. 2, p. 303, 
p. 307, p. 78 and p. 81] So much for "all power to the Soviets"! 
He even quotes Lenin: "The Bolsheviks have no right to await 
the Congress of Soviets. They ought to seize the power right 
*now.*" Ultimately, the "Central Committee adopted the motion
of Lenin as the only thinkable one: to form a government of
the Bolsheviks only." [vol. 3, pp. 131-2 and p. 299] 

In case anyone is in doubt what Trotsky meant, he clarified 
it in the book he was writing when he was assassinated: "After 
eight months of inertia and of democratic chaos, came the 
dictatorship of the Bolsheviks." [_Stalin_, vol. 2, p. 242]
This is confirmed by other sources:
 "Within six weeks of the October revolution, Gorky's newspaper
_Novaya Zhizn_ lamented the rapidity with which life had run
out of the Soviet movement: 'The slogan "All power to the
Soviets,"' it concluded, 'had actually been transformed into
the slogan "All power to the few Bolsheviks" . . . The Soviets
decay, become enervated, and from day to day lose more of
their prestige in the ranks of democracy.' The initial heroic
stage -- the stage of mass involvement and unsullied dreams
-- was already over." [Neil Harding, _Leninism_, p. 253]

So where does this leave Rees' assertion that the Bolsheviks
aimed to put power into the hands of working class organisations?
Clearly, Rees' summary of both Trotsky's essay and the "essence" 
of Bolshevism leave a lot to be desired. As can be seen, the 
"essence" of Trotsky's essay and of Bolshevism is the importance 
of party power, not workers' power (as recognised by other 
members of the SWP: "The masses needed to be profoundly 
convinced that there was no alternative to Bolshevik power."
[Tony Cliff, _Lenin_, vol. 2, p. 265]). Trotsky even provides 
us with an analogy which effectively and simply refutes Rees'
claims. "Just as the blacksmith cannot seize the red hot
iron in his naked hand," Trotsky asserts, "so the proletariat
cannot directly seize power; it has to have an organisation
accommodated to this task." While paying lip service to 
the soviets as the organisation "by means of which the 
proletariat can both overthrow the old power and replace
it," he adds that "the soviets by themselves do not settle
the question" as they may "serve different goals according
to the programme and leadership. The soviets receive their
programme from the party . . . the revolutionary party 
represents the brain of the class. The problem of 
conquering the power can be solved only by a definite
combination of party with soviets." [_The History of the 
Russian Revolution_, vol. 3, pp. 160-1 and p. 163] 

Thus the key organisation was the party, *not* the mass 
organisations of the working class. Indeed, as we discussed 
in section H.3.8, Trotsky was quite explicit that such 
organisations could only become the state form of the 
proletariat under the party dictatorship. Significantly, 
Trotsky fails to indicate what would happen when these two 
powers clash. Certainly Trotsky's role in the Russian 
revolution tells us that the power of the party was more 
important to him than democratic control by workers through 
mass bodies (see section H.6 and section H.7 on the Kronstadt
revolt). Indeed, as we have shown in section H.3.8, Trotsky 
explicitly argued that a state was required to overcome the 
"wavering" in the working class which could be expressed by 
democratic decision making.

Given this legacy of viewing workers' organisations in 
purely instrumental terms, the opinion of Martov (the
leading left-Menshevik during the Russian Revolution)
seems appropriate. He argued that "[a]t the moment when 
the revolutionary masses expressed their emancipation from 
the centuries old yoke of the old State by forming 
'autonomous republics of Kronstadt' and trying Anarchist 
experiments such as 'workers' control,' etc. -- at that 
moment, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat and the poorest 
peasantry' (said to be incarnated in the real dictatorship of 
the opposed 'true' interpreters of the proletariat and the 
poorest peasantry: the chosen of Bolshevist Communism) could 
only consolidate itself by first dressing itself in such 
Anarchist and anti-State ideology." [_The State and Socialist 
Revolution_, p. 47] As can be seen, Martov has a point. As the 
text used as evidence that the Bolsheviks aimed to give power 
to workers organisations shows, this was *not* an aim of the 
Bolshevik party. Rather, such workers organs were seen purely 
as a means to the end of party power. 

It is for this reason that anarchists argue for direct
working class self-management of society. When we argue
that working class organisations must be the framework of
a free society they mean it. We do not equate party 
power with working class power or think that "All power
to the Soviets" is possible if they immediately delegate
that power to the leaders of the party. This is for
obvious reasons:

"If the revolutionary means are out of their hands,
if they are in the hands of a techno-bureaucratic elite,
then such an elite will be in a position to direct to
their own benefit not only the course of the revolution,
but the future society as well. If the proletariat are
to *ensure* that an elite will not control the future
society, they must prevent them from controlling the
course of the revolution." [Alan Carter, _Marx: A
Radical Critique_, p. 165]

Thus the slogan "All power to the Soviets" for anarchists
means exactly that -- organs for the working class to run 
society directly, based on mandated, recallable delegates. 
As such, this slogan fitted perfectly with our ideas, as 
anarchists had been arguing since the 1860's that such 
workers' councils were both a weapon of class struggle 
against capitalism and the framework of the future 
libertarian society. For the Bolshevik tradition, that 
slogan simply means that a Bolshevik government will be 
formed over and above the soviets. The difference is important, 
"for the Anarchists declared, if 'power' really should belong 
to the soviets, it could not belong to the Bolshevik party, 
and if it should belong to that Party, as the Bolsheviks 
envisaged, it could not belong to the soviets." [Voline,
_The Unknown Revolution_, p. 213] Reducing the soviets to 
simply executing the decrees of the central (Bolshevik) 
government and having their All-Russian Congress be able 
to recall the government (i.e. those with *real* power) 
does not equal "all power," quite the reverse -- the 
soviets will simply be a fig-leaf for party power.

In summary, rather than aim to place power into the hands of 
workers' organisations, most Marxists do not. Their aim is to
place power into the hands of the party. Workers' organisations
are simply means to this end and, as the Bolshevik regime showed,
if they clash with that goal, they will be simply be disbanded.
However, we must stress that not all Marxist tendencies subscribe 
to this. The council communists, for example, broke with the
Bolsheviks precisely over this issue, the difference between
party and class power.

H.3.12 Is big business the precondition for socialism?

A key idea in most forms of Marxism is that the evolution
of capitalism itself will create the preconditions for
socialism. This is because capitalism tends to result in
big business and, correspondingly, increased numbers of
workers subject to the "socialised" production process
within the workplace. The conflict between the socialised
means of production and their private ownership is at the
heart of the Marxist case for socialism. Engels writes:

"Then came the concentration of the means of production
and of the producers in large workshops and manufacturies,
their transformation into actual socialised means of
production and socialised producers. But the socialised
producers and means of production and their products 
were still treated, after this change, just as they
had been before . . . the owner of the instruments of
labour . . . appropriated to himself . . . exclusively
the product of the *labour of others.* Thus, the product
now produced socially were not appropriated by those who
actually set in motion the means of production and 
actually produced the commodities, but by the 
*capitalists.* . . . The mode of production is subjected
to this [individual or private] form of appropriation,
although it abolishes the conditions upon which the 
latter rests.

"This contradiction, which gives to the new mode of 
production its capitalistic character, *contains the
germ of the whole of the social antagonisms of today.*"
[_Marx-Engels Reader_, p. 704]

It is the economic crises of capitalism which show this
contradiction between socialised production and capitalist
appropriation the best. Indeed, the "fact that the 
socialised organisation of production within the factory
has developed so far that it has become incompatible
with the anarchy of production in society, which exists
side by side with and dominates it, is brought home to
the capitalists themselves by the violent concentration
of capital that occurs during crises." The pressures of
socialised production results in capitalists merging 
their properties "in a particular branch of industry
in a particular country" into "a trust, a union for 
the purpose of regulating production." In this way,
"the production of capitalistic society capitulates 
to the production upon a definite plan of the invading
socialistic society." This "transformation" can take 
the form of "joint-stock companies and trusts, or
into state ownership." Even state ownership does not
change the "capitalist relation" although this does
have "concealed within it" the "technical conditions 
that form the elements of that solution." This "shows
itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. *The
proletariat seizes political power and turns the means
of production into state property.*" [Op. Cit., p. 709, 
p. 710, p. 711, p. 712 and p. 713]

Thus the centralisation and concentration of production 
into bigger and bigger units, into big business, is seen 
as the evidence of the need for socialism. It provides
the objective grounding for socialism, and, in fact, this 
analysis is what makes Marxism "scientific socialism."
This process explains how human society develops through
time:

"In the social production of their life, men enter into
definite relations that are indispensable and independent
of their will, relations of production which correspond
to a definite stage of development of their material 
productive forces. The sum total of these relations of
production constitutes the economic structure of society,
the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political
superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of
social consciousness. . . At a certain stage of their
development, the material productive forces come in 
conflict with the existing relations of production or
-- what is but a legal expression for the same thing
-- with the property relations within which they have
been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the
productive forces these relations turn into their 
fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution.
With the change of the economic foundation the entire 
immense superstructure is more or less rapidly 
transformed." [Marx, Op. Cit., pp. 4-5]

The obvious conclusion to be drawn from this is that 
socialism will come about due to tendencies inherent 
within the development of capitalism. The "socialisation"
of labour implied by collective labour within a firm
grows steadily as capitalist companies grow larger and
larger. The objective need for socialism is therefore 
created and so, for most Marxists, "big is beautiful."
Indeed, some Leninists have invented terminology to 
describe these aspects of the "invading socialistic 
society" associated with the rise of big business. They
contrast the "law of planning" associated with the
conscious planning of economic activity on a wider and
wider scale by large companies to the "law of value" 
which operates in the market. In other words, that the 
increased size of capital means that more and more of 
the economy is subject to the despotism of the owners 
and managers of capital and so the "anarchy" of the 
market is slowly replaced with the conscious planning 
of resources. Marxists sometimes call this the "objective 
socialisation of labour" (to use Mandel's term).

Therefore, there is a tendency for Marxists to see the 
increased size and power of big business as providing 
objective evidence for socialism, which will bring these
socialistic tendencies within capitalism to full light
and full development. Needless to say, most will argue 
that socialism, while developing planning fully, will 
replace the autocratic and hierarchical planning of big 
business with democratic, society-wide planning. 

This position, for anarchists, has certain problems 
associated with it. One key drawback, as we discuss in 
the next section, is it focuses attention away from the 
internal organisation within the workplace and industry 
onto ownership and links between economic units. It ends 
up confusing capitalism with the market relations between 
firms rather than identifying it with its essence, the 
labour market and the wage slavery this generates. This
meant that many Marxists considered that the basis of a
socialist economy was guaranteed once property was 
nationalised. The anarchist critique that this simply
replaced a multitude of bosses with one, the state,
was (and is) ignored.

The other key problem is that such a perspective tends to 
dismiss as irrelevant the way production is managed. Rather
than seeing socialism as being dependent on workers'
management of production, this position ends up seeing
socialism as being dependent on organisational links 
between workplaces, as exemplified by big business under
capitalism. Thus the "relations of production" which 
matter are *not* those associated with wage labour but
rather those associated with the market. This can be seen
from the famous comment in _The Manifesto of the Communist
Party_. The bourgeoisie, it argues "cannot exist without 
constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, 
and thereby the relations of production, and with them 
the whole relations of society." [_Marx-Engels Reader_,
p. 476] But the one relation of production it *cannot*
revolutionise is the one generated by the wage labour 
at the heart of capitalism, the hierarchical relations
at the point of production. As such, it is clear that
by "relations of production" Marx and Engels meant 
something else than wage slavery, the internal 
organisation of what they term "socialised production."

Capitalism is, in general, as dynamic as Marx and Engels 
stressed. It transforms the means of production, the 
structure of industry and the links between workplaces 
constantly. Yet it only modifies the form of the 
organisation of labour, not its content. No matter how 
it transforms machinery and the internal structure of 
companies, the workers are still wage slaves. At best, 
it simply transforms much of the hierarchy which governs 
the workforce into hired managers. This does not transform 
the fundamental social relationship of capitalism, however. 
Thus the "relations of production" which prefigure socialism 
is, precisely, those associated with the "socialisation of 
the labour process" which occurs *within* capitalism and 
are no way antagonistic to it. 

This is confirmed when Marx, in his polemic against 
Proudhon, argues that social relations "are closely 
bound up with productive forces. In acquiring new 
productive forces men change their mode of production; 
and in changing their mode of production, in changing 
the way of earning their living, they change their 
social relations. The hand-mill gives you society
with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the
industrial capitalist." [_Collected Works_, vol. 6, 
p. 166] On the face of it, this had better *not* be 
true. After all, the aim of socialism is to expropriate 
the property of the industrial capitalist. If the social 
relationships *are* dependent on the productive forces 
then, clearly, socialism is impossible as it will have 
to be based, initially, on the legacy of capitalism. 
Fortunately, the way a workplace is managed is not 
predetermined by the technological base of society. As 
is obvious, a steam-mill can be operated by a co-operative, 
so making the industrial capitalist redundant. The claim 
that a given technological-level implies a specific social 
structure is, therefore, wrong. However, it does suggest
that our comments that, for Marx and Engels, the new "social 
relationships" which develop under capitalism which imply 
socialism are relations between workplaces, *not* those 
between individuals and classes are correct. The 
implications of this position because clear during the 
Russian revolution.

Later Marxists built upon this "scientific" groundwork. Lenin,
for example, argued that "the difference between a socialist 
revolution and a bourgeois revolution is that in the latter 
case there are ready made forms of capitalist relationships; 
Soviet power [in Russia] does not inherit such ready made 
relationships, if we leave out of account the most developed 
forms of capitalism, which, strictly speaking, extended to a 
small top layer of industry and hardly touched agriculture."
[_Collected Works_, vol. 27, p. 90] Thus, for Lenin, "socialist" 
relationships are generated within big business, relationships 
"socialism" would "inherit" and universalise. As such, his
comments fit in with the analysis of Marx and Engels we have
presented above. However, his comments also reveal that Lenin 
had no idea that socialism meant the transformation of the 
relations of production, i.e. workers managing their own 
activity. This, undoubtedly, explains the systematic 
undermining of the factory committee movement by the
Bolsheviks in favour of state control we discuss in 
section H.6.10.

The idea that socialism involved simply taking over the state 
and nationalising the "objectively socialised" means of
production can be seen in both mainstream social-democracy
and its Leninist child. Hilferding, for example, wrote 
_Finance Capital_ which argued that capitalism was evolving 
into a highly centralised economy, run by big banks and big 
firms. All what was required to turn this into socialism 
would be its nationalisation:

"Once finance capital has brought the most important branches of
production under its control, it is enough for society, through 
its conscious executive organ -- the state conquered by the working 
class -- to seize finance capital in order to gain immediate control 
of these branches of production. . . taking possession of six large 
Berlin banks would . . . greatly facilitate the initial phases of 
socialist policy during the transition period, when capitalist 
accounting might still prove useful." [pp. 367-8] 

Lenin basically disagreed with this only in-so-far as the party 
of the proletariat would take power via revolution rather than 
by election ("the state conquered by the working class" equals 
the election of a socialist party). Lenin took it for granted 
that the difference between Marxists and anarchists is that 
"the former stand for centralised, large-scale communist 
production, while the latter stand for disconnected small 
production." The obvious implication of this is that anarchist 
views "express, not the future of bourgeois society, which is 
striving with irresistible force towards the socialisation of 
labour, but the present and even the past of that society, the 
domination of blind chance over the scattered and isolated 
small producer." [Marx, Engels and Lenin, _Anarchism and 
Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 261 and p. 205]

As we discuss in more detail in section H.6, Lenin applied
this perspective during the Russian Revolution. For example,
he argued in 1917 that his immediate aim was for a "state 
capitalist" economy, this being a necessary stage to 
socialism. As he put it, "socialism is merely the next step 
forward from state-capitalist monopoly . . . socialism is 
merely state-capitalist monopoly *which is made to serve the 
interests of the whole people* and has to that extent 
*ceased* to be capitalist monopoly." [_Selected Works_, 
vol. 2, p. 211]

The Bolshevik road to "socialism" ran through the terrain 
of state capitalism and, in fact, simply built upon its 
institutionalised means of allocating recourses and 
structuring industry. As Lenin put it, "the modern state 
possesses an apparatus which has extremely close connections 
with the banks and syndicates, an apparatus which performs an 
enormous amount of accounting and registration work . . . This 
apparatus must not, and should not, be smashed. It must be 
wrestled from the control of the capitalists," it "must be 
subordinated to the proletarian Soviets" and "it must be 
expanded, made more comprehensive, and nation-wide." This 
meant that the Bolsheviks would "not invent the organisational 
form of work, but take it ready-made from capitalism" and 
"borrow the best models furnished by the advanced countries." 
[Op. Cit., p. 365 and p. 369]

The institutional framework of capitalism would be utilised 
as the principal (almost exclusive) instruments of "socialist" 
transformation. "*Without big banks Socialism would be 
impossible,*" argued Lenin, as they "are the 'state apparatus' 
which we need to bring about socialism, and which we *take 
ready-made* from capitalism; our task here is merely to 
*lop off* what capitalistically mutilates this excellent 
apparatus, to make it *even bigger,* even more democratic, 
even more comprehensive. A single State Bank, the biggest 
of the big . . . will constitute as much as nine-tenths of 
the *socialist* apparatus. This will be country-wide 
book-keeping, country-wide accounting of the production 
and distribution of goods." While this is "not fully a 
state apparatus under capitalism," it "will be so with us, 
under socialism." For Lenin, building socialism was easy. 
This "nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus" would be 
created "at one stroke, by a single decree." [Op. Cit., 
p. 365] 

Once in power, the Bolsheviks implemented this vision of 
socialism being built upon the institutions created by 
monopoly capitalism. Moreover, Lenin quickly started to 
advocate and implement the most sophisticated capitalist 
methods of organising labour, including "one-man management" 
of production, piece-rates and Taylorism ("scientific 
management"). This was not done accidentally or because 
no alternative existed (as we discuss in section H.6). 
As Gustav Landuer commented, when mainstream Marxists 
"call the capitalist factory system a social production 
. . . we know the real implications of their socialist 
forms of labour." [_For Socialism_, p. 70] As can be 
seen, this glorification of large-scale, state-capitalist 
structures can be traced back to Marx and Engels, while 
Lenin's support for capitalist production techniques can
be explained by mainstream Marxism's lack of focus on the 
social relationships at the point of production. 

For anarchists, the idea that socialism can be built on the
framework provided to us by capitalism is simply ridiculous.
Capitalism has developed industry and technology to further the
ends of those with power, namely capitalists and managers. Why
should they use that power to develop technology and industrial
structures which leads to workers' self-management and power 
rather than technologies and structures which enhance their own 
position vis--vis their workers and society as a whole? As 
such, technological and industrial development is not "neutral" 
or just the "application of science." They are shaped by class
struggle and class interest and cannot be used for different
ends. Simply put, socialism will need to develop *new* forms
of economic organisation based on socialist principles. As
such, the concept that monopoly capitalism paves the way 
for socialist society is rooted in the false assumption that
the forms of social organisation accompanying capital 
concentration are identical with the socialisation of 
production, that the structures associated with collective 
labour under capitalism are the same as those required under
socialism is achieve *genuine* socialisation. This false 
assumption, as can be seen, goes back to Engels and was
shared by both Social-Democracy and Leninism despite their
other differences.

While anarchists are inspired by a vision of a non-capitalist, 
decentralised, diverse society based on appropriate technology 
and appropriate scale, mainstream Marxism is not. Rather, it 
sees the problem with capitalism is that its institutions are 
not centralised and big enough. As Alexander Berkman correctly 
argues: 

"The role of industrial decentralisation in the revolution 
is unfortunately too little appreciated. . . Most people 
are still in the thraldom of the Marxian dogma that 
centralisation is 'more efficient and economical.' They 
close their eyes to the fact that the alleged 'economy' is 
achieved at the cost of the workers' limb and life, that 
the 'efficiency' degrades him to a mere industrial cog, 
deadens his soul, kills his body. Furthermore, in a system 
of centralisation the administration of industry becomes 
constantly merged in fewer hands, producing a powerful 
bureaucracy of industrial overlords. It would indeed be 
the sheerest irony if the revolution were to aim at such 
a result. It would mean the creation of a new master class." 
[_The ABC of Anarchism_, pp. 80-1]

That mainstream Marxism is soaked in capitalist ideology 
can be seen from Lenin's comments that when "the separate 
establishments are amalgamated into a single syndicate, 
this economy [of production] can attain tremendous 
proportions, as economic science teaches us." [Op. Cit., 
p. 200] Yes, *capitalist* economic science, based on 
*capitalist* definitions of efficiency and economy and
on *capitalist* criteria! That Bolshevism bases itself 
on centralised, large scale industry because it is more 
"efficient" and "economic" suggests nothing less than 
that its "socialism" will be based on the same priorities 
of capitalism. This can be seen from Lenin's idea that 
Russia had to learn from the advanced capitalist countries, 
that there was only one way to develop production and that 
was by adopting capitalist methods of "rationalisation" 
and management. In the words of Luigi Fabbri:

"Marxist communists, especially Russian ones, are beguiled by
the distant mirage of big industry in the West or America and
mistake for a system of production what is only a typically
capitalist means of speculation, a means of exercising 
oppression all the more securely; and they do not appreciate
that that sort of centralisation, far from fulfilling the 
real needs of production, is, on the contrary, precisely
what restricts it, obstructs it and applies a brake to it
in the interests of capital.

"Whenever [they] talk about 'necessity of production' they
make no distinction between those necessities upon which 
hinge the procurement of a greater quantity and higher 
quality of products -- this being all that matters from 
the social and communist point of view -- and the necessities
inherent in the bourgeois regime, the capitalists' necessity
to make more profit even should it mean producing less to
do so. If capitalism tends to centralise its operations, 
it does so not for the sake of production, but only for
the sake of making and accumulating more money." ["Anarchy 
and 'Scientific' Communism", in _The Poverty of Statism_, 
pp. 13-49, Albert Meltzer (ed.), pp. 21-22]

Efficiency, in other words, does not exist independently of 
a given society or economy. What is considered "efficient" 
under capitalism may be the worse form of inefficiency in a
free society. The idea that socialism may have *different* 
priorities, need *different* methods of organising production, 
have *different* visions of how an economy was structured than 
capitalism, is absent in mainstream Marxism. Lenin thought that 
the institutions of bourgeois economic power, industrial 
structure and capitalist technology and techniques could be 
"captured" and used for other ends. Ultimately, though, 
capitalist means and organisations can only generate capitalist 
ends. It is significant that the "one-man management," 
piece-work, Taylorism, etc. advocated and implemented under 
Lenin are usually listed by his followers as evils of Stalinism 
and as proof of its anti-socialist nature. 

Equally, it can be argued that part of the reason why large 
capitalist firms can "plan" production on a large scale is 
because they reduce the decision making criteria to a few 
variables, the most significant being profit and loss. That
such simplification of input data may result in decisions 
which harm people and the environment goes without a saying. 
"The lack of context and particularity," James C. Scott
correctly notes, "is not an oversight; it is the necessary 
first premise of any large-scale planning exercise. To the
degree that the subjects can be treated as standardised 
units, the power of resolution in the planning exercise is
enhanced. Questions posed within these strict confines can
have definitive, quantitative answers. The same logic applies
to the transformation of the natural world. Questions about 
the volume of commercial wood or the yield of wheat in 
bushels permit more precise calculations than questions 
about, say, the quality of the soil, the versatility and
taste of the grain, or the well-being of the community. The 
discipline of economics achieves its formidable resolving
power by transforming what might otherwise be considered
qualitative matters into quantitative issues with a single
metric and, as it were, a bottom line: profit or loss."
[_Seeing like a State_, p. 346] Whether a socialist society 
could factor in all the important inputs which capitalism
ignores within an even more centralised planning structure 
is an important question. This does not mean that anarchists 
argue for "small-scale" production as many Marxists, like
Lenin, assert (as we prove in section I.3.8, anarchists 
have always argued for *appropriate* levels of production 
and scale). It is simply to raise the possibility of what
works under capitalism make be undesirable from a perspective
which values people and planet instead of power and profit. 

As should be obvious, anarchism is based on critical evaluation 
of technology and industrial structure, rejecting the whole 
capitalist notion of "progress" which has always been part of 
justifying the inhumanities of the status quo. Just because 
something is rewarded by capitalism it does not mean that it makes 
sense from a human or ecological perspective. This informs our 
vision of a free society and the current struggle. We have long 
argued that that capitalist methods cannot be used for socialist 
ends. In our battle to democratise and socialise the workplace, 
in our awareness of the importance of collective initiatives by 
the direct producers in transforming their work situation, we 
show that factories are not merely sites of production, but 
also of reproduction -- the reproduction of a certain structure 
of social relations based on the division between those who give 
orders and those who take them, between those who direct and 
those who execute.

It goes without saying that anarchists recognise that a social 
revolution will have to start with the industry and technology 
which is left to it by capitalism and that this will have to be 
expropriated by the working class (this expropriation will, of
course, involve transforming it and, in all likelihood, rejecting
of numerous technologies, techniques and practices considered
as "efficient" under capitalism). This is *not* the issue. The 
issue is who expropriates it and what happens to it next. For 
anarchists, the means of life are expropriated directly by
society, for most Marxists they are expropriated by the state. 
For anarchists, such expropriation is based workers' 
self-management and so the fundamental capitalist "relation 
of production" (wage labour) is abolished. For most Marxists, 
state ownership of production is considered sufficient to ensure 
the end of capitalism (with, if we are lucky, some form of 
"workers' control" over those state officials who do management 
production -- see section H.3.14).

In contrast to the mainstream Marxist vision of socialism 
being based around the institutions inherited from capitalism, 
anarchists have raised the idea that the "free commune" would 
be the "medium in which the ideas of modern Socialism may 
come to realisation." These "communes would federate" into 
wider groupings. Labour unions (or other working class organs
created in the class struggle such as factory committees)
were "not only an instrument for the improvement of the 
conditions of labour, but also of becoming an organisation 
which might . . . take into its hands the management of 
production." Large labour associations would "come into 
existence for the inter-communal service[s]." Such communes 
and workers' organisations as the basis of "Socialist forms 
of life could find a much easier realisation" than the 
"seizure of all industrial property by the State, and 
the State organisation of agriculture and industry." Thus 
railway network "could be much better handled by a Federated 
Union of railway employees, than by a State organisation." 
Combined with co-operation "both for production and for 
distribution, both in industry and agriculture," workers' 
self-management of production would create "samples of 
the bricks" of the future society ("even samples of some 
of its rooms"). [Kropotkin, _The Conquest of Bread_, 
pp. 21-23]

This means that anarchists also root our arguments for
socialism in a scientific analysis of tendencies within
capitalism. However, in opposition to the analysis of
mainstream Marxism which focuses on the objective tendencies
within capitalist development, anarchists emphasis the 
*oppositional* nature of socialism to capitalism. Both 
the "law of value" and the "law of planning" are tendencies
*within* capitalism, that is aspects of capitalism. Anarchists 
encourage class struggle, the direct conflict of working class 
people against the workings of all capitalism's "laws". This 
struggle produces *mutual aid* and the awareness that we can 
care best for our own welfare if we *unite* with others -- what
we can loosely term the "law of co-operation". This law, in 
contrast to the Marxian "law of planning" is based on working 
class subjectively and develops within society only in 
*opposition* to capitalism. As such, it provides the necessary 
understanding of where socialism will come from, from *below*, 
in the spontaneous self-activity of the oppressed fighting 
for their freedom.

This means that the basic structures of socialism will be 
the organs created by working class people in their struggles 
against exploitation and oppress (see sections H.1.4 and I.2.3
for more details). Gustav Landauer's basic insight is correct 
(if his means were not totally so) when he wrote that "Socialism 
will not grow out of capitalism but away from it" [Op. Cit., 
p. 140] In other words, tendencies *opposed* to capitalism 
rather than ones which are part and parcel of it.

Anarchism's recognition of the importance of these tendencies 
towards mutual aid within capitalism is a key to understanding 
what anarchists do in the here and now, as will be discussed
in section J. In addition, it also laid the foundation of 
understanding the nature of an anarchist society and what 
creates the framework of such a society in the here and now. 
Anarchists do not abstractly place a better society (anarchy) 
against the current, oppressive one. Instead, we analysis what 
tendencies exist within current society and encourage those 
which empower and liberate people. Based on these tendencies, 
anarchists propose a society which develops them to their 
logical conclusion. Therefore an anarchist society is created
not through the developments within capitalism, but in social 
activity against it. Section I indicates what such a society 
would be like and where its framework comes from.
 
H.3.13 Why is state socialism just state capitalism?

For anarchists, the idea that socialism can be achieved
via state ownership is simply ridiculous. For reasons
which will become abundantly clear, anarchists argue 
that any such "socialist" system would simply be a
form of "state capitalism." Such a regime would not 
fundamentally change the position of the working class,
whose members would simply be wage slaves to the state
bureaucracy rather than to the capitalist class. 

However, before beginning our discussion of why anarchists 
think this we need to clarify our terminology. This is 
because the expression "state capitalism" has three distinct, 
if related, meanings in socialist (particularly Marxist) 
thought. Firstly, "state capitalism" was/is used to describe 
the current system of big business subject to extensive state 
control (particularly if, as in war, the capitalist state 
accrues *extensive* powers over industry). Secondly, it was 
used by Lenin to describe his immediate aims after the October 
Revolution, namely a regime in which the capitalists would
remain but would be subject to a system of state control
inherited by the new "proletarian" state from the old 
capitalist one (see section H.6 for details). The third 
use of the term is to signify a regime in which the state 
*replaces* the capitalist class *totally* via nationalisation 
of the means of production. In such a regime, the state would 
own, manage and accumulate capital rather than individual 
capitalists.

Anarchists are opposed to all three systems described by
the term "state capitalism." Here we concentrate on the 
third definition, arguing that state socialism would be
better described as "state capitalism" as state ownership
of the means of life does not get to the heart of capitalism,
namely wage labour. Rather it simply replaces private bosses
with the state and changes the form of property (from private
to state property) rather than getting rid of it.

The idea that socialism simply equals state ownership 
(nationalisation) is easy to find in the works 
of Marxism. The _Communist Manifesto_, for example,
states that the "proletariat will use its political
supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the
bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production
into the hands of the State." This meant the 
"[c]entralisation of credit in the hands of the State,
by means of a national bank with State capital and an
exclusive monopoly," plus the "[c]entralisation of the
means of communication and transport in the hands of
the State," "[e]xtension of factories and instruments
of production owned by the State" and the "[e]stablishment
of industrial armies, especially for agriculture." 
[_Marx-Engels Selected Works_, pp. 52-3]

Engels repeats this formula thirty-two years later in 
_Socialism: Utopian and Scientific_ by asserting that 
capitalism itself "forces on more and more the 
transformation of the vast means of production, already 
socialised, into state property. *The proletariat seizes 
political power and turns the means of production into 
state property.*" Socialism is *not* equated with state 
ownership of productive forces by a capitalist state, 
"but concealed within it are the technical conditions 
that form the elements of that solution" to the social 
problem. It simply "shows itself the way to accomplishing 
this revolution. *The proletariat seizes political power 
and turns the means of production into state property.*" 
Thus state ownership *after* the proletariat seizes power 
is the basis of socialism, when by this "first act" of 
the revolution the state "really constitutes itself as the 
representative of the whole of society." [_Marx-Engels 
Reader_, p. 713, p. 712 and p. 713]

What is significant from these programmatic statements on 
the first steps of socialism is the total non-discussion 
of what is happening at the point of production, the 
non-discussion of the social relations in the workplace. 
Rather we are subjected to discussion of "the contradiction 
between socialised production and capitalist appropriation" 
and claims that while there is "socialised organisation 
of production within the factory," this has become 
"incompatible with the anarchy of production in society."
The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that "socialism" 
will inherit, without change, the "socialised" workplace
of capitalism and that the fundamental change is that 
of ownership: "The proletariat seized the public power, 
and by means of this transforms the socialised means of
production . . . into public property. By this act, the
proletariat frees the means of production from the
character of capital they have thus far borne." 
[Op. Cit., p. 709 and p. 717]

That the Marxist movement came to see state ownership 
rather than workers' management of production as the 
key issue is hardly surprising. Thus we find leading
Social-Democrats arguing that socialism basically meant
the state, under Social-Democratic control of course, 
acquiring the means of production and nationalising them.
Hilferding presented what was Marxist orthodoxy at the
time when he argued that in "a communist society" 
production "is consciously determined by the social 
central organ," which would decide "what is to be 
produced and how much, where and by whom." While this
information is determined by the market forces under
capitalism, in socialism it "is given to the members 
of the socialist society by their authorities . . . we 
must derive the undisturbed progress of the socialist 
economy from the laws, ordinances and regulations of 
socialist authorities." [quoted by Nikolai Bukharin, 
_Economy Theory of the Leisure Class_, p. 157] As we 
discuss in section H.6, the Bolsheviks inherited
this concept of "socialism" and implemented it.

This vision of society in which the lives of the 
population are controlled by "authorities" in a
"social central organ" which tell the workers what 
to do, while in line with the _Communist Manifesto_, 
seems less that appealing. It also shows why state
socialism is not socialism at all. Thus George Barrett:

"If instead of the present capitalist class there were 
a set of officials appointed by the Government and set
in a position to control our factories, it would bring
about no revolutionary change. The officials would have
to be paid, and we may depend that, in their privileged
positions, they would expect good remuneration. The 
politicians would have to be paid, and we already know
their tastes. You would, in fact, have a non-productive
class dictating to the producers the conditions upon 
which they were allowed to use the means of production.
As this is exactly what is wrong with the present system
of society, we can see that State control would be no
remedy, while it would bring with it a host of new
troubles . . . under a governmental system of society, 
whether it is the capitalism of today or a more a
perfected Government control of the Socialist State,
the essential relationship between the governed and
the governing, the worker and the controller, will be
the same; and this relationship so long as it lasts can
be maintained only by the bloody brutality of the 
policeman's bludgeon and the soldier's rifle." [_The 
Anarchist Revolution_, pp. 8-9]

The key to seeing why state socialism is simply state
capitalism can be found in the lack of change in the
social relationships at the point of production. The
workers are still wage slaves, employed by the state 
and subject to its orders. As Lenin stressed in _State
and Revolution_, under Marxist Socialism "[a]ll citizens 
are transformed into hired employees of the state . . . 
All citizens become employees and workers of a single 
country-wide state 'syndicate' . . . The whole of society 
will have become a single office and a single factory, 
with equality of labour and pay." [Lenin, _Selected Works_, 
vol. 2, p. 312] Given that Engels had argued, against 
anarchism, that a factory required subordination, authority, 
lack of freedom and "a veritable despotism independent of 
all social organisation," Lenin's idea of turning the world 
into one big factory takes on an extremely frightening 
nature. [_Marx-Engels Reader_, p. 731] A reality which one 
anarchist described in 1923 as being the case in Lenin's 
Russia:

"The nationalisation of industry, removing the workers 
from the hands of individual capitalists, delivered them 
to the yet more rapacious hands of a single, ever-present 
capitalist boss, the State. The relations between the 
workers and this new boss are the same as earlier 
relations between labour and capital, with the sole 
difference that the Communist boss, the State, not only 
exploits the workers, but also punishes them himself . . . 
Wage labour has remained what it was before, except that 
it has taken on the character of an obligation to the 
State . . . It is clear that in all this we are dealing 
with a simple substitution of State capitalism for private 
capitalism." [Peter Arshinov, _History of the Makhnovist 
Movement_, p. 71]

All of which makes Bakunin's comments seem justified (as
well as stunningly accurate):

"*Labour financed by the State* -- such is the fundamental
principle of *authoritarian Communism,* of State Socialism.
The State, *having become the sole proprietor* . . . will
have become sole capitalist, banker, money-lender, organiser,
director of all national work, and the distributor of its
profits." [_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 293]

Such a system, based on those countries "where modern 
capitalist development has reached its highest point of
development" would see "the gradual or violent expropriation
of the present landlords and capitalists, or of the
appropriation of all land and capital by the State. In
order to be able to carry out its great economic and 
social mission, this State will have to be very far-reaching,
very powerful and highly centralised. It will administer
and supervise agriculture by means of its appointed 
mangers, who will command armies of rural workers 
organised and disciplined for that purpose. At the 
same time, it will set up a single bank on the ruins
of all existing banks." Such a system, Bakunin correctly
predicted, would be "a barracks regime for the proletariat,
in which a standardised mass of men and women workers would
wake, sleep, work and live by rote; a regime of privilege
for the able and the clever." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected
Writings_, p. 258 and p. 259] 

Proudhon, likewise was well aware that state ownership did 
not mean the end of private property, rather it meant a
change in who ordered the working class about. "We do
not want," he stated, "to see the State confiscate the
mines, canals and railways; that would be to add to 
monarchy, and more wage slavery. We want the mines, 
canals, railways handed over to democratically organised
workers' associations" which would be the start of a
"vast federation of companies and societies woven into
the common cloth of the democratic social Republic."
He contrasted workers' associations run by and for 
their members to those "subsidised, commanded and 
directed by the State," which would crush "all liberty
and all wealth, precisely as the great limited companies
are doing." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 62 and 
p. 105]

Simply put, if workers did not directly manage their own
work then it matters little who formally owns the workplaces
in which they toil. As Maurice Brinton argues, libertarian
socialists "hold that the 'relations of production' -- the 
relations which individuals or groups enter into with one 
another in the process of producing wealth -- are the 
essential foundations of any society. A certain pattern 
of relations of production is the common denominator of 
all class societies. This pattern is one in which the 
producer does not dominate the means of production but 
on the contrary both is 'separated from them' and from 
the products of his [or her] own labour. In all class 
societies the producer is in a position of subordination 
to those who manage the productive process. Workers' 
management of production -- implying as it does the total 
domination of the producer over the productive process - 
is not for us a marginal matter. It is the core of our 
politics. It is the only means whereby authoritarian 
(order-giving, order-taking) relations in production can 
be transcended and a free, communist or anarchist, society 
introduced." He goes on to note that "the means of 
production may change hands (passing for instance from 
private hands into those of a bureaucracy, collectively 
owning them) with out this revolutionising the relations 
of production. Under such circumstances -- and whatever 
the formal status of property -- the society is still a 
class society for production is still managed by an agency 
other than the producers themselves. Property relations, 
in other words, do not necessarily reflect the relations 
of production. They may serve to mask them -- and in fact 
they often have." [_The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control_,
pp. vii-vii]

As such, for anarchists (and libertarian Marxists) the 
idea that state ownership of the means of life (the land, 
workplaces, factories, etc.) is the basis of socialism is 
simply wrong. Therefore, "Anarchism cannot look upon the 
coming revolution as a mere substitution . . . of the 
State as the universal capitalist for the present 
capitalists." [Kropotkin, _Evolution and Environment_, 
p. 106] Given that the "State organisation having always 
been . . . the instrument for establishing monopolies 
in favour of the ruling minorities, [it] cannot be made 
to work for the destruction of these monopolies. The 
anarchists consider, therefore, that to hand over to 
the State all the main sources of economic life -- the 
land, the mines, the railways, banking, insurance, and 
so on -- as also the management of all the main branches 
of industry . . . would mean to create a new instrument 
of tyranny. State capitalism would only increase the 
powers of bureaucracy and capitalism." [_Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 286] Needless to say, a
society which was not democratic in the workplace would
not remain democratic politically either. Either 
democracy would become as formal as it is within any 
capitalist republic or it would be replaced by dictatorship. 
So, without a firm base in the direct management of 
production, any "socialist" society would see working 
class social power ("political power") and liberty wither 
and die, just like a flower ripped out of the soil.

Unsurprisingly, given all this, we discover throughout 
history the co-existence of private and state property. 
Indeed, the nationalisation of key services and 
industries has been implemented under all kinds of 
capitalist governments and within all kinds of 
capitalist states (which proves the non-socialist 
nature of state ownership). Moreover, anarchists can 
point to specific events where the capitalist class 
has used nationalisation to undermine revolutionary 
gains by the working class. The best example by far 
is in the Spanish Revolution, when the Catalan 
government used nationalisation against the wave of 
spontaneous, anarchist inspired, collectivisation which 
had placed most of industry into the hand direct hands 
of the workers (see section I.8). The government, under 
the guise of legalising the gains of the workers, placed 
them under state ownership to stop their development, 
ensure hierarchical control and so class society. 

A similar process occurred during the Russian Revolution 
under the Bolsheviks. Significantly, "many managers, at 
least those who remained, appear to have preferred 
nationalisation (state control) to workers' control and 
co-operated with Bolshevik commissars to introduce it. 
Their motives are not too difficult to understand . . . 
The issue of who runs the plants -- who makes decisions -- 
is, and probably always will be, the crucial question for 
managers in any industrial relations system." [Jay B. 
Sorenson, _The Life and Death of Soviet Trade Unionism_, 
pp. 67-8] As we discuss in the next section, the managers 
and capitalists were not the only ones who disliked "workers' 
control," the Bolsheviks did so as well, who ensured that it 
was marginalised within a centralised system of state control 
based on nationalisation.

As such, anarchists think that a utterly false dichotomy has 
been built up in discussions of socialism, one which has served 
the interests of both capitalists and state bureaucrats. This 
dichotomy is simply that the economic choices available to 
humanity are "private" ownership of productive means 
(capitalism), or state ownership of productive means (usually 
defined as "socialism"). In this manner, capitalist nations 
used the Soviet Union, and continue to use autocracies like 
North Korea, China, and Cuba as examples of the evils of 
"public" ownership of productive assets.

Anarchists see little distinction between "private" ownership of 
the means of life and "state" ownership. This is because the 
state is a highly centralised structure specifically designed to
exclude mass participation and so, therefore, necessarily composed 
of a ruling administrative body. As such, the "public" cannot 
actually "own" the property the state claims to hold in its name. 
The ownership and thus control of the productive means is then 
in the hands of a ruling elite, the state administration (i.e. 
bureaucracy). Thus, the means of production and land of a state 
"socialist" regime are *not* publicly owned -- rather, they are 
owned by a bureaucratic elite, *in the name of the people*, a 
subtle but important distinction. 

In this fashion, decisions about the allocation and use of the 
productive assets is not made by the people themselves, but by 
the administration, by economic planners. Similarly, in "private" 
capitalist economies, economic decisions are made by a coterie 
of managers. In both cases the managers make decisions which
reflect their own interests and the interests of the owners 
(be it shareholders or the state bureaucracy) and *not* the 
workers involved or society as a whole. In both cases, economic 
decision-making is top-down in nature, made by an elite of 
administrators -- bureaucrats in the state socialist economy, 
capitalists or managers in the "private" capitalist economy. 
The much-lauded distinction of capitalism is that unlike the 
monolithic, centralised state socialist bureaucracy it has 
a *choice* of bosses (and choosing a master is not freedom).
And given the similarities in the relations of production 
between capitalism and state "socialism," the obvious 
inequalities in wealth in so-called "socialist" states 
are easily explained. The relations of production and the
relations of distribution are inter-linked and so inequality
in terms of power in production means inequality in control
of the social product, which will be reflected in inequality
in terms of wealth.

In other words, private property exists if some individuals 
(or groups) control/own things which are used by other people.
This means, unsurprising, that state ownership is just a form 
of property rather than the negation of it. If you have a 
highly centralised structure (as the state is) which plans 
and decides about all things within production, then this 
central administrative would be the real owner because it 
has the exclusive right to decide how things are used, *not* 
those using them. The existence of this central administrative 
strata excludes the abolition of property, replacing socialism
or communism with state owned "property," i.e. *state* 
capitalism. As such, state ownership does *not* end wage 
labour and, therefore, social inequalities in terms of wealth
and access to resources. Workers are still order-takers under 
state ownership (whose bureaucrats control the product of 
their labour and determine who gets what). The only difference 
between workers under private property and state property is 
the person telling them what to do. Simply put, the capitalist 
or company appointed manager is replaced by a state appointed 
one. 

As anarcho-syndicalist Tom Brown stresses, when "the many 
control the means whereby they live, they will do so by 
abolishing private ownership and establishing common 
ownership of the means of production, with workers' control 
of industry." However, this is "not to be confused with 
nationalisation and state control" as "ownership is, in 
theory, said to be vested in the people" but, in fact 
"control is in the hands of a small class of bureaucrats." 
Then "common ownership does not exist, but the labour market 
and wage labour go on, the worker remaining a wage slave to 
State capitalism." Simply put, common ownership "demands 
common control. This is possible only in a condition of 
industrial democracy by workers' control." [_Syndicalism_, 
p. 94] In summary:

"Nationalisation is not Socialisation, but State Capitalism 
. . . Socialisation . . . is not State ownership, but the 
common, social ownership of the means of production, and
social ownership implies control by the producers, not by
new bosses. It implies Workers' Control of Industry --
and that is Syndicalism." [Op. Cit., p. 111]

However, many Marxists (in particular Leninists) state they 
are in favour of both state ownership *and* "workers' control." 
As we discuss in more depth in next section, while they mean 
the same thing as anarchists do by the first term, they have 
a radically different meaning for the second (it is for this 
reason modern-day anarchists generally use the term "workers' 
self-management"). To anarchist ears, the combination of
nationalisation (state ownership) and "workers' control" 
(and even more so, self-management) simply expresses 
political confusion, a mishmash of contradictory ideas which
simply hides the reality that state ownership, by its very 
nature, precludes workers' control. As such, anarchists reject
such contradictory rhetoric in favour of "socialisation" and
"workers' self-management of production." History shows that
nationalisation will always undermine workers' control at the
point of production and such rhetoric always paves the way for 
state capitalism.

Therefore, anarchists are against both nationalisation
*and* privatisation, recognising both as forms of 
capitalism, of wage slavery. We believe in genuine public 
ownership of productive assets, rather than corporate/private 
or state/bureaucratic control. Only in this manner can the 
public address their own economic needs. Thus, we see a 
third way that is distinct from the popular "either/or" 
options forwarded by capitalists and state socialists, a 
way that is entirely more democratic. This is workers' 
self-management of production, based on social ownership 
of the means of life by federations of self-managed 
syndicates and communes. 

For further discussion, see Kropotkin's discussion of
"The collectivist Wages System" in _The Conquest of
Bread_ and selections from the British Anarchist Journal 
_Freedom_ about the wide-scale nationalisation which 
took place after the end of the Second World War entitled 
_Neither Nationalisation Nor Privatisation: An Anarchist 
Approach_.

H.3.14 Don't Marxists believe in workers' control?

As we discussed in the last section, anarchists consider
the usual association of state ownership with socialism to
be false. We argue that it is just another form of the wages
system, of capitalism, albeit with the state replacing the
capitalist. As such, state ownership, for anarchists, is
simply state capitalism. Instead we urge socialisation 
based on workers' self-management of production. Libertarian
Marxists concur.

Some mainstream Marxists, however, say they seek to combine 
state ownership with "workers' control." This can be seen 
from Trotsky, for example, who argued in 1938 for "workers' 
control . . . the penetration of the workers' eye into all 
open and concealed springs of capitalist economy . . . 
workers' control becomes a school for planned economy. On 
the basis of the experience of control, the proletariat will 
prepare itself for direct management of nationalised industry 
when the hour for that eventuality strikes." Modern day 
Leninists are often heard voicing support for what anarchists 
consider an oxymoron, namely "nationalisation under worker' 
control." This, it will be argued, proves that nationalisation 
(state control) is not "state capitalism" as we argued in the 
last section, rather "control is the first step along the road 
to the socialist guidance of economy." [_The Death Agony 
of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International_, 
p. 73 and p. 74]

Anarchists are not convinced. This is because of two reasons.
Firstly, because by "workers' control" anarchists and Leninists
mean two radically different things. Secondly, when in *power* 
Trotsky advocated radically different ideas. Based on these 
reasons, anarchists view Leninist calls for "workers' control" 
simply as a means of gaining popular support, calls which will 
be ignored once the real aim, party power, has been achieved: 
it is an example of Trotsky's comment that "[s]logans as well 
as organisational forms should be subordinated to the indices 
of the movement." [Op. Cit., p. 72] In other words, rather than 
express a commitment to the ideas of worker's control of 
production, mainstream Marxist use of the term "workers' control" 
is simply an opportunistic technique aiming at securing support 
for the party's seizure of power and once this is achieved it 
will be cast aside in favour of the first part of the demands, 
namely state ownership and so control. In making this claim 
anarchists feel they have more than enough evidence, evidence 
which many members of Leninist parties simply know nothing about.

We will look first at the question of terminology. Anarchists 
traditionally used the term "workers' control" to mean workers' 
full and direct control over their workplaces, and their work. 
However, after the Russian Revolution a certain ambiguity arose 
in using that term. This is because specific demands which were 
raised during that revolution were translated into English as 
"workers' control" when, in fact, the Russian meaning of the 
word (*kontrolia*) was far closer to "supervision" or "steering." 
Thus the term "workers' control" is used to describe two 
radically different concepts.

This can be seen from Trotsky when he argued that the workers 
should "demand resumption, as public utilities, of work in 
private businesses closed as a result of the crisis. Workers' 
control in such case would be replaced by direct workers' 
management." [Op. Cit., p. 73] Why workers' employed in 
open capitalist firms were not considered suitable for 
"direct workers' management" is not explained, but the fact
remains Trotsky clearly differentiated between management and
control. For him, "workers' control" meant "workers supervision"
over the capitalist who retained power. In other words, a 
system of "dual power" at the point of production (and, like
all forms of dual power, essentially and inevitably unstable).

This vision of "workers' control" as simply supervision of
the capitalist managers can be found in Lenin. Rather than 
seeing "workers' control" as workers managing production 
directly, he always saw it in terms of workers' "controlling" 
those who did. It simply meant "the country-wide, all-embracing, 
omnipresent, most precise and most conscientious *accounting* 
of the production and distribution of goods." He clarified
what he meant, arguing for "country-wide, all-embracing 
workers' control over the capitalists" who would still 
manage production. Significantly, he considered that "as
much as nine-tenths of the *socialist* apparatus" required
for this "country-wide *book-keeping,* country-wide *accounting*
of the production and distribution of goods" would be achieved
by nationalising the "big banks," which "*are* the 'state 
apparatus' which we *need* to bring about socialism" (indeed,
this was considered "something in the nature of the *skeleton*
of socialist society"). Over time, this system would move
towards full socialism. [_Selected Works_, vol. 2, pp. 364-5, 
p. 366 and p. 365]

Thus, what Leninists mean by "workers' control" is radically
different than what anarchists traditionally meant by that term
(indeed, it was radically different from the workers' definition,
as can be seen from a resolution of the Bolshevik dominated
First Trade Union Congress which complained that "the workers 
misunderstand and falsely interpret workers' control." [quoted 
by M. Brinton, _The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control_, p. 32]).
It is for this reason that from the 1960s English speaking  
anarchists and other libertarian socialists have been explicit 
and have used the term "workers' self-management" rather than 
"workers' control" to describe their aims. Mainstream Marxists,
however have continued to use the latter slogan, undoubtedly,
as we note in section H.3.5, to gain members from the confusion 
in meanings.

Secondly, there is the example of the Russian Revolution itself. 
Indeed, Trotsky is simply repeating the slogans used by the 
Bolsheviks in 1917. As historian S.A. Smith correctly summarises, 
the "factory committees launched the slogan of workers' control 
of production quite independently of the Bolshevik party. It 
was not until May that the party began to take it up." However, 
Lenin used "the term ['workers' control'] in a very different 
sense from that of the factory committees." In fact Lenin's 
"proposals . . . [were] thoroughly statist and centralist in 
character, whereas the practice of the factory committees was 
essentially local and autonomous." [_Red Petrograd_, p. 154] 

This is not all, this "workers' control" was always placed in 
a statist context and it would be exercised not by workers' 
organisations but rather by state capitalist institutions. In 
May 1917, Lenin was arguing for the "establishment of state 
control over all banks, and their amalgamation into a single 
central bank; also control over the insurance agencies and big 
capitalist syndicates." He reiterated this framework later that 
year, arguing that "the new means of control have been created 
not by us, but by capitalism in its military-imperialist stage" 
and so "the proletariat takes its weapons from capitalism and 
does not 'invent' or 'create them out of nothing.'" [Op. Cit.,
p. 112, p. 367 and p. 599] The factory committees were added
to this "state capitalist" system but they played only a very 
minor role in it. Indeed, this system of state control was 
designed to limit the power of the factory committees:

"One of the first decrees issues by the Bolshevik Government
was the Decree on Workers' Control of 27 November 1917. By
this decree workers' control was institutionalised . . . 
Workers' control implied the persistence of private ownership
of the means of production, though with a 'diminished' right
of disposal. The organs of workers' control, the factory 
committees, were not supposed to evolve into workers'
management organs after the nationalisation of the factories.
The hierarchical structure of factory work was not questioned
by Lenin . . . To the Bolshevik leadership the transfer of
power to the working class meant power to its leadership, 
i.e. to the party. Central control was the main goal of the
Bolshevik leadership. The hasty creation of the VSNKh (the
Supreme Council of the National Economy) on 1 December 1917,
with precise tasks in the economic field, was a significant 
indication of fact that decentralised management was not among
the projects of the party, and that the Bolsheviks intended to
counterpose central direction of the economy to the possible
evolution of workers' control toward self-management." 
[Silvana Malle, _The Economic Organisation of War Communism,
1918-1921_, p. 47]

Once in power, the Bolsheviks soon turned away from even 
this limited vision of workers' control and in favour of 
"one-man management." Lenin raised this idea in late April
1918 and it involved granting state appointed "individual 
executives dictatorial powers (or 'unlimited' powers)." 
Large-scale industry required "thousands subordinating 
their will to the will of one," and so the revolution 
"demands" that "the people unquestioningly obey the single 
will of the leaders of labour." Lenin's "superior forms of 
labour discipline" were simply hyper-developed capitalist 
forms. The role of workers in production was the same, but 
with a novel twist, namely "unquestioning obedience to the 
orders of individual representatives of the Soviet government 
during the work." This support for wage slavery was combined 
with support for capitalist management techniques. "We must 
raise the question of piece-work and apply and test it in 
practice," argued Lenin, "we must raise the question of 
applying much of what is scientific and progressive in the 
Taylor system; we must make wages correspond to the total 
amount of goods turned out." [Lenin, Op. Cit., p. 610, 
p. 611, p. 612 and pp. 602-3]

This vision had already been applied in practice, with the 
"first decree on the management of nationalised enterprises in
March 1918" which had "established two directors at the head of 
each enterprise . . . Both directors were appointed by the 
central administrators." An "economic and administrative 
council" was also created in the workplace, but this "did not
reflect a syndicalist concept of management." Rather it 
included represents of the employees, employers, engineers,
trade unions, the local soviets, co-operatives, the local
economic councils and peasants. This composition "weakened
the impact of the factory workers on decision-making . . . 
The workers' control organs [the factory committees] remained
in a subordinate position with respect to the council." Once
the Civil War broke out in May 1918, this process was 
accelerated. By 1920, most workplaces were under one-man 
management and the Communist Party at its Ninth Congress had 
"promoted  one-man management as the most suitable form of 
management." [Silvana Malle, Op. Cit., p. 111, p. 112, 
p. 141 and p. 128] In other words, the manner in which 
Lenin organised industry had handed it over entirely into
the hands of the bureaucracy.

Trotsky, as to be expected, did not disagree with all this.
In fact, quite the reverse. He wholeheartedly defended the
imposing of "one-man management" in his justly infamous book 
_Terrorism and Communism_. As he put it, "our Party Congress
. . . expressed itself in favour of the principle of one-man 
management in the administration of industry . . . It would 
be the greatest possible mistake, however, to consider this 
decision as a blow to the independence of the working class. 
The independence of the workers is determined and measured 
not by whether three workers or one are placed at the head 
of a factory." As such, it "would consequently be a most 
crying error to confuse the question as to the supremacy of 
the proletariat with the question of boards of workers at the 
head of factories. The dictatorship of the proletariat is 
expressed in the abolition of private property in the means 
of production, in the supremacy over the whole Soviet mechanism 
of the collective will of the workers, and not at all in the 
form in which individual economic enterprises are administered."
[_Terrorism and Communism_, p. 162] The term "collective will 
of the workers" is simply a euphemism for the Party which
Trotsky had admitted had "substituted" its dictatorship for
that of the Soviets (indeed, "there is nothing accidental" 
in this "'substitution' of the power of the party for the 
power of the working class" and "in reality there is no 
substitution at all." The "dictatorship of the Soviets became 
possible only by means of the dictatorship of the party." 
[Op. Cit., p. 109]). The unions "should discipline the 
workers and teach them to place the interests of production
above their own needs and demands." He even argued that "the 
only solution to economic difficulties from the point of 
view of both principle and of practice is to treat the 
population of the whole country as the reservoir of the 
necessary labour power . . . and to introduce strict order 
into the work of its registration, mobilisation and 
utilisation." [Op. Cit., p. 143 and p. 135]

Trotsky did not consider this a result of the Civil War. 
Again, the opposite was the case: "I consider if the civil 
war had not plundered our economic organs of all that was 
strongest, most independent, most endowed with initiative, 
we should undoubtedly have entered the path of one-man 
management in the sphere of economic administration much 
sooner and much less painfully." [Op. Cit., pp. 162-3]

Significantly, discussing developments in Russia since 
the N.E.P, Trotsky argued that it was "necessary for each
state-owned factory, with its technical director and
with its commercial director, to be subjected not only
to control from the top -- by the state organs -- but 
also from below, by the market which will remain the 
regulator of the state economy for a long time to come." 
Workers' control, as can be seen, was not even mentioned, 
nor considered as an essential aspect of control "from 
below." As Trotsky also stated that "[u]nder socialism 
economic life will be directed in a centralised manner," 
our discussion of the state capitalist nature of mainstream 
Marxism we presented in the last section is confirmed. 
[_The First Five Years of the Communist International_,
vol. 2, p. 237 and p. 229]

The contrast between what Trotsky did when he was in 
power and what he argued for after he had been expelled 
is obvious. Indeed, the arguments of 1938 and 1920 are 
in direct contradiction to each other. Needless to say, 
Leninists and Trotskyists today are fonder of quoting 
Trotsky and Lenin when they did not have state power 
rather than when they did. Rather than compare what they
said to what they did, they simply repeat ambiguous slogans
which meant radically different things to Lenin and Trotsky
than to the workers' who thrust them into power. For obvious
reasons, we feel. Given the opportunity for latter day 
Leninists to exercise power, we wonder if a similar process 
would occur again? Who would be willing to take that chance?

As such, the claim that Marxists stand for "workers' control"
can be refuted on two counts. Firstly, by that term they simply
mean workers' supervision of those who do have real power in
production (either the capitalists or state appointed managers).
It does *not* mean workers' self-management of production.
Secondly, when they had the chance they did not implement it.
In fact, they imposed capitalist style hierarchical management
and did not consider this as anything to be worried about. And
as this policy was advocated *before* the start of the Civil
War, it cannot be said to have been forced upon them by necessity.
As such, any claim that mainstream Marxism considers "workers' 
control" as an essential feature of its politics is simply 
nonsense. 

For a comprehensive discussion of "workers' control" during the
Russian Revolution Maurice Brinton's _The Bolsheviks and Workers'
Control_ cannot be bettered.

The roots of this confusion can be found in Marx and Engels.
In the struggle between authentic socialism (i.e. workers'
self-management) and state capitalism (i.e. state ownership)
there *are* elements of the correct solution to be found in 
their ideas. This is their support for co-operatives. For 
example, Marx praised the efforts made within the Paris 
Commune to create co-operatives, so "transforming the means 
of production, land and capital . . . into mere instruments 
of free and associated labour." He argued that "[i]f 
co-operative production is not to remain a shame and a snare; 
if it is to supersede the Capitalist system; if united 
co-operative societies are to regulate national production 
upon a common plan, thus taking it under their own control,
and putting an end to the constant anarchy and periodical
convulsions which are the fatality of Capitalist production
-- what else . . . would it be but Communism, 'possible'
Communism?" [Op. Cit., pp. 290-1] Engels, continuing this 
theme, argued for "the transfer -- initially on lease -- 
of large estates to autonomous co-operatives under state 
management and effected in such a way that the State retains 
ownership of the land." He stated that neither he nor Marx 
"ever doubted that, in the course of transition to a wholly 
communist economy, widespread use would have to be made of 
co-operative management as an intermediate stage. Only it 
will mean so organising things that society, i.e. initially 
the State, retains ownership of the means of production and 
thus prevents the particular interests of the co-operatives 
from taking precedence over those of society as a whole." 
[_Marx-Engels Collected Works_, vol. 47, p. 389] 

However, Engels comments simply bring home the impossibilities 
of trying to reconcile state ownership and workers' 
self-management. While the advocacy of co-operatives is a 
positive step forward from the statist arguments of the 
_Communist Manifesto_, Engels squeezes these libertarian forms 
of organising production into typically statist structures. 
How "autonomous co-operatives" can co-exist with (and under!) 
"state management" and "ownership" is not explained, plus 
the fatal confusion of socialisation with nationalisation.

In addition, the differences between the comments of Marx and 
Engels are obvious. While Marx talks of "united co-operative
societies," Engels talks of "the State." The former implies
a free federation of co-operatives, the latter a centralised
structure which the co-operatives are squeezed into and 
under. The former is socialism, the latter is state capitalist.
From Engels argument, it is obvious that the stress is on 
state ownership and management rather than self-management.
This confusion became a source of tragedy during the 
Russian Revolution when the workers, like their comrades
during the Commune, started to form a federation of
factory committees while the Bolsheviks squeezed these
bodies into a system of state control which was designed
to marginalise them (see section H.6.10 for full details).

Moreover, the aims of the Paris workers were at odds with
the vision of the _Communist Manifesto_ and in line with 
anarchism. Proudhon, for example, had argued in 1848
against state ownership and for "democratically organised
workers' associations" which would be "models for agriculture,
industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast
federation of companies and societies" which would make
up "the democratic social Republic." [_No Gods, No Masters_,
vol. 1, p. 62] In his _Principle of Federation_ he called
this idea an "agro-industrial federation." Thus the idea
of co-operative production is a clear expression of what
Proudhon explicitly called "industrial democracy," a
"reorganisation of industry, under the jurisdiction of
all those who compose it." [quoted by K. Steven Vincent,
_Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican
Socialism_, p. 225] Bakunin and later anarchists simply 
developed these ideas to their logical conclusion (see 
section I.3 for example).

Marx, to his credit, supported these libertarian visions 
when applied in practice by the Paris workers during the
Commune and promptly revised his ideas. This fact has been 
obscured somewhat by Engels historical revisionism in this 
matter. He argued, for example, that the "economic measures" 
of the Commune were driven not by "principles" but by "simple,
practical needs." This meant that "the confiscation of 
shut-down factories and workshops and handing them over
to workers' associations" were "not at all in accordance
with the spirit of Proudhonism but certainly in accordance
with the spirit of German scientific socialism." [Marx,
Engels, Lenin, _Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 92]
This distortion of Proudhon's ideas is also present in
Engels' 1891 introduction to Marx's "The Civil War in
France." He painted a picture of Proudhon being opposed
to association (except for large-scale industry). He
stresses that "to combine all these associations in one
great union" was "the direct opposite of the Proudhon
doctrine" and so "the Commune was the grave of the 
Proudhon doctrine." [_Marx-Engels Selected Works_, p. 256]

However, as noted, this is nonsense. The forming of workers'
associations was a key aspect of Proudhon's ideas and so
the Communards were obviously acting in his spirit. Given
that the _Communist Manifesto_ stressed state ownership
and failed to mention co-operatives at all, the claim that
the Commune acted in its spirit seems a tad optimistic.
Particularly since Marx had commented in 1866 that in France 
the workers ("particularly those of Paris"!) "are strongly
attached, without knowing it [!], to the old rubbish" and
that the "Parisian gentlemen had their heads full of the 
emptiest Proudhonist phrases." [Marx, Engels and Lenin, 
Op. Cit., p. 46 and p. 45] 

What did this "old rubbish" consist of? Well, in 1869 the 
delegate of the Parisian Construction Workers' Trade Union 
argued that "[a]ssociation of the different corporations 
[labour unions/associations] on the basis of town or country 
. . . leads to the commune of the future . . . Government is 
replaced by the assembled councils of the trade bodies, and 
by a committee of their respective delegates." In addition, 
"a local grouping which allows the workers in the same area 
to liase on a day to day basis" and "a linking up of the 
various localities, fields, regions, etc." (i.e. international 
trade or industrial union federations) would ensure that 
"labour organises for present and future by doing away with 
wage slavery." This "mode of organisation leads to the labour 
representation of the future." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, 
p. 184]

To state the obvious, this had clear links with both Proudhon's
ideas *and* what the Commune did in practice. Rather than being
the "grave" of Proudhon's ideas on workers' associations, the
Commune saw their birth, i.e. their application. Rather than 
the Parisian workers becoming Marxists "without knowing it," 
Marx had become a follower of Proudhon! Thus the idea of 
socialism being based on a federation of workers' associations 
was not buried with the Paris Commune. It was integrated into 
all forms of social anarchism (including communist-anarchism 
and anarcho-syndicalism) and recreated every time there is a 
social revolution.

In ending when must note that anarchists are well aware that
individual workplaces could pursue aims at odds with the 
rest of society (to use Engels expression, their "particular 
interests"). This is often termed "localism." Anarchists, 
however, argue that the mainstream Marxist solution is worse 
than the problem. By placing self-managed workplaces under 
state control (or ownership) they become subject to even 
worse "particular interests," namely those of the state 
bureaucracy who will use their power to further their own 
interests. In contrast, anarchists advocate federations of 
self-managed workplaces to solve this problem (see section 
I.3 for more).

In summary, the problem of "localism" and any other problems 
faced by a social revolution will be solved in the interests 
of the working class only if working class people solve them 
themselves. For this to happen it requires working class 
people to manage their own affairs directly and that implies 
self-managed organising from the bottom up (i.e. anarchism) 
rather than delegating power to a minority at the top, to a 
"revolutionary" party or state. This applies economically, 
socially and politically. As Bakunin argued, the "revolution 
should not only be made for the people's sake; it should also 
be made by the people." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 141]

H.3.15 Can objective factors explain the failure of the Russian Revolution?

The greatest myth of Marxism must surely be the idea that the Russian
Revolution failed solely due to the impact objective factors. For Leninist,
the failure of the revolution was the product of such things as civil war, 
foreign intervention, economic collapse and the isolation and backwardness 
of Russia and *not* Bolshevik ideology. Anarchists are not impressed by 
this argument.

Leninist John Rees recounts the standard argument, namely that the 
objective conditions in Russia meant that the "subjective factor" 
of Bolshevik ideology "was reduced to a choice between capitulation 
to the Whites or defending the revolution with whatever means were 
at hands. Within these limits Bolshevik policy was decisive. But it 
could not wish away the limits and start with a clean sheet." From 
this perspective, the key factor was the "vice-like pressure of the 
civil war" which "transformed the state" as well as the "Bolshevik 
Party itself." For the Bolsheviks had "survived three years of civil 
war and wars of intervention, but only at the cost of reducing the 
working class to an atomised, individualised mass, a fraction of 
its former size, and unable to exercise the collective power it 
had done in 1917." Industry was "reduced . . . to rubble" and the 
"bureaucracy of the workers' state was left suspended in mid-air, 
its class based eroded and demoralised." ["In Defence of October," 
pp. 3-82, _International Socialism_, no. 52, p. 30, p. 70, p. 66 
and p. 65] Due to these factors, argue Leninists, the Bolsheviks 
became dictators *over* the working class and *not* due to their 
political ideas. 

Anarchists are not convinced by this analysis, arguing that is 
factually and logically flawed. Needless to say, it would be near 
impossible to discuss these issues in any real depth in just one 
section. As such, we need to summarise the major facts, issues and 
points. For those interested in a fuller discussion as well as the 
necessary documentation, we would recommend reading the appendix 
on "The Russian Revolution." With that caveat, we now turn to 
summarising the problems with the Leninist approach. These fall 
into four main categories.

The first problem is factual. Bolshevik authoritarianism started 
*before* the start of the civil war and major economic collapse. 
Whether it is soviet democracy, workers' economic self-management, 
democracy in the armed forces or working class power and freedom 
generally, the fact is the Bolsheviks had systematically attacked 
and undermined it from the start. They also repressed working class 
protests and strikes along with opposition groups and parties. As 
such, it is difficult to blame something which had not started yet 
for causing Bolshevik policies.

Although the Bolsheviks had seized power under the slogan "All Power to
the Soviets," as we noted in section H.3.11 the facts are the Bolsheviks
aimed for party power and only supported soviets when they controlled 
them. To maintain party power, they had to undermine the soviets and 
they did. This onslaught on the soviets started quickly, a mere four 
days after the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks when their Council of 
People's Commissars unilaterally took for itself legislative power simply 
by issuing a decree to this effect. "This was, effectively, a Bolshevik 
coup d'etat that made clear the government's (and party's) pre-eminence 
over the soviets and their executive organ." [Neil Harding, _Leninism_, 
p. 253] The highest organ of soviet power, the Central Executive Committee 
(VTsIK) was turned into little more than a rubber stamp, with its Bolshevik 
dominated presidium using its power to control the body and maintain 
Bolshevik power by, for example, awarding representations to groups and 
factions which supported the Bolsheviks and circumventing general meetings. 

At the grassroots, a similar process was at work with power moving
increasingly to the Bolshevik dominated soviet executives who used 
it to maintain a Bolshevik majority by any means possible. One such 
technique used to postpone new soviet elections, another was to 
gerrymander the soviets to ensure their majority. For example, when
workplace soviet elections were finally held in Petrograd, their 
results were irrelevant because more than half of the projected 
700-plus deputies in the new soviet were selected by Bolshevik 
dominated organisations. The Bolsheviks had secured themselves a 
solid majority even before factory voting began. When postponing and
gerrymandering failed, the Bolsheviks turned to state repression
to remain in power. For all the provincial soviet elections in the 
spring and summer of 1918 for which data is available, Bolshevik 
armed force not only overthrew the election results, it also 
suppressed the working class protest against such actions. 
[Vladimir Brovkin, "The Mensheviks' Political Comeback: The 
Elections to the Provincial City Soviets in Spring 1918", _The 
Russian Review_, vol. 42, pp. 1-50] 

When the opposition parties raised such issues at the VTsIK, it had 
no impact. In April 1918, one deputy "protested that non-Bolshevik 
controlled soviets were being dispersed by armed force, and wanted 
to discuss the issue." The chairman "refus[ed] to include it in 
the agenda because of lack of supporting material" and such information 
be submitted to the presidium of the soviet. The majority (i.e. the 
Bolsheviks) "supported their chairman" and the facts were "submitted . . . 
to the presidium, where they apparently remained." [Charles Duval, 
"Yakov M. Sverdlov and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee 
of Soviets (VTsIK)", pp. 3-22, _Soviet Studies_, vol. XXXI, no. 1, 
pp. 13-14] Given that the VTsIK was meant to be the highest soviet 
body between congresses, the lack of concern for state repression 
against soviets and opposition groups clearly shows the Bolshevik 
contempt for soviet democracy. 

Unsurprisingly, the same contempt was expressed at the fifth 
All-Russian Soviet Congress in July 1918 when the Bolshevik 
gerrymandered it to maintain their majority. With the Mensheviks
and Right-SRs banned from the soviets, popular disenchantment 
with Bolshevik rule was expressed by voting Left-SR. The Bolsheviks 
ensured their majority in the congress and, therefore, a Bolshevik 
government, when the Bolshevik credentials committee allowed the 
Committees of Poor Peasants, which were only supported by the 
Bolsheviks, to be represented. "This blatant gerrymandering ensured 
a Bolshevik majority . . Deprived of their democratic majority the 
Left SRs resorted to terror and assassinated the German ambassador 
Mirbach." [Geoffrey Swain, _The Origins of the Russian Civil War_, 
p. 176] The Bolsheviks falsely labelled this an uprising against the 
soviets and the Left-SRs joined the Mensheviks and Right-SRs in being 
made illegal. It should also be mentioned that the Bolsheviks had 
attacked the anarchist movement in April, 1918. So before the start 
of the civil war all opposition groups had suffered some form of 
state repression by the hands of the Bolshevik regime (within six 
weeks of it starting, every opposition group had been effectively 
excluded from the soviets).

A similar authoritarian agenda was aimed at the armed forces and 
industry. Trotsky simply abolished the soldier's committees and 
elected officers, stating that "the principle of election is 
politically purposeless and technically inexpedient, and it has 
been, in practice, abolished by decree." [_Work, Order, Discipline_] 
The death penalty for disobedience was restored, along with, more 
gradually, saluting, special forms of address, separate living 
quarters and other privileges for officers. In industry, Lenin, as 
we discussed in section H.3.14, started to champion one-man management 
armed with "dictatorial" powers in April, 1918. This simply replaced 
private capitalism with state capitalism, taking control of the economy 
out of the hands of the workers and placing it into the hands of the 
state bureaucracy.

As well as repressing working class self-management, the Bolsheviks 
also used state repression against rebel workers. "By the early summer 
of 1918," records one historian, "there were widespread anti-Bolshevik 
protests. Armed clashes occurred in the factory districts of Petrograd 
and other industrial centres." [William Rosenberg, _Russian labour and 
Bolshevik Power_, p. 107] Thus the early months of Bolshevik rule were 
marked by "worker protests, which then precipitated violent repressions 
against hostile workers. Such treatment further intensified the 
disenchantment of significant segments of Petrograd labour with 
Bolshevik-dominated Soviet rule." [Alexander Rabinowitch, _Early 
Disenchantment with Bolshevik Rule_, p. 37]

Clearly, whether it is in regards to soviet, workplace or army 
democracy or the right of workers to strike or organise, the 
facts are the Bolsheviks had systematically eliminated them 
*before* the start of the civil war. So when Trotsky asserted 
that "[i]n the beginning, the party had wished and hoped to 
preserve freedom of political struggle within the framework of 
the Soviets" but that it was civil war which "introduced stern 
amendments into this calculation," he was wrong. Rather than being 
"regarded not as a principle, but as an episodic act of self-defence" 
the opposite is the case. As we note in section H.3.8 from roughly 
October 1918 onwards, the Bolsheviks *did* raise party dictatorship 
to a "principle" and did not care that this was "obviously in 
conflict with the spirit of Soviet democracy." [_The Revolution
Betrayed_] As Samuel Farber notes, "there is no evidence indicating 
that Lenin or any of the mainstream Bolshevik leaders lamented the 
loss of workers' control or of democracy in the soviets, or at least 
referred to these losses as a retreat, as Lenin declared with the 
replacement of War Communism by NEP in 1921." [_Before Stalinism_, p. 44]

For more details see the appendix on "What happened during the Russian Revolution?" as well as section 3 of the appendix on "What caused the 
degeneration of the Russian Revolution?"
 
Secondly, it cannot be maintained that the Russian working class 
was incapable of collective action. Throughout the civil war period, 
as well as before and after, the Russian workers proved themselves 
quite capable of taking collective action -- against the Bolshevik state. 
Simply put, an "atomised, individualised mass" does not need extensive
state repression to control it. So while the working class *was* "a 
fraction of its former size" it *was* able "to exercise the collective 
power it had done in 1917." Significantly, rather than decrease over 
the civil war period, the mass protests *grew* in size and militancy. 
By 1921 these protests and strikes were threatening the very existence 
of the Bolshevik dictatorship, forcing it to abandon key aspects of its 
economic policies. 

This indicates a key flaw in the standard Leninist account, as Russian 
workers were more than capable of collective action throughout the Civil 
War period and after. In the Moscow area, following the lull after the 
defeat of the workers' conference movement in mid-1918 "each wave of 
unrest was more powerful than the last, culminating in the mass movement 
from late 1920." [Richard Sakwa, _Soviet Communists in Power_, p. 94] 
This collective struggle was not limited to Moscow. "Strike action 
remained endemic in the first nine months of 1920." In Petrograd province, soviet figures indicate that strikes involving more than half the 
workforce took place in both 1919 and 1920. In early 1921 "industrial 
unrest broke out in a nation-wide wave of discontent" which included
general strikes. [J. Aves, Op. Cit., p. 69, p. 109, and p. 120] As 
Russian anarchist Ida Mett succinctly put it: 

"And if the proletariat was that exhausted how come it was still capable 
of waging virtually total general strikes in the largest and most heavily industrialised cities?" [_The Kronstadt Rebellion_, p. 81] 

An "atomised" and powerless working class does not need martial law,
lockouts, mass arrests and the purging of the workforce to control it.
So, clearly, the Leninist argument can be faulted. Nor is it particularly 
original, as it dates back to Lenin and was first formulated "to justify 
a political clamp-down." Indeed, this argument 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.'" 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." [J. Aves, 
Op. Cit., p. 18, p. 90 and p. 91.] So while the "working class had 
decreased in size and changed in composition,. . . the protest movement 
from late 1920 made clear that it was not a negligible force and that 
in an inchoate way it retained a vision of socialism which was not 
identified entirely with Bolshevik power . . . Lenin's arguments on the 
declassing of the proletariat was more a way of avoiding this unpleasant 
truth than a real reflection of what remained, in Moscow at least, a 
substantial physical and ideological force." [Sakwa, Op. Cit., p. 261]

Then there is the logical problem. Leninists say that they are 
revolutionaries. As we noted in section H.2.1, they inaccurately 
mock anarchists for not believing that a revolution needs to defend 
itself. Yet, ironically, their whole defence of Bolshevism rests 
on the "exceptional circumstances" produced by the civil war they 
claim is inevitable. If Leninism cannot handle the problems 
associated with actually conducting a revolution then, surely, it 
should be avoided at all costs. This is particularly the case as 
leading Bolsheviks all argued that the specific problems their 
latter day followers blame for their authoritarianism were natural 
results of any revolution and, consequently, unavoidable. Lenin, 
for example, stressed in 1917 that any revolution would face 
exceptionally complicated circumstances as well as civil war. 
Once in power, he continually reiterated this point as well as 
noting that revolution in an advanced capitalist nations far more 
devastating and ruinous than in Russia.

Moreover, anarchists had long argued that a revolution would be 
associated with economic disruption, isolation and civil war and, 
consequently, had developed their ideas to take these into account. 
It should also be noted that every revolution has confirmed the 
anarchist analysis. For example, the German Revolution of 1918 
faced an economic collapse which was, relatively, just as bad as 
that facing Russia the year before. However, no Leninist argues 
that the German Revolution was impossible or doomed to failure. 
Similarly, no Leninist denies that a socialist revolution was 
possible during the depths of the Great Depression of the 1930s. 
Consequently, it is not hard to conclude that for Leninists 
difficult objective circumstances place socialism off the agenda 
only when they are holding power. So even if we ignore the extensive 
evidence that Bolshevik authoritarianism started before the civil war, 
the logic of the Leninist argument is hardly convincing. 

We discuss these issues in more detail in the appendix on "What caused 
the degeneration of the Russian Revolution?"

Finally, there is a counter-example which, anarchists argue, show the
impact of Bolshevik ideology on the fate of the revolution. This is the
anarchist influenced Makhnovist movement. Defending the revolution in 
the Ukraine against all groups aiming to impose their will on the masses, 
the Makhnovists were operating in the same objective conditions facing 
the Bolsheviks -- civil war, economic disruption, isolation and so forth.
However, the policies the Makhnovists implemented were radically different
than those of the Bolsheviks. While the Makhnovists called soviet 
congresses, the Bolsheviks disbanded them. The former encouraged free 
speech and organisation, the latter crushed both. While the Bolsheviks
raised party dictatorship and one-man management to ideological truisms,
the Makhnovists they stood for and implemented workplace, army, village 
and soviet self-management. This shows the failure of Bolshevism cannot 
be put down to purely objective factors like the civil war, the politics 
of Marxism played their part. 

For more information on the Makhnovists, see the appendix "Why does the 
Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism?"

Therefore, anarchists have good reason to argue that one of the greatest
myths of state socialism is the idea that Bolshevik ideology played no
role in the fate of the Russian Revolution. Obviously, if the "objective" 
factors do not explain Bolshevik authoritarianism we are left with the 
question of which aspects of Bolshevik ideology impacted negatively on 
the revolution. We turn to this in the next section.

H.3.16 Did Bolshevik ideology influence the outcome of the Russian Revolution?

As we discussed in the last section, anarchists have good reason to reject
the Leninist argument that the failure of Bolshevism in the Russian 
Revolution can be blamed purely on the difficult objective circumstances
they faces. As Noam Chomsky summarises:

"In the stages leading up to the Bolshevik coup in October 1917, there 
*were* incipient socialist institutions developing in Russia -- workers' 
councils, collectives, things like that. And they survived to an extent 
once the Bolsheviks took over -- but not for very long; Lenin and Trotsky 
pretty much eliminated them as they consolidated their power. I mean,
you can argue about the *justification* for eliminating them, but the 
fact is that the socialist initiatives were pretty quickly eliminated.

"Now, people who want to justify it say, 'The Bolsheviks had to do it' -- 
that's the standard justification: Lenin and Trotsky had to do it, because 
of the contingencies of the civil war, for survival, there wouldn't have 
been food otherwise, this and that. Well, obviously the question is, was 
that true. To answer that, you've got to look at the historical facts: 
I don't think it was true. In fact, I think the incipient socialist 
structures in Russia were dismantles *before* the really dire conditions 
arose . . . But reading their own writings, my feeling is that Lenin and 
Trotsky knew what they were doing, it was conscious and understandable." 
[_Understanding Power_, p. 226] 

Chomsky is right on both counts. The attack on the basic building blocks 
of genuine socialism started before the civil war. Moreover, it did not 
happen by accident. The attacks were rooted in the Bolshevik vision of 
socialism. As Maurice Brinton notes:

"there is a clear-cut and incontrovertible link between what happened 
under Lenin and Trotsky and the later practices of Stalinism . . . The 
more one unearths about this period the more difficult it becomes to 
define -- or even to see -- the 'gulf' allegedly separating what 
happened in Lenin's time from what happened later. Real knowledge of 
the facts also makes it impossible to accept . . . that the whole 
course of events was 'historically inevitable' and 'objectively 
determined'. Bolshevik ideology and practice were themselves important 
and sometimes decisive factors in the equation, at every critical stage 
of this critical period." [_The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control_, p. 84]

A key issue is the Bolsheviks support for centralisation. Long before 
the revolution, Lenin had argued that within the party it was a case of 
"the transformation of the power of ideas into the power of authority, the 
subordination of lower Party bodies to higher ones." [_Collected Works_, 
vol. 7, p. 367] Such visions of centralised organisation were the model 
for the revolutionary state and, once in power, they did not disappoint. 

However, by its very nature centralism places power into a few hands 
and effectively eliminates the popular participation required for any 
successful revolution to develop. The power placed into the hands of 
the nineteen members of the Bolshevik party's central committee was 
automatically no longer in the hands of the working class. As such, 
when Leninists argue that "objective" circumstances forced the Bolsheviks
to substitute their power for that of the masses, anarchists reply that
this substitution had occurred the movement the Bolsheviks centralised 
power and placed it into their own hands. As a result, popular
participation and institutions became to wither and die. Moreover,
once in power, the Bolsheviks were shaped by their new position and 
the social relationships it created and, consequently, implemented
policies influenced and constrained by the hierarchical and centralised 
structures they had created.

This was not the only negative impact of Bolshevik centralism. It also
spawned a bureaucracy. The rise of a state bureaucracy started immediately 
with the seizure of power. Instead of the state starting to wither away 
"a new bureaucratic and centralised system emerged with extraordinary 
rapidity . . . As the functions of the state expanded so did the 
bureaucracy." [Richard Sakwa, "The Commune State in Moscow in 1918," 
pp. 429-449, _Slavic Review_, vol. 46, no. 3/4, pp. 437-8] This was 
a striking confirmation of the anarchist analysis which argued that a 
new bureaucratic class develops around the centralised bodies created 
by the governing party. This body would soon become riddled with personal 
influences and favours, so ensuring that members could be sheltered from 
popular control while, at the same time, exploiting its power to feather 
its own nest. 

Another problem was the Bolshevik vision of (centralised) democracy 
looked like. Trotsky is typical. In April 1918 he argued that the key
factor in democracy was that the central power was elected by the masses,
meaning that functional democracy from below could be replaced by 
appointments from above. Once elected the government was to be given 
total power to make decisions and appoint people as required as it is 
"better able to judge in the matter than" the masses. The sovereign 
people were expected to simply obey their public servants until such 
time as they "dismiss that government and appoint another." Trotsky
raised the question of whether it was possible for the government 
to act "against the interests of the labouring and peasant masses?" 
And answered no! Yet it is obvious that Trotsky's claim that "there 
can be no antagonism between the government and the mass of the 
workers, just as there is no antagonism between the administration 
of the union and the general assembly of its members" is just 
nonsense. [_Leon Trotsky Speaks_, p. 113] The history of trade 
unionism is full of examples of committees betraying their membership. 
Needless to say, the subsequent history Lenin's government shows that 
there can be "antagonism" between rulers and ruled and that appointments
are always a key way to further elite interests.

This vision of top-down "democracy" can, of course, be traced back to 
Marx's arguments of 1850 and Lenin's comments that the "organisational 
principle of revolutionary Social-Democracy" was "to proceed from the 
top downward." (see sections H.3.2 and H.3.3). By equating centralised, 
top-down decision making by an elected government with "democracy," the 
Bolsheviks had the ideological justification to eliminate the functional democracy associated with the soviets, factory committees and soldiers 
committees. The Bolshevik vision of democracy became the means by which 
real democracy was eliminated in area after area of Russian working 
class life. Needless to say, a state which eliminates functional 
democracy in the grassroots will not stay democratic in any meaningful 
sense for long. 

Nor does it come as too great a surprise to discover that a government 
which considers itself as "better able to judge" things than the people
finally decides to annul any election results it dislikes. As we discuss
in section H.5, this perspective is at the heart of vanguardism, for in
Bolshevik ideology the party, not the class, is in the final analysis 
the repository of class consciousness. This means that once in power 
it has a built-in tendency to override the decisions of the masses it 
claimed to represent and justify this in terms of the advanced position 
of the party. Combine this with a vision of "democracy" which is highly 
centralised and which undermines local participation then we have the 
necessary foundations for the turning of party power into party 
dictatorship.

Which brings us to the next issue, namely the Bolshevik idea that the 
party should seize power, not the working class as a whole (see section 
H.3.11). Lenin in 1917 continually repeating the basic idea that the 
Bolsheviks "can and must take state power into their own hands." 
[_Selected Works_, vol. 2, p. 329] He equated party power with popular 
power and argued that Russia would be governed by the Bolshevik party. 
The question instantly arises of what happens if the masses turn against 
the party? The destruction of soviet democracy in the spring and summer 
of 1918 answers that question (see last section). It is not a great step 
to party dictatorship *over* the proletariat from the premises of 
Bolshevism. In a clash between soviet democracy and party power, the 
Bolsheviks consistently favoured the latter -- as would be expected 
given their ideology.

Then there is the Bolshevik vision of socialism. As we discussed in 
section H.3.12, the Bolsheviks saw the socialist economy as being built 
upon the centralised organisations created by capitalism. They confused 
state capitalism with socialism. "State capitalism," Lenin wrote in
May 1917, "is a complete *material* preparation for socialism, the 
threshold of socialism" and so socialism "is nothing but the next step 
forward from state capitalist monopoly." It is "merely state capitalist 
monopoly *made to benefit the whole people*; by this token it *ceases* 
to be capitalist monopoly." [_The Threatening Catastrophe and how to 
avoid it_, p. 38 and p. 37] A few months later, he was talking about how 
the institutions of state capitalism could be taken over and used to 
create socialism. Unsurprisingly, when defending the need for state 
capitalism in the spring of 1918 against the "Left Communists," Lenin 
stressed that he gave his "'high' appreciation of state capitalism" 
"*before* the Bolsheviks seized power." [_Selected Works_, vol. 2, 
p. 636] And, as Lenin noted, his praise for state capitalism can be 
found in his _State and Revolution_.

Given this perspective, it is unsurprising that workers' control
was not given a high priority once the Bolsheviks seized power.
While in order to gain support the Bolsheviks *had* paid lip-service
to the idea of workers' control, as we noted in section H.3.14 the
party had always given that slogan a radically different interpretation
than the factory committees had. While the factory committees had
seen workers' control as being exercised directly by the workers and
their class organisations, the Bolshevik leadership saw it in terms 
of state control in which the factory committees would play, at best,
a minor role. It is unsurprising to discover which vision of socialism 
was actually introduced:

"On three occasions in the first months of Soviet power, the [factory] 
committee leaders sought to bring their model into being. At each point 
the party leadership overruled them. The result was to vest both 
managerial *and* control powers in organs of the state which were 
subordinate to the central authorities, and formed by them." [Thomas 
F. Remington, _Building Socialism in Bolshevik Russia_, p. 38] 

Given his vision of socialism, Lenin's rejection of the factory 
committee's model comes as no surprise. The Bolsheviks, as Lenin had 
promised, built from the top-down their system of unified administration 
based on the Tsarist system of central bodies which governed and regulated 
certain industries during the war (and, moreover, systematically stopped
the factory committee organising together). [Brinton, Op. Cit., p. 36 and
pp. 18-9] This was very centralised and very inefficient: 

"it seems apparent that many workers themselves . . . had now come to 
believe . . . that confusion and anarchy [sic!] *at the top* were the 
major causes of their difficulties, and with some justification. The 
fact was that Bolshevik administration was chaotic . . . Scores of 
competitive and conflicting Bolshevik and Soviet authorities issued 
contradictory orders, often brought to factories by armed Chekists. 
The Supreme Economic Council. . . issu[ed] dozens of orders and pass[ed] 
countless directives with virtually no real knowledge of affairs." 
[William G. Rosenberg, _Russian Labour and Bolshevik Power_, p. 116] 

Faced with the chaos that their own politics, in part, had created,
the Bolsheviks turned to one-management in April, 1918. This was
applied first on the railway workers. Like all bosses, the Bolsheviks 
blamed the workers for the failings of their own policies. The 
abolishing the workers' committees resulted in "a terrifying proliferation 
of competitive and contradictory Bolshevik authorities, each with a 
claim of life or death importance . . . Railroad journals argued 
plaintively about the correlation between failing labour productivity 
and the proliferation of competing Bolshevik authorities." Rather 
than improving things, Lenin's one-man management did the opposite, 
"leading in many places . . . to a greater degree of confusion and 
indecision" and "this problem of contradictory authorities clearly 
intensified, rather than lessened." Indeed, the "result of replacing 
workers' committees with one man rule . . . on the railways . . . was 
not directiveness, but distance, and increasing inability to make 
decisions appropriate to local conditions. Despite coercion, orders 
on the railroads were often ignored as unworkable." It got so bad that 
"a number of local Bolshevik officials . . . began in the fall of 1918 
to call for the restoration of workers' control, not for ideological 
reasons, but because workers themselves knew best how to run the line 
efficiently, and might obey their own central committee's directives 
if they were not being constantly countermanded." [William G. Rosenberg, 
_Workers' Control on the Railroads_, p. D1208, p. D1207, p. D1213 and 
pp. D1208-9] 

That it was Bolshevik policies and not workers' control which was
to blame for the state of the railways can be seen from what happened
*after* Lenin's one-man management was imposed. The centralised 
Bolshevik economic system quickly demonstrated how to *really* 
mismanage an economy. The Bolshevik onslaught against workers' 
control in favour of a centralised, top-down economic regime ensured 
that the economy was handicapped by an unresponsive system which 
wasted the local knowledge in the grassroots in favour of orders 
from above which were issued in ignorance of local conditions. This 
lead to unused stock coexisting with acute scarcity and the centre 
unable to determine the correct proportions required at the base. 
Unfinished products were transferred to other regions while local 
factories were shut down, wasted both time and resources (and given 
the state of the transport network, this was a doubly inefficient). 
The inefficiency of central financing seriously jeopardised local 
activity and the centre had displayed a great deal of conservatism 
and routine thinking. In spite of the complaints from below, the 
Communist leadership continued on its policy of centralisation (in 
fact, the ideology of centralisation was reinforced). [Silvana Malle, 
_The Economic Organisation of War Communism 1918-1921_, p. 232-3 and 
pp. 269-75] 

A clearer example of the impact of Bolshevik ideology on the fate of the revolution would be hard to find. Simply put, while the situation was 
pretty chaotic in early 1918, this does not prove that the factory 
committee's socialism was not the most efficient way of running things 
under the (difficult) circumstances. After all, rates of "output and 
productivity began to climb steadily after" January 1918 and "[i]n 
some factories, production doubled or tripled in the early months of 
1918 . . . Many of the reports explicitly credited the factory committees 
for these increases." [Carmen Sirianni, _Workers' Control and Socialist 
Democracy_, p. 109] Unless of course, like the Bolsheviks, you have a 
dogmatic belief that centralism is always more efficient. Needless to 
say, Lenin never wavered in his support for one-man management nor in 
his belief in the efficiency of centralism to solve all problems, 
particularly the problems it itself created in abundance. Nor did his 
explicit call to reproduce capitalist social relations in production 
cause him any concern for, in Lenin's eyes, if the primary issue was 
property and not who *manages* the means of production, then factory 
committees are irrelevant in determining the socialist nature of the 
economy. 

Post-October Bolshevik policy is a striking confirmation of the anarchist 
argument that a centralised structure would stifle the initiative of the 
masses and their own organs of self-management. Not only was it disastrous 
from a revolutionary perspective, it was hopelessly inefficient. The 
constructive self-activity of the people was replaced by the bureaucratic 
machinery of the state. The Bolshevik onslaught on workers' control, like 
their attacks on soviet democracy and workers' protest, undoubtedly 
engendered apathy and cynicism in the workforce, alienating even more 
the positive participation required for building socialism which the 
Bolshevik mania for centralism had already marginalised. 

The pre-revolution Bolshevik vision of a socialist system was fundamentally 
centralised and, consequently, top-down. This was what was implemented 
post-October, with disastrous results. At each turning point, the Bolsheviks 
tended to implement policies which reflected their prejudices in favour of 
centralism, nationalisation and party power. Unsurprisingly, this also 
undermined the genuine socialist tendencies which existed at the time. 
Simply put, the Bolshevik vision of socialism and democracy played a key 
role in the failure of the revolution. Therefore, the Leninist idea that 
politics of the Bolsheviks had no influence on the outcome of the revolution, 
that their policies during the revolution were a product purely of objective 
forces, is unconvincing. 

For further discussion of these and other issues, see the appendices on
"How did Bolshevik ideology contribute to the failure of the Revolution?"
and "What happened during the Russian Revolution?"

H.4 Didn't Engels refute anarchism in his essay 
    "On Authority"?

No, far from it. Engels (in)famous essay "On Authority" is 
often pointed to by Marxists of various schools as refuting 
anarchism. Indeed, it is often considered the essential 
Marxist work for this and is often trotted out (pun intended)
when anarchist influence is on the rise. However this is not 
the case. In fact, his essay is both politically flawed and 
misrepresentative of his foes opinions. As such, anarchists 
do not think that Engels refuted anarchism in his essay. 
Indeed, rather than refute anarchism, Engels' essay just 
shows his ignorance of the ideas he was critiquing. This 
ignorance essentially rests on the fact that the whole 
concept of authority was defined and understood differently 
by Bakunin and Engels meant that the latter's critique was
flawed. While Engels may have thought that they both were 
speaking of the same thing, in fact they were not. 

For Engels, all forms of group activity meant the subjection 
of the individuals that make it up. As he puts it, "whoever 
mentions combined action speaks of organisation" and so it 
is not possible "to have organisation without authority," 
as authority means "the imposition of the will of another 
upon ours . . . authority presupposes subordination." 
[_Marx-Engels Reader_, p. 731 and p. 730] As such, he 
considers the ideas of Bakunin to fly in the face of 
common sense and so show that he does not know what he 
is talking about. However, it is Engels who shows that 
he does not know what he is talking about.

The first fallacy in Engels account is that anarchists 
do not oppose all forms of authority. Bakunin was extremely
clear on this issue and differentiated between *types* of
authority, of which only certain kinds did he oppose. For
example, he asked the question "[d]oes it follow that I
reject all authority?" and answered quite clearly: "No,
far be it from me to entertain such a thought." He 
acknowledged the difference between being *an* authority 
-- an expert -- and being *in* authority, for example.
This meant that "[i]f I bow before the authority of the
specialists and declare myself ready to follow, to a
certain extent and so long as it may seem to me to be
necessary, their general indications and even their
directions, it is because their authority is imposed
upon me by no one . . . I bow before the authority of
specialists because it is imposed upon me by my own
reason." [_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 253]

Similarly, he argued that anarchists "recognise all natural
authority, and all influence of fact upon us, but none of
right; for all authority and all influence of right,
officially imposed upon us, immediately becomes a falsehood 
and an oppression." He stressed that the "only great and 
omnipotent authority, at once natural and rational, the 
only one we respect, will be that of the collective and 
public spirit of a society founded on equality and 
solidarity and the mutual respect of all its members." 
[Op. Cit., p. 241 and p. 255]

So while Bakunin and other anarchists, on occasion, *did*
argue that anarchists reject "all authority" they, as Carole
Pateman correctly notes, "tended to treat 'authority' as a
synonym for 'authoritarian,' and so have identified 'authority'
with hierarchical power structures, especially those of the
state. Nevertheless, their practical proposals and some of
their theoretical discussions present a different picture."
[_The Problem of Political Obligation_, p. 141] This can
be seen when Bakunin noted that "the principle of *authority*"
was the "eminently theological, metaphysical and political
idea that the masses, *always* incapable of governing
themselves, must submit at all times to the benevolent
yoke of a wisdom and a justice, which in one way or another,
is imposed from above." [_Marxism, Freedom and the State_,
p. 33] Clearly, by the term "principle of authority" Bakunin
meant *hierarchy* rather than organisation and the need
to make agreements (what is now called self-management). 

Therefore Bakunin did not oppose *all* authority but rather
a specific kind of authority, namely *hierarchical* authority.
This kind of authority placed power into the hands of a few.
For example, wage labour produced this kind of authority,
with a "meeting . . . between master and slave . . . the
worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time."
[_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 187] The state 
is also based hierarchical authority, with "those who 
govern" (i.e. "those who frame the laws of the country as 
well as those who exercise the executive power") are in an 
"exceptional position diametrically opposed to . . . popular 
aspirations" towards liberty. They end up "viewing society 
from the high position in which they find themselves" and 
so "[w]hoever says political power says domination" over 
"a more or less considerable section of the population." 
[Op. Cit., p. 218]

Thus hierarchical authority is top-down, centralised and 
imposed. It is *this* kind of authority Bakunin had in mind
when he argued that anarchists "are in fact enemies of all
authority" and it will "corrupt those who exercise [it]
as much as those who are compelled to submit to [it]." 
[Op. Cit., p. 249] In other words, "authority" was used 
as shorthand for "hierarchy" (or "hierarchical authority"), 
the imposition of decisions rather than agreement to abide 
by the collective decisions you make with others when you
freely associate with them. In place of this kind of authority, 
Bakunin proposed a "natural authority" based on the masses 
"governing themselves." He did not object to the need for 
individuals associating themselves into groups and 
managing their own affairs, rather he opposed the idea
that co-operation necessitated hierarchy:

"Hence there results, for science as well as for industry,
the necessity of division and association of labour. I
take and I give -- such is human life. Each is an 
authoritative leader and in turn is led by others.
Accordingly there is no fixed and constant authority, but
continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all,
voluntary authority and subordination." [Op. Cit., pp. 353-4]

This kind of free association would be the expression of 
liberty rather than (as in hierarchical structures) its 
denial. Anarchists reject the idea of giving a minority 
(a government) the power to make our decisions for us. 
Rather, power should rest in the hands of all, not 
concentrated in the hands of a few. Anarchism is based
on rejecting what Bakunin called "the authoritarian 
conception of discipline" which "always signifies 
despotism on the one hand and blind automatic 
submission to authority on the other." In an anarchist 
organisation "hierarchic order and advancement do not 
exist" and there would be "voluntary and thoughtful 
discipline" for "collective work or action." This
would be a new kind of discipline, one which is 
"voluntary and intelligently understood" and 
"necessary whenever a greater number of individuals 
undertake any kind of collective work or action." 
This is "simply the voluntary and considered 
co-ordination of all individual efforts for a 
common purpose . . In such a system, power, properly 
speaking, no longer exists. Power is diffused to the 
collectivity and becomes the true expression of the 
liberty of everyone, the faithful and sincere 
realisation of the will of all . . . this is the 
only true discipline, the discipline necessary for 
the organisation of freedom." [Op. Cit., pp. 259-60]

Clearly Engels misunderstands the anarchist conception 
of liberty. Rather than seeing it as essentially negative, 
anarchists argue that liberty is expressed in two different,
but integrated, ways. Firstly, there is rebellion, the 
expression of autonomy in the face of authority. This is
the negative aspect of it. Secondly, there is association, 
the expression of autonomy by working with equals. This is
the positive aspect of it. As such, Engels concentrates on
the negative aspect of anarchist ideas, ignoring the positive,
and so paints a false picture of anarchism. Freedom, as
Bakunin argued, is a product of connection, not of isolation. 
How a group organises itself determines whether it is 
authoritarian or libertarian. If the individuals who take 
part in a group manage the affairs of that group (including
what kinds of decisions can be delegated) then that group is 
based on liberty. If that power is left to a few individuals 
(whether elected or not) then that group is structured in an 
authoritarian manner. This can be seen from Bakunin's 
argument that power must be "diffused" into the collective 
in an anarchist society. Clearly, anarchists do not 
reject the need for organisation nor the need to make 
and abide by collective decisions. Rather, the question 
is how these decisions are to be made -- are they to be 
made from below, by those affected by them, or from above, 
imposed by a few people in authority.

Only a sophist would confuse hierarchical power with the 
power of people managing their own affairs. It is an 
improper use of words to denote equally as "authority" 
two such opposed concepts as individuals subjected to 
the autocratic power of a boss and the voluntary 
co-operation of conscious individuals working together 
as equals. The lifeless obedience of a governed mass 
cannot be compared to the organised co-operation of 
free individuals, yet this is what Engels does. The 
former is marked by hierarchical power and the turning 
of the subjected into automations performing mechanical
movements without will and thought. The latter is 
marked by participation, discussion and agreement. 
Both are, of course, based on co-operation but to 
argue that latter restricts liberty as much as the 
former simply confuses co-operation with coercion. 
It also indicates a distinctly liberal conception 
of liberty, seeing it restricted by association with 
others rather than seeing association as an expression 
of liberty. As Malatesta argued:

"The basic error . . . is in believing that organisation 
is not possible without authority.

"Now, it seems to us that organisation, that is to say,
association for a specific purpose and with the structure
and means required to attain it, is a necessary aspect of
social life. A man in isolation cannot even live the life
of a beast . . . Having therefore to join with other
humans . . . he must submit to the will of others (be
enslaved) or subject others to his will (be in authority)
or live with others in fraternal agreement in the interests
of the greatest good of all (be an associate). Nobody can
escape from this necessity." [_Life and Ideas_, pp. 84-5]

Therefore, organisation is "only the practice of co-operation
and solidarity" and is a "natural and necessary condition
of social life." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 83] Clearly, the 
question is not whether we organise, but how do we do so. 
This means that, for anarchists, Engels confused vastly
different concepts: "Co-ordination is dutifully confused
with command, organisation with hierarchy, agreement with
domination -- indeed, 'imperious' domination." [Murray
Bookchin, _Towards an Ecological Society_, pp. 126-7]

Socialism will only exist when the discipline currently 
enforced by the stick in the hand of the boss is replaced 
by the conscious self-discipline of free individuals. It 
is not by changing who holds the stick (from a capitalist 
to a "socialist" boss) that socialism will be created. 
It is only by the breaking up and uprooting of this slavish 
spirit of discipline, and its replacement by self-management, 
that working people will create a new discipline what will 
be the basis of socialism (the voluntary self-discipline 
Bakunin talked about).

Clearly, then, Engels did not refute anarchism by his essay.
Rather, he refuted a straw man of his own creation. The 
question was *never* one of whether certain tasks need
co-operation, co-ordination, joint activity and agreement. 
It was, in fact, a question of *how* that is achieved. As 
such, Engels diatribe misses the point. Instead of addressing 
the actual politics of anarchism or their actual use of the
word "authority," he rather addresses a series of logical
deductions he draws from a false assumption regarding those 
politics. Engels essay shows the bedlam that can be created 
when a remorseless logician deduces away from an incorrect 
starting assumption.

For collective activity anarchists recognise the need to make 
and stick by agreements. Collective activity of course needs 
collective decision making and organisation. In so far as 
Engels had a point to his diatribe (namely that group efforts 
meant co-operating with others), Bakunin (like any anarchist)
would have agreed. The question was how are these decisions
to be made, not whether they should be or not. Ultimately,
Engels confused agreement with hierarchy. Anarchists do not. 

H.4.1 Does organisation imply the end of liberty?

Engels argument in "On Authority" can be summed up as any form 
of collective activity means co-operating with others and that
this means the individual subordinates themselves to others,
specifically the group. As such, authority cannot be abolished 
as organisation means that "the will of a single individual 
will always have to subordinate itself, which means that 
questions are settled in an authoritarian way." [Op. Cit., 
p. 731]

As such, Engels argument proves too much. As every form of
joint activity involves agreement and "subordination," then
life itself becomes "authoritarian." The only free person,
according to Engels' logic, would be the hermit. As George
Barrett argues:

"To get the full meaning out of life we must co-operate, and 
to co-operate we must make agreements with our fellow-men. But 
to suppose that such agreements mean a limitation of freedom 
is surely an absurdity; on the contrary, they are the exercise 
of our freedom.

"If we are going to invent a dogma that to make agreements is 
to damage freedom, then at once freedom becomes tyrannical, for 
it forbids men [and women] to take the most ordinary everyday 
pleasures. For example, I cannot go for a walk with my friend 
because it is against the principle of Liberty that I should 
agree to be at a certain place at a certain time to meet him. 
I cannot in the least extend my own power beyond myself, 
because to do so I must co-operate with someone else, and 
co-operation implies an agreement, and that is against 
Liberty. It will be seen at once that this argument is
absurd. I do not limit my liberty, but simply exercise it, 
when I agree with my friend to go for a walk.

"If, on the other hand, I decide from my superior knowledge 
that it is good for my friend to take exercise, and therefore 
I attempt to compel him to go for a walk, then I begin to limit 
freedom. This is the difference between free agreement and 
government." [_Objections to Anarchism_]

So, if we took Engels' argument seriously, then we would have
to conclude that living makes freedom impossible! After all 
by doing any joint activity you "subordinate" yourself to
others and, ironically, exercising your liberty by making
decisions and associating with others would become a denial 
of liberty. Clearly Engels argument is lacking something!

Perhaps this paradox can be explained once we recognise 
that Engels is using a distinctly liberal view of freedom 
-- i.e. freedom from. Anarchists reject this. We see 
freedom as holistic -- freedom from and freedom to. This 
means that that freedom is maintained by the kind of 
relationships we form with others, *not* by isolation. 
Liberty is denied when we form hierarchical relationships 
with others not necessarily when we associate with others. 
To combine with other individuals is an expression of 
individual liberty, *not* its denial! We are aware that 
freedom is impossible outside of association. Within an 
association absolute "autonomy" cannot exist, but such 
a concept of "autonomy" would restrict freedom to such a 
degree that it would be so self-defeating as to make a 
mockery of the concept of autonomy and no sane person 
would seek it.

Clearly, Engels "critique" hides more than it explains. Yes, 
co-operation and coercion both involve people working jointly 
together, but they are *not* to be equated. While Bakunin 
recognised this fundamental difference and tried, perhaps 
incompletely, to differentiate them (by arguing against 
"the principle of authority") and to base his politics on 
the difference, Engels obscures the differences and muddies 
the water by confusing the two radically different concepts 
within the word "authority." 

Any organisation or group is based on co-operation and 
co-ordination (Engels' "principle of authority"). How 
that co-operation is achieved is dependent on the 
*type* of organisation in question and that, in turn, 
specifies the *social* relationships within it. It is 
these social relationships which determine whether
an organisation is authoritarian or libertarian, not the
universal need to make and stick by agreements. Engels is 
simply confusing obedience with agreement, coercion with 
co-operation, organisation with authority, objective
reality with despotism.

As such, rather than seeing organisation as restricting
freedom, anarchists argue that the *kind* of organisation
we create is what matters. We can form relationships with 
others which are based on equality, not subordination. As 
an example, we point to the differences between marriage
and free love (see next section). Once it is recognised
that decisions can be made on the basis of agreements
between equals, Engels essay can be seen for what it is -- 
a deeply flawed piece of cheap and inaccurate diatribe.

H.4.2 How does free love versus marriage indicate the weakness
	of Engels' argument?
 
Engels, let us not forget, argues, in effect, any activities which 
"replace isolated action by combined action of individuals" means
"the imposition of the will of another upon ours" and so "the will 
of the single individual will have to subordinate itself, which 
means that questions are settled in an authoritarian manner." 
This, for Engels, means that "authority" has not "disappeared" 
under anarchism but rather it has only "changed its form." 
[Op. Cit., pp. 730-1]

However, to say that authority just changes its form misses 
the qualitative differences between authoritarian and 
libertarian organisation. Precisely the differences which
Bakunin and other anarchists tried to stress by calling
themselves anti-authoritarians and being against the 
"principle of authority." By arguing that all forms of
association are necessarily "authoritarian," Engels is
impoverishing the liberatory potential of socialism. He
ensures that the key question of liberty within our
associations is hidden behind a mass of sophistry.

As an example, look at the difference between marriage 
and free love. Both forms necessitate two individuals 
living together, sharing the same home, organising their 
lives together. The same situation and the same commitments. 
But do both imply the same social relationships? Are they
both "authoritarian"?

Traditionally, the marriage vow is based on the wife promising 
to obey the husband. Her role is simply that of obedience (in 
theory, at least). As Carole Pateman argues, "[u]ntil late
into the nineteenth century the legal and civil position of
a wife resembled that of a slave" and, in theory, "became the
property of her husband and stood to him as a slave/servant
to a master." [_The Sexual Contract_, p. 119 and pp. 130-1]
As such, an obvious social relationship exists -- an
authoritarian one in which the man has power over the woman.
We have a relationship based on domination and subordination. 

In free love, the couple are equals. They decide their own affairs, 
together. The decisions they reach are agreed between them and no 
domination takes place (unless you think making an agreement
equals domination or subordination). They both agree to the 
decisions they reach, based on mutual respect and give and take. 
Subordination to individuals does not meaningfully exist (at
best, it could be argued that both parties are "dominated" by
their decisions, hardly a meaningful use of the word). Instead 
of subordination, there is free agreement. 

Both types of organisation apply to the same activities -- a 
couple living together. Has "authority" just changed its form 
as Engels argued? Of course not. There is a substantial 
difference between the two. The former is authoritarian. One 
part of the organisation dictates to the other. The latter is 
libertarian as neither dominates (or they, as a couple, 
"dominate" each other as individuals -- surely an abuse 
of the language, we hope you agree!). Each part of the 
organisation agrees to the decision. Do all these differences 
just mean that we have changed name of "authority" or has
authority been abolished and liberty created? This was
the aim of Bakunin's terminology, namely to draw attention 
to the qualitative change that has occurred in the social 
relationships generated by the association of individuals
when organised in an anarchist way.

As such, Engels is confusing two radically different means 
of decision making by arguing both involve subordination and 
authority. The difference is clear: the former involves the
domination of an individual over another while the second 
involves the "subordination" of individuals to the decisions 
and agreements they make. The first is authority, the second
is liberty. 

Therefore, the example of free love indicates that, for
anarchists, Engels arguments are simply pedantic sophistry.
It goes without saying that organisation involves co-operation
and that, by necessity, means that individuals come to agreements
between themselves to work together. The question is *how* do
they do that, not whether they do so or not. As such, Engels'
arguments confuse agreement with hierarchy, co-operation with
coercion. Simply put, the *way* people conduct joint activity 
determines whether an organisation is libertarian or authoritarian. 
That was why anarchists called themselves anti-authoritarians,
to draw attention to the different ways of organising collective
work.

H.4.3 How do anarchists propose to run a factory?

In his campaign against anti-authoritarian ideas within the 
First International, Engels asks in a letter written in 
January 1872 "how do these people [the anarchists] propose 
to run a factory, operate a railway or steer a ship without 
having in the last resort one deciding will, without a 
single management." [_The Marx-Engels Reader_, p. 729] 

This, of course, can only be asked if Engels was totally 
ignorant of Bakunin's ideas and his many comments supporting 
co-operatives and workers' associations as the means by 
which workers would "organise and themselves conduct the 
economy without guardian angels, the state or their former 
employers." Indeed, Bakunin was "convinced that the co-operative 
movement will flourish and reach its full potential only in 
a society where the land, the instruments of production, 

and hereditary property will be owned and operated by the 
workers themselves: by their freely organised federations 
of industrial and agricultural workers." [_Bakunin on 
Anarchism_, p. 399 and p. 400] Which means that Bakunin,
like all anarchists, was well aware of how a factory or 
other workplace would be organised: 

"Only associated labour, that is, labour organised upon the 
principles of reciprocity and co-operation, is adequate to 
the task of maintaining . . . civilised society." [_The 
Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 341]

By October of that year, Engels had finally "submitted arguments 
like these to the most rabid anti-authoritarians" who replied to 
run a factory, railway or ship did require organisation "but here 
it was not a case of authority which we confer on our delegates, 
*but of a commission entrusted!*" Engels commented that the 
anarchists "think that when they have changed the names of 
things they have changed the things themselves." He, therefore, 
thinks that authority "will . . . only have changed its form" 
rather than being abolished under anarchism as "whoever mentions 
combined action speaks of organisation" and it is not possible 
"to have organisation without authority." [Op. Cit., p. 732 and 
p. 731]

However, Engels is simply confusing two different things, 
authority and agreement. To make an agreement with another 
person is an exercise of your freedom, not its restriction. 
As Malatesta argued, "the advantages which association and 
the consequent division of labour offer" meant that humanity 
"developed towards solidarity." However, under class society
"the advantages of association, the good that Man could
drive from the support of his fellows" was distorted and
a few gained "the advantages of co-operation by subjecting
other men to [their] will instead of joining with them."
This oppression "was still association and co-operation,
outside of which there is no possible human life; but it
was a way of co-operation, imposed and controlled by a few
for their personal interest." [_Anarchy_, p. 28] Anarchists
seek to organise association to eliminate domination. This
would be done by workers organising themselves collectively
to make their own decisions about their work (workers'
self-management, to use modern terminology).

As such, workers would organise their tasks but this did not
necessitate the same authoritarian social relationships as
exist under capitalism:

"Of course in every large collective undertaking, a division
of labour, technical management, administration, etc., is
necessary. But authoritarians clumsily play on words to
produce a *raison d'etre* for government out of the very
real need for the organisation of work. Government . . . 
is the concourse of individuals who have had, or have
seized, the right and the means to make laws and to oblige
people to obey; the administrator, the engineer, etc.,
instead are people who are appointed or assume the
responsibility to carry out a particular job and do
so. Government means the delegation of power, that is
the abdication of initiative and sovereignty of all into
the hands of a few; administration means the delegation of
work, that is tasks given and received, free exchange of
services based on free agreement. . . Let one not confuse
the function of government with that of administration,
for they are essentially different, and if today the two
are often confused, it is only because of economic and
political privilege." [_Anarchy_, pp. 39-40]

For a given task, co-operation and joint activity may be
required by its very nature. Take, for example, a train
network. The joint activity of numerous workers are 
required to ensure that it operates successfully. The
driver depends on the work of signal operators, for 
example, and guards to inform them of necessary information
essential for the smooth running of the network. The
passengers are dependent on the driver and the other
workers to ensure their journey is safe and quick. As
such, there is an objective need to co-operate but this
need is understood and agreed to by the people involved.

If a specific activity needs the co-operation of a number of 
people and can only be achieved if these people work together 
as a team and, therefore, need to make and stick by agreements, 
then this is undoubtedly a natural fact which the individual 
can only rebel against by leaving the association. Similarly, 
if an association considers it wise to elect a delegate whose 
tasks have been allocated by that group then, again, this 
is a natural fact which the individuals in question have 
agreed to and so have not been imposed upon the individual
by any external will -- the individual has been convinced
of the need to co-operate and does so.

Engels, therefore, confuses the authority of the current system,
organised and imposed from the top-down, with the self-management
required by a free society. He attempted to apply the same word
"authority" to two fundamentally different concepts. However,
we abuse words and practice deception when we apply the same
term to totally different concepts. As if the hierarchical,
authoritarian organisation of work under capitalism, imposed
by the few on the many and based by the absence of thought
and will of the subordinated, could be compared with the
co-ordination of joint activities by free individuals! What 
is there in common with the authoritarian structure of the
capitalist workplace or army and the libertarian organisation
required by workers to manage their struggle for freedom and,
ultimately, to manage their own working activity? Engels 
does damage to the language by using the same word 
("authority") to describe two so radically different things 
as the hierarchical organisation of wage labour and the free 
association and co-operation of equals of self-management. If 
an activity requires the co-operation of numerous individuals 
then, clearly, that is a natural fact and there is not much 
the individuals involved can do about it. Anarchists are not 
in the habit of denying common sense. The question is simply 
*how* do these individuals co-ordinate their activities. Is 
it by means of self-management or by hierarchy (authority)?

As such, anarchists have always been clear on how industry 
would be run -- by the workers' themselves in their own free
associations. In this way the domination of the boss would be
replaced by agreements between equals (see also sections 
I.3.1 and I.3.2 on how anarchists think workplaces will be
run in a free society).

H.4.4 How does the class struggle refute Engels' arguments 
      that industry required leaving "all autonomy behind"?

Engels argued that large-scale industry (or, indeed, any
form of organisation) meant that "authority" was required.
He stated that factories should have "Lasciate ogni autonomia,
voi che entrate" ("Leave, ye that enter in, all autonomy
behind") written above their doors. Indeed, that is the
basis of capitalism, with the wage worker being paid to
obey. This obedience, Engels argued, was necessary even
under socialism, as applying the "forces of nature" meant
"a veritable despotism independent of all social organisation."
This meant that "[w]anting to abolish authority in large-scale 
industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself." 
[Op. Cit., p. 731]

The best answer to Engels claims can be found in the class
struggle. Given that Engels was a capitalist (i.e. an owner
of a factory), he may have not been aware of the effectiveness
of "working to rule" when practised by workers. This basically
involves doing *exactly* what the boss tells you to do, regardless
of the consequences as regards efficiency, production and so on.
Quite simply, workers' refusing to practice autonomy can be an 
extremely effective and powerful weapon in the class struggle. 

This weapon has long been used by workers and advocated by
anarchists, syndicalists and wobblies. For example, the IWW
booklet _How to fire your boss_ argues that "[w]orkers often 
violate orders, resort to their own techniques of doing things, 
and disregard lines of authority simply to meet the goals of 
the company. There is often a tacit understanding, even by 
the managers whose job it is to enforce the rules, that these 
shortcuts must be taken in order to meet production quotas 
on time." They argue, correctly, that "if each of these rules 
and regulations were followed to the letter" then "[c]onfusion 
would result -- production and morale would plummet. And best 
of all, the workers can't get in trouble with the tactic 
because they are, after all, 'just following the rules.'"

The British anarcho-syndicalists of the _Direct Action Movement_
agree and even quote an industrial expert on the situation:

"If managers' orders were completely obeyed, confusion would 
result and production and morale would be lowered. In order to 
achieve the goals of the organisation workers must often violate 
orders, resort to their own techniques of doing things, and 
disregard lines of authority. Without this kind of systematic 
sabotage much work could not be done. This unsolicited sabotage 
in the form of disobedience and subterfuge is especially necessary 
to enable large bureaucracies to function effectively." [_Social 
Psychology of Industry_ by J.A.C. Brown, quoted in _Direct Action 
in Industry_]

Another weapon of workers' resistance is what has been called
"Working without enthusiasm" and is related to the "work to
rule." This tactic aims at "slowing production" in order to
win gains from management:

"Even the simplest repetitive job demands a certain minimum of
initiative and in this case it is failing to show any non-obligatory
initiative . . . [This] leads to a fall in production -- above all
in quality. The worker carries out every operation minimally;
the moment there is a hitch of any kind he [or she] abandons
all responsibility and hands over to the next man [or woman]
above him [or her] in the hierarchy; he works mechanically,
not checking the finished object, not troubling to regulate
his machine. In short he gets away with as much as he can,
but never actually does anything positively illegal." [Pierre
Dubois, _Sabotage in Industry_, p. 51]

The practice of "working to rule" and "working without enthusiasm"
shows how out of touch Engels (like any capitalist) is with 
the realities of shop floor life. These forms of direct action 
is extremely effective *because* the workers refuse to act 
autonomously in industry, to work out the problems they face 
during the working day themselves, and instead place all the 
decisions on the authority required, according to Engels, to 
run the factory. The factory itself quickly grinds to a halt. 
What keeps it going is not the "imperious" will of authority, 
but rather the autonomous activity of workers thinking and 
acting for themselves to solve the numerous problems they face 
during the working day.

As Cornelius Castoriadis argues:

"Resistance to exploitation expresses itself in a drop in
*productivity as well as exertion on the workers' part* . . .
At the same time it is expressed in the disappearance of
the *minimum* collective and spontaneous *management and
organisation* of work that the workers normally and of
necessity puts out. No modern factory could function for
twenty-four hours without this spontaneous organisation of
work that groups of workers, independent of the official
business management, carry out by filling in the gaps of
official production directives, by preparing for the
unforeseen and for regular breakdowns of equipment, by
compensating for management's mistakes, etc.

"Under 'normal' conditions of exploitation, workers are
torn between the need to organise themselves in this way
in order to carry out their work -- otherwise there are
repercussions for them -- and their natural desire to 
do their work, on the one hand, and, on the other, the
awareness that by doing so they only are serving the 
boss's interests. Added to those conflicting concerns
are the continual efforts of factory's management 
apparatus to 'direct' all aspects of the workers'
activity, which often results only in preventing them
from organising themselves." [_Political and Social
Writings_, vol. 2, p. 68]

Needless to say, co-operation and co-ordination is required in
any collective activity. Anarchists do not deny this fact of
nature, but the example Engels considered as irrefutable simply 
shows the fallacy of his argument. If large-scale industry 
was run along the lines argued by Engels, it would quickly
grind to halt. 

Ironically, the example of Russia under Lenin and Trotsky 
reinforces this fact. "Administrative centralisation" was 
enforced on the railway workers which, in turn, "led 
more to ignorance of distance and the inability to 
respond properly to local circumstances . . . 'I have no 
instructions' became all the more effective as a defensive 
and self-protective rationalisation as party officials vested 
with unilateral power insisted all their orders be strictly 
obeyed. Cheka ruthlessness instilled fear, but repression . . . 
only impaired the exercise of initiative that daily operations
required." [William G. Rosenberg, "The Social Background to
Tsektran," _Party, State, and Society in the Russian Civil War_,
Diane P. Koenker, William G. Rosenberg and Ronald Grigor
Suny (eds.), p. 369] Without the autonomy required to manage
local problems, the operation of the railways was seriously
harmed and, unsurprisingly, a few months after Trotsky
subjected to railway workers to the "militarisation of 
labour" in September 1920, there was a "disastrous collapse 
of the railway network in the winter of 1920-1." [Jonathan 
Aves, _Workers against Lenin_, p. 102]

As the experience of workers' in struggle shows, it is the 
*abolition* of autonomy which means the abolition of 
large-scale industry, not its exercise. This can be seen
from various forms of direct action such as "working to rule"
as well as Trotsky's attempts to impose the "militarisation
of labour" on the Russian workers. The conscious decision by 
workers to *not* exercise their autonomy brings industry 
grinding to a halt and are effective tools in the class 
struggle. As any worker know, it is only their ability to 
make decisions autonomously that keeps industry going.

Rather than abolishing authority making large-scale industry 
impossible, it is the abolishing of autonomy which quickly 
achieves this. The issue is how do we organise industry so 
that this essential autonomy is respected and co-operation
between workers achieved based on it. For anarchists, this 
is done by self-managed workers associations in which 
hierarchical authority is replaced by collective self-discipline 
(as discussed in section H.6.12).

H.4.5 Is the way industry operates "independent of all
      social organisation"?

As noted in the last section, Engels argued that applying the 
"forces of nature" meant "a veritable despotism independent 
of all social organisation." This meant that "[w]anting to 
abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to 
wanting to abolish industry itself." [Op. Cit., p. 731]

For anarchists, Engels' comments ignore the reality of class 
society in an important way. Modern ("large-scale") industry 
has not developed neutrally or naturally, independently of all 
social organisation as Engels claimed. Rather it has been 
shaped by the class struggle. As we argued in section D.10, 
technology is a weapon in the class struggle. As Castoriadis 
argues:

"Management organises production with a view of achieving
'maximum efficiency.' But the first result of this sort of
organisation is to stir up the workers' revolt against
production itself . . . To combat the resistance of the
workers, the management institutes an ever more minute 
division of labour and tasks . . . Machines are invented,
or selected, according to one fundamental criterion: Do
they assist in the struggle of management against workers,
do they reduce yet further the worker's margin of autonomy,
do they assist in eventually replacing him [or her]
altogether? In this sense, the organisation of production
today . . . is *class organisation.* Technology is
predominantly *class technology.* No . . . manager would
ever introduce into his plant a machine which would 
increase the freedom of a particular worker or of a
group of workers to run the job themselves, even if
such a machine increased production.

"The workers are by no means helpless in this struggle.
They constantly invent methods of self-defence. They
break the rules, while 'officially' keeping them. They
organise informally, maintain a collective solidarity
and discipline." [_The Meaning of Socialism_, pp. 9-10]

As such, one of the key aspects of the class struggle
is the conflict of workers against attempts by management
to eliminate their autonomy within the production process.
This struggle generates the machines which Engels claims
produce a "veritable despotism independent of all social
organisation." Regardless of what Engels implies, the way
industry has developed is not independent of class society
and its "despotism" has been engineered that way. For
example, it may be a fact of nature that ten people may be
required to operate a machine, but that machine is not
such a fact, it is a human invention and so can be changed.
Nor is it a fact of nature that work organisation should be
based on a manager dictating to the workers what to do --
rather it could be organised by the workers themselves,
using collective self-discipline to co-ordinate their
joint effort.

As one shop steward put it, workers are "not automatons.
We have eyes to see with, ears to hear with, and mouths
to talk." As David Noble comments, "[f]or management 
. . . that was precisely the problem. Workers controlled
the machines, and through their unions had real authority
over the division of labour and job content." [_Forces
of Production_, p. 37] This autonomy was what managers
constantly struggled against and introduced technology
to combat. As such, Engels' notion that machinery was
"despotic" hide the nature of class society and the fact
that authority is a social relationship, a relationship
between people and not people and things. And, equally,
that different kinds of authority meant different kinds
of organisation and different social relationships to do
the collective tasks. It was precisely to draw attention
to this that anarchists called themselves anti-authoritarians.

Clearly, Engels is simply ignoring the actual relations
of authority within capitalist industry and, like the
capitalism he claims to oppose, is raising the needs of
the bosses to the plane of "natural fact." Indeed, is 
this not the refrain of every boss or supporter of 
capitalism? Right-libertarian guru Ludwig von Mises 
spouted this kind of refrain when he argued that 
"[t]he root of the syndicalist idea is to be seen 
in the belief that entrepreneurs and capitalists are 
irresponsible autocrats who are free to conduct their 
affairs arbitrarily. Such a dictatorship must not be 
tolerated . . . The fundamental error of this argument 
is obvious [sic!]. The entrepreneurs and capitalists are 
not irresponsible autocrats. They are unconditionally 
subject to the sovereignty of the consumers. The market 
is a consumers' democracy." [_Human Action_, p. 814] In
other words, it is not the bosses fault work is so hard 
or that they dictate to the worker. No, of course not, 
it is the despotism of the machine, of nature, of the 
market, of the customer, anyone and anything *but* 
the person *with* authority who is actually giving 
the orders and punishing those who do not obey! 

Needless to say, like Engels essay, von Mises' argument 
is fundamentally flawed simply because the boss is not 
just repeating the instructions of the market (assuming 
that it is a "consumers' democracy," which it is not). 
Rather, they give their own instructions based on
their own sovereignty over the workers. The workers could,
of course, manage their own affairs and meet the demands
of consumers directly. The "sovereignty" of the market
(just like the "despotism" of machines and joint action)
is independent of the social relationships which exist
within the workplace, but the social relationships themselves
are not predetermined by them. Thus the same workshop can
be organised in different ways. As such, the way industry
operates *is* dependent on social organisation. The workers
can manage their own affairs or be subjected to the rule
of a boss. To say that "authority" still exists simply
means to confuse agreement with obedience.

The importance of differentiating between types of
organisation and ways of making decisions can be seen from 
the experience of the class struggle. During the Spanish 
Revolution anarchists organised militias to fight the fascists. 
One was lead by anarchist militant Durruti. His military adviser, 
Prez Farras, a professional soldier, was concerned about the 
application of libertarian principles to military organisation. 
Durruti replied:

"I have already said and I repeat; during all my life, I have 
acted as an anarchist. The fact of having been given political 
responsibility for a human collective cannot change my convictions. 
It is under these conditions that I agreed to play the role
given to me by the Central Committee of the Militias.

"I thought -- and what has happened confirms my belief -- that a 
workingmen's militia cannot be led according to the same rules as
an army. I think that discipline, co-ordination and the fulfilment 
of a plan are indispensable. But this idea can no longer be
understood in the terms of the world we have just destroyed. 
We have new ideas. We think that solidarity among men must
awaken personal responsibility, which knows how to accept 
discipline as an autonomous act.

"Necessity imposes a war on us, a struggle that differs from 
many of those that we have carried on before. But the goal of our
struggle is always the triumph of the revolution. This means not 
only victory over the enemy, but also a radical change in man.
For this change to occur, man must learn to live in freedom and 
develop in himself his potentialities as a responsible individual.
The worker in the factory, using his tools and directing production, 
is bringing about a change in himself. The fighter, like the
worker, uses his gun as a tool and his acts must lead to the 
same goals as those of the worker. 

"In the struggle he cannot act like a soldier under orders but 
like a man who is conscious of what he is doing. I know it is not 
easy to get such a result, but what one cannot get by reason, one 
can never get through force. If our revolutionary army must be
maintained through fear, we will have changed nothing but the 
colour of fear. It is only by freeing itself from fear that a 
free society can be built." [quoted by Abel Paz, _Durruti: The 
People Armed_, p. 225]

Is it really convincing to argue that the individuals who made
up the militia are subject to the same social relationships as
those in a capitalist or Leninist army? The same, surely, goes
for workers associations and wage labour. Ultimately, the
flaw in Engels' argument can be best seen simply because he 
thinks that the "automatic machinery of a big factory is much 
more despotic than the small capitalist who employ workers ever 
have been." [Op. Cit., p. 731] Authority and liberty become 
detached from human beings, as if authoritarian social 
relationships can exist independently of individuals! It 
is a *social* relationship anarchists oppose, not an 
abstraction.

As such, Engels' argument is applicable to *any* society
and to *any* task which requires joint effort. If, for
example, a table needs four people to move it then those
four people are subject to the "despotism" of gravity!
Under such "despotism" can we say its irrelevant whether
these four people are slaves to a master who wants the
table moved or whether they agree between themselves to
move the table and on the best way to do it? In both
cases the table movers are subject to the same "despotism" 
of gravity, yet in the latter example they are *not* 
subject to the despotism of other human beings they
are subject to in the former. Clearly, Engels is playing
with words!
 
The fallacy of Engels' basic argument can be seen from 
this simple example. He essentially uses a *liberal*
concept of freedom (i.e. freedom exists prior to society 
and is reduced within it) when attacking anarchism. Rather 
than see freedom as a product of interaction, as Bakunin 
did, Engels sees it as a product of isolation. Collective 
activity is seen as a realm of necessity (to use Marx's 
phrase) and not one of freedom. Indeed, machines and the
forces of nature are considered by Engels' as "despots"!
As if despotism was not a specific set of relationships
between *humans.* As Bookchin argues:

"To Engels, the factory is a natural fact of technics, not
a specifically bourgeois mode of rationalising labour;
hence it will exist under communism as well as capitalism.
It will persist 'independently of all social organisation.' 
To co-ordinate a factory's operations requires 'imperious 
obedience,' in which factory hands lack all 'autonomy.' 
Class society or classless, the realm of necessity
is also a realm of command and obedience, of ruler and
ruled. In a fashion totally congruent with all class
ideologists from the inception of class society, Engels
weds Socialism to command and rule as a natural fact.
Domination is reworked from a social attribute into a
precondition for self-preservation in a technically
advanced society." [_Towards an Ecological Society_,
p. 206]

Given this, it can be argued that Engels' "On Authority" 
had a significant impact in the degeneration of the 
Russian Revolution into state capitalism. By deliberately 
obscuring the differences between self-managed and authoritarian 
organisation, he helped provide Bolshevism with ideological 
justification for eliminating workers self-management in 
production. After all, if self-management and hierarchical 
management both involve the same "principle of authority," 
then it does not really matter how production is organised 
and whether industry is managed by the workers or by 
appointed managers (as Engels stressed, authority in industry 
was independent of the social system and all forms of 
organisation meant subordination). Murray Bookchin draws 
the obvious conclusion from Engels' (and Marx's) position:
"Obviously, the factory conceived of as a 'realm of necessity' 
[as opposed to a 'realm of freedom'] requires no need 
for self-management." [Op. Cit., p. 126] 

Hence the Bolsheviks need not to consider whether replacing 
factory committees with appointed managers armed with 
"dictatorial powers" would have any effect on the position 
of workers in socialism (after all, the were subject to 
subordination either way). Engels had used the modern 
factory system of mass production as a direct analogy 
to argue against the anarchist call for workers' councils, 
for autonomy, for participation, for self-management. 
Authority, hierarchy, and the need for submission and 
domination is inevitable given the current mode of 
production, both Engels and Lenin argued. Little wonder, 
then, the worker become the serf of the state (see
section H.6.11 for more details). In his own way, Engels 
contributed to the degeneration of the Russian Revolution 
by providing the rationale for the Bolsheviks disregard for 
workers' self-management of production. 

Simply put, Engels was wrong. The need to co-operate and
co-ordinate activity may be independent of social development,
but the nature of a society does impact on how this
co-operation is achieved. If it is achieved by hierarchical
means, then it is a class society. If it is achieved by
agreements between equals, then it is a socialist one. As
such, how industry operates *is* dependent on society it 
is part of. An anarchist society would run industry based 
on the free agreement of workers united in free associations 
(see section H.4.3). This would necessitate making and 
sticking to joint decisions but this co-ordination would be 
between equals, not master and servant. By not recognising
this fact, Engels fatally undermined the cause of socialism.

H.4.6 Why does Engel's "On Authority" harm Marxism?

Ironically, Engels' essay "On Authority" also strikes at the
heart of Marxism and its critique of anarchism. Forgetting
what he had written in 1873, Engels argued in 1894 that
for him and Marx the "ultimate political aim is to overcome
the whole state and therefore democracy as well." [quoted
by Lenin, "State and Revolution", _Essential Works of
Lenin_, p. 331] Lenin argued that "the abolition of the
state means also the abolition of democracy." [Op. Cit., 
p. 332]

However, Lenin quoted Engels' "On Authority" which stated
that any form of collective activity meant "authority" and
so the subjection of the minority to the majority ("if
possible") and "the imposition of the will of another
upon ours." [Engels, _Marx-Engels Reader_, p. 731 and 
p. 730]

Aware of the contradiction, Lenin stresses that 
"someone may even begin to fear we are expecting 
the advent of an order of society in which the 
subordination of the minority to the majority will 
not be respected." That was not the case, however. 
He simply rejected the idea that democracy was "the 
recognition of this principle" arguing that "democracy 
is a *state* which recognises the subordination of 
the minority to the majority, i.e. an organisation 
for the systematic use of *violence* by one class 
against the other, by one section of the population 
against another." He argued that "the need for violence 
against people in general, the need for the *subjection* 
of one man to another, will vanish, since people will 
*become accustomed* to observing the elementary 
conditions of social life *without force* and *without
subordination.*" [Lenin, Op. Cit., pp. 332-3]

Talk about playing with words! Earlier in his work Lenin
summarised Engels "On Authority" by stating that "is it
not clear that . . . complex technical units, based on
the employment of machinery and the ordered co-operation
of many people, could function without a certain amount
of subordination, without some authority or power." [Op.
Cit., p. 316] Now, however, he argues that communism
would involve no "subordination" while, at the same time,
be based on the "the principle of the subordination of
the minority to the majority"! A contradiction? Perhaps
no, as he argues that the minority would "become
accustomed" to the conditions of "social life" -- in
other words the recognition that sticking to your
agreements you make with others does not involve
"subordination." This, ironically, would confirm 
anarchist ideas as we argue that making agreements
with others, as equals, does not involve domination
or subordination but rather is an expression of
autonomy, of liberty.

Similarly, we find Engels arguing in _Anti-Duhring_ that
socialism would "puts an end to the former subjection of
men to their own means of production" and that "productive
labour, instead of being a means of subjugating men, will
become a means of their emancipation." [_Marx-Engels
Reader_, p. 720 and p. 721] This work was written in
1878, six years after "On Authority" when he stressed
that "the automatic machinery of a big factory is much
more despotic than the small capitalists who employ
workers ever have been" and "subdu[ing] the forces of
nature . . . avenge themselves" upon "man" by "subjecting
him . . . to a veritable despotism independent of all
social organisation." [Op. Cit., p. 731] Engels is 
clearly contradicting himself. When attacking the anarchists, 
he argues that the "subjection" of people to the means of 
production was inevitable and utterly "independent of all 
social organisation." Six years later he argues that 
socialism will abolish this inescapable subjection to 
the "veritable despotism" of modern industry!

As can be seen from both Engels and Lenin, we have a 
contradiction within Marxism. On the one hand, they argue 
that authority ("subjection") will always be with us, no 
matter what, as "subordination" and "authority" is 
independent of the specific social society we live in. On
the other, they argue that Marxist socialism will be 
without a state, "without subordination," "without force" 
and will end the "subjection of men to their own means of 
production." The two positions cannot be reconciled. 

Simply put, if Engels "On Authority" is correct then,
logically, it means that not only is anarchism impossible
but also Marxist socialism. Lenin and Engels are trying to 
have it both ways. On the one hand, arguing that anarchism 
is impossible as any collective activity means subjection 
and subordination, on the other, that socialism will end 
that inevitable subjection. And, of course, arguing that 
democracy will be "overcome" while, at the same time, 
arguing that it can never be. Ultimately, it shows that
Engels essay is little more than a cheap polemic without
much merit.

Even worse for Marxism is Engels' comment that authority and
autonomy "are relative things whose spheres vary with the
various phases of society" and that "the material conditions
of production and circulation inevitably develop with
large-scale industry and large-scale agriculture, and
increasingly tend to enlarge the scope of this authority."
[Op. Cit., p. 732] Given that this is "a veritable
despotism" and Marxism aims at "one single vast plan"
in modern industry, then the scope for autonomy, for
freedom, is continually reduced during the working day.
[Op. Cit., p. 723 and p. 731] The only possible solution
is reducing the working day to a minimum and so the time
spent as a slave to the machine is reduced. The idea that
work should be transformed into creative, empowering and
liberating experience is automatically destroyed by Engels
argument. Like capitalism, Marxist-Socialism is based on
"work is hell" and the domination of the producer. Hardly
an inspiring vision of the future.

H.4.7 Why does Engels' argument that revolution is "the most
      authoritarian thing there is" totally miss the point?

As well as the argument that "authority" is essential for
every collective activity, Engels raises another argument
against anarchism. This second argument is that revolutions 
are by nature authoritarian. In his words, a "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; and if the 
victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it 
must maintain this rule by means of the terror its arms 
inspire in the reactionaries." [_Marx-Engels Reader_, p. 733]

However, such an analysis is without class analysis and so 
will, by necessity, mislead the writer and the reader. Engels 
argues that revolution is the imposition by "one part of the 
population" on another. Very true -- but Engels fails to 
indicate the nature of class society and, therefore, of a 
social revolution. In a class society "one part of the 
population" constantly "imposes its will upon the other 
part" -- those with power imposes its decisions to those 
beneath them in the social hierarchy. In other words, the 
ruling class imposes its will on the working class everyday 
in work by the hierarchical structure of the workplace and 
in society by the state. Discussing the "population" as 
if it was not divided by classes and so subject to specific 
forms of authoritarian social relationships is liberal 
nonsense. 

Once we recognise that the "population" in question is divided 
into classes we can easily see the fallacy of Engels argument. 
In a 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. 
In other words, it is an act of *liberation* in which the 
hierarchical power of the few over the many is eliminated 
and replaced by the freedom of the many to control their 
own lives. It is hardly authoritarian to destroy authority! 
Thus a social revolution is, fundamentally, an act of 
liberation for the oppressed who act in their own interests
to end the system in which "one part of population imposes its
will upon the other" everyday. 

Malatesta states the obvious:

"To fight our enemies effectively, we do not need to deny
the principle of freedom, not even for one moment: it is
sufficient for us to want real freedom and to want it for
all, for ourselves as well as for others.

"We want to expropriate the property-owning class, and with
violence, since it is with violence that they hold on to
social wealth and use it to exploit the working class. Not
because freedom is a good thing for the future, but because
it is a good thing, today as well as tomorrow, and the
property owners, be denying us the means of exercising
our freedom, in effect, take it away from us.

"We want to overthrow the government, all governments --
and overthrow them with violence since it is by the use
of violence that they force us into obeying -- and once
again, not because we sneer at freedom when it does not
serve our interests but because governments are the
negation of freedom and it is not possible to be free
without getting rid of them . . . 

"The freedom to oppress, to exploit, to oblige people
to take up arms [i.e. conscription], to pay taxes,
etc., is the denial of freedom: and the fact that
our enemies make irrelevant and hypocritical use of
the word freedom is not enough to make us deny the
principle of freedom which is the outstanding 
characteristic of our movement and a permanent,
constant and necessary factor in the life and progress
of humanity." [_Life and Ideas_, p. 51]

It seems strange that Engels, in effect, is arguing that the 
abolition of tyranny is tyranny against the tyrants! As
Malatesta so clearly argued, anarchists "recognise violence
only as a means of legitimate self-defence; and if today
they are in favour of violence it is because they maintain
that slaves are always in a state of legitimate defence."
[Op. Cit., p. 59] As such, Engels fails to understand the 
revolution from a *working class* perspective (perhaps 
unsurprisingly, as he was a capitalist). The "authority" 
of the "armed workers" over the bourgeois is, simply,
the defence of the workers' freedom against those who
seek to end it by exercising/recreating the very 
authoritarian social relationships the revolution sought 
to end in the first place. Ultimately, Engels is like the 
liberal who equates the violence of the oppressed to
end oppression with that the oppressors!

Needless to say, this applies to the class struggle as well.
Is, for example, a picket line really authoritarian because 
it tries to impose its will on the boss, police or scabs? 
Rather, is it not defending the workers' freedom against 
the authoritarian power of the boss and their lackeys (the 
police and scabs)? Is it "authoritarian" to resist authority 
and create a structure -- a strike assembly and picket line -- 
which allows the formally subordinated workers to manage their 
own affairs directly and without bosses? Is it "authoritarian" 
to combat the authority of the boss, to proclaim your freedom 
and exercise it? Of course not. Little wonder Bakunin talked
about "the development and organisation" of the "social (and, 
by consequence, anti-political) power of the working masses" 
and "the revolutionary organisation of the natural power of 
the masses"! 

Structurally, a strikers' assembly and picket line -- which 
are forms of self-managed association -- cannot be compared 
to an "authority" (such as a state). To try and do so fails 
to recognise the fundamental difference. In the strikers' 
assembly and picket line the strikers themselves decide 
policy and do not delegate power away into the hands of an 
authority (any strike committees execute the strikers 
decisions or is replaced). In a state, *power* is delegated 
into the hands of a few who then use that power as they see 
fit. This by necessity disempowers those at the base, who 
are turned into mere electors and order takers (i.e. an 
authoritarian relationship is created). Such a situation 
can only spell death of a social revolution, which requires 
the active participation of all if it is to succeed. It also,
incidentally, exposes a central fallacy of Marxism, namely that 
it claims to desire a society based on the participation of 
everyone yet favours a form of organisation -- centralisation 
-- that excludes that participation. 

Georges Fontenis summarises anarchist ideas on this subject
when he writes:

"And so against the idea of State, where power is exercised by 
a specialised group isolated from the masses, we put the idea 
of direct workers power, where accountable and controlled 
elected delegates (who can be recalled at any time and are 
remunerated at the same rate as other workers) replace 
hierarchical, specialised and privileged bureaucracy; 
where militias, controlled by administrative bodies such 
as soviets, unions and communes, with no special privileges 
for military technicians, realising the idea of the armed 
people, replace an army cut off from the body of Society 
and subordinated to the arbitrary power of a State or 
government." [_Manifesto of Libertarian Communism_, p. 24]

Anarchists, therefore, are no more impressed with this aspect
of Engels critique than his "organisation equals authority" 
argument. In summary, his argument is simply a liberal analysis 
of revolution, totally without a class basis or analysis and so 
fails to understand the anarchist case nor answer it. To argue 
that a revolution is made up of two groups of people, one of
which "imposes its will upon the other" fails to indicate 
the social relations that exist between these groups (classes)
and the relations of authority between them which the revolution 
is seeking to overthrow. As such, Engels critique totally misses 
the point.

H.5 What is vanguardism and why do anarchists reject it?

Many socialists follow the ideas of Lenin and, in particular,
his ideas on vanguard parties. These ideas were expounded by 
Lenin in his (in)famous work, _What is to be Done?_, which 
is considered as one of the important books in the development 
of Bolshevism. 

The core of these ideas is the concept of "vanguardism," or
the "vanguard party." According to this perspective, socialists
need to organise together in a party, based on the principles 
of "democratic centralism," which aims to gain a decisive 
influence in the class struggle. The ultimate aim of such a
party is revolution and its seizure of power. Its short term 
aim is to gather into it all "class conscious" workers into
a "efficient" and "effective" party, alongside members of 
other classes who consider themselves as revolutionary Marxists.
The party would be strictly centralised, with all members 
expected to submit to party decisions, speak in one voice and
act in one way. Without this "vanguard," injecting its politics
into the working class (who, it is argued, can only reach 
trade union consciousness by its own efforts), a revolution
is impossible.

Lenin laid the foundation of this kind of party in his book
_What is to be Done?_ and the vision of the "vanguard" party 
was explicitly formalised in the Communist International. As
Lenin put it, "Bolshevism *has created* the ideological and
tactical foundations of a Third International . . . Bolshevism
*can serve as a model of tactics for all.*" [_Collected Works_,
vol. 28, p. 292-3] Using the Russian Communist Party as its 
model, Bolshevik ideas on party organisation were raised as 
a model for revolutionaries across the world. Since then, the 
various followers of Leninism and its offshoots like Trotskyism
have organised themselves in this manner (with varying success).

The wisdom of applying an organisational model that had been 
developed in the semi-feudal conditions of Tsarist Russia to 
*every* country, regardless of its level of development, has 
been questioned by anarchists from the start. After all, could
it not be wiser to build upon the revolutionary tendencies 
which had developed in specific countries rather than import 
a new model which had been created for, and shaped by, radically
different social, political and economic conditions? The wisdom 
of applying the vanguard model is not questioned on these 
(essentially materialist) points by those who subscribe to 
it. While revolutionary workers in the advanced capitalist 
nations subscribed to anarchist and syndicalist ideas, this 
tradition is rejected in favour of one developed by, in the 
main, bourgeois intellectuals in a nation which was still
primarily feudal and absolutist. The lessons learned from years
of struggle in actual capitalist societies were simply rejected
in favour of those from a party operating under Tsarism. While 
most supporters of vanguardism will admit that conditions 
now are different than in Tsarist Russia, they still subscribe 
to organisational method developed in that context and justify
it, ironically enough, because of its "success" in the totally
different conditions that prevailed in Russia in the early 
20th Century! And Leninists claim to be materialists! Perhaps
the reason why Bolshevism rejected the materialist approach was 
because most of the revolutionary movements in advanced capitalist 
countries were explicitly anti-parliamentarian, direct actionist,
decentralist, federalist and influenced by libertarian ideas?
This materialist analysis was a key aspect of the council-communist 
critique of Lenin's _Left-Wing Communism_, for example (see Herman 
Gorter's _Open Letter to Comrade Lenin_ for one excellent reply
to Bolshevik arguments, tactics and assumptions).

However, this attempt to squeeze every working class movement 
into *one* "officially approved" model dates back to Marx and Engels. 
Faced with any working class movement which did *not* subscribe
to their vision of what they should be doing (namely organised
in political parties to take part in "political action," i.e.
standing in bourgeois elections) they simply labelled it as
the product of non-proletarian "sects." They went so far as
to gerrymander the 1872 conference of the First International 
to make acceptance of "political action" mandatory on all 
sections in an attempt to destroy anarchist influence in it.

So this section of our FAQ will explain why anarchists reject 
this model. In our view, the whole concept of a "vanguard
party" is fundamentally anti-socialist. Rather than present an
effective and efficient means of achieving revolution, the 
Leninist model is elitist, hierarchical and highly inefficient
in achieving a socialist society. At best, these parties play
a harmful effect in the class struggle by alienating activists
and militants with their organisational principles and manipulative
tactics within popular structures and groups. At worse, these
parties can seize power and create a new form of class society
(a state capitalist one) in which the working class is oppressed
by new bosses (namely, the party hierarchy and its appointees).
As we discuss in section H.5.9, their "efficiency" is a false 
economy.

However, before discussing why anarchists reject "vanguardism"
we need to stress a few points. Firstly, anarchists recognise 
the obvious fact that the working class is divided in terms 
of political consciousness. Secondly, from this fact most 
anarchists recognise the need to organise together to 
spread our ideas as well as taking part in, influencing 
and learning from the class struggle. As such, anarchists 
have long been aware of the need for revolutionaries
to organise *as revolutionaries.* Thirdly, anarchists are
well aware of the importance of revolutionary minorities 
playing an inspiring and "leading" role in the class struggle.
We do not reject the need for revolutionaries to "give a 
lead" in struggles, we reject the idea of institutionalised 
leadership and the creation of a leader/led hierarchy 
implicit (and sometimes no so implicit) in vanguardism.

As such, we do not oppose "vanguardism" for these reasons. 
So when Leninists like Tony Cliff argue that it is 
"unevenness in the class [which] makes the party necessary," 
anarchists reply that "unevenness in the class" makes it 
essential that revolutionaries organise together to influence 
the class but that organisation does not and need not take 
the form of a vanguard party. [Tony Cliff, _Lenin_, vol. 2, 
p. 149] This is because we reject the concept and practice 
for three reasons. 

Firstly, and most importantly, anarchists reject the underlying
assumption of vanguardism. As we discuss in the next section,
vanguardism is based on the argument that "socialist 
consciousness" has to be introduced into the working class 
from outside. We argue that not only is this position is 
empirically false, it is fundamentally anti-socialist in 
nature. This is because it logically denies that the 
emancipation of the working class is the task of the working
class itself. Moreover, it serves to justify elite rule. Some 
Leninists, embarrassed by the obvious anti-socialist nature 
of this concept, try and argue that Lenin (and so Leninism) 
does not hold this position. As we prove in section H.5.4, 
such claims are false.

Secondly, there is the question of organisational structure. 
Vanguard parties are based on the principle of "democratic
centralism" (see section H.5.5). Anarchists argue that such 
parties, while centralised, are not, in fact, democratic nor 
can they be. As such, the "revolutionary" or "socialist" party 
is no such thing as it reflects the structure of the capitalist 
system it claims to oppose. We discuss this in sections H.5.6
and H.5.10.

Lastly, anarchists argue that such parties are, despite the 
claims of their supporters, not actually very efficient or
effective in the revolutionary sense of the word. At best, 
they hinder the class struggle by being slow to respond to
rapidly changing situations. At worse, they are "efficient" in 
shaping both the revolution and the post-revolutionary society 
in a hierarchical fashion, so re-creating class rule. We discuss 
this aspect of vanguardism in section H.5.9.

So these are key aspects of the anarchist critique of vanguardism,
which we discuss in more depth in the following sections. It is a 
bit artificial to divide these issues into different sections
because they are all related. The role of the party implies a
specific form of organisation (as Lenin himself stressed), the
form of the party influences its effectiveness. However, it is
for ease of presentation we divide up our discussion so. 

H.5.1 Why are vanguard parties anti-socialist?

The reason why vanguard parties are anti-socialist is simply
because of the role assigned to them by Lenin, which he thought
was vital. Simply put, without the party, no revolution would 
be possible. As Lenin put it in 1900, "[i]solated from 
Social-Democracy, the working class movement becomes petty 
and inevitably becomes bourgeois." [_Collected Works_, vol. 
4, p. 368] 

In _What is to be Done?_, he expands on this position:

"Class political consciousness can be brought to the workers
*only from without,* that is, only outside of the economic
sruggle, outside the sphere of relations between workers and
employers. The sphere from which alone it is possible to obtain
this knowledge is the sphere of relationships between *all* the
various classes and strata and the state and the government --
the sphere of the interrelations between *all* the various 
classes." [_Essential Works of Lenin_, p. 112]

Thus the role of the party is to inject socialist politics into
a class incapable of developing them itself. 

Lenin is at pains to stress the Marxist orthodoxy of his claims
and quotes the "profoundly true and important" comments of Karl
Kautsky on the subject. [Op. Cit., p. 81] Kautsky, considered
the "pope" of Social-Democracy, stated that it was "absolutely
untrue" that "socialist consciousness" was a "necessary and 
direct result of the proletarian class struggle." Rather, 
"socialism and the class struggle arise side by side and not 
one out of the other . . . Modern socialist consciousness can 
arise only on the basis of profound scientific knowledge . . . 
The vehicles of science are not the proletariat, but the 
*bourgeois intellegentsia*: it was on the minds of some members 
of this stratum that modern socialism originated, and it was 
they who communicated it to the more intellectually developed 
proletarians who, in their turn, introduced it into the 
proletarian class struggle." Kautsky stressed that "socialist 
consciousness is something introduced into the proletarian 
class struggle from without." [quoted by Lenin, Op. Cit., 
pp. 81-2]

Lenin, as is obvious, wholeheartedly agreed with this position
(any attempt to claim that he did not or later rejected it 
is nonsense, as we prove in section H.5.4). Lenin, with his 
usual modesty, claimed to speak on behalf of the workers when
he wrote that "intellectuals must talk to us, and tell us more 
about what we do not know and what we can never learn from our 
factory and 'economic' experience, that is, you must give us 
political knowledge." [Op. Cit., p. 108] Thus we have Lenin 
painting a picture of a working class incapable of developing
"political knowledge" or "socialist consciousness" by its 
own efforts and so is reliant on members of the party, 
themselves either radical elements of the bourgeoisie and 
petty-bourgeoisie or educated by them, to provide it with such 
knowledge. 

The obvious implication of this argument is that the working 
class cannot liberate itself by its own efforts. After all, 
if the working class cannot develop its own political theory 
by its own efforts then it cannot conceive of transforming 
society and, at best, can see only the need to work within 
capitalism for reforms to improve its position in society. 
Without the radical bourgeois to provide the working class 
with "socialist" ideas, a socialist movement, let alone 
society, is impossible. A class whose members cannot develop 
political knowledge by its own actions cannot emancipate 
itself. It is, by necessity, dependent on others to shape 
and form its movements. To quote Trotsky's telling analogy 
on the respective roles of party and class, leaders and led: 

"Without a guiding organisation, the energy of the masses 
would dissipate like steam not enclosed in a piston. But 
nevertheless, what moves things is not the piston or the 
box, but the steam." [_History of the Russian Revolution_, 
vol. 1, p. 17] 

While Trotsky's mechanistic analogy may be considered as 
somewhat crude, it does expose the underlying assumptions 
of Bolshevism. After all, did not Lenin argue that the 
working class could not develop "socialist consciousness"
by themselves and that it had to be introduced from without?
How can you expect steam to create a piston? You cannot.
Thus we have a blind, elemental force incapable of conscious 
thought being guided by a creation of science, the piston 
(which, of course, is a product of the work of the "vehicles 
of science," namely the *bourgeois intellegentsia*). In the 
Leninist perspective, if revolutions are the locomotives 
of history (to use Marx's words) then the masses are the 
steam, the party the locomotive and the leaders the train 
driver. The idea of a future society being constructed 
democratically from below by the workers themselves rather 
than through occasionally elected leaders seems to have
passed Bolshevism past. This is unsurprising, given that 
the Bolsheviks saw the workers in terms of blindly moving 
steam in a box, something incapable of being creative unless 
an outside force gave them direction (instructions). 

Cornelius Castoriadis provides a good critique of the 
implications of the Leninist position:

"No positive content, nothing new capable of providing 
the foundation for the reconstruction of society could
arise out of a mere awareness of poverty. From the 
experience of life under capitalism the proletariat 
could derive no new principles either for organising 
this new society or for orientating it in another 
direction. Under such conditions, the proletarian 
revolution becomes . . . a simple reflex revolt against
hunger. It is impossible to see how socialist society 
could ever be the result of such a reflex . . . Their
situation forces them to suffer the consequences of
capitalism's contradictions, but in no way does it 
lead them to discover its causes. An acquaintance with
these causes comes not from experiencing the production
process but from theoretical knowledge . . . This
knowledge may be accessible to individual workers, but
not to the proletariat *qua* proletariat. Driven by
its revolt against poverty, but incapable of self-direction
since its experiences does not give it a privileged 
viewpoint on reality, the proletariat according to this
outlook, can only be an infantry in the service of a 
general staff of specialists. These specialists *know*
(from considerations that the proletariat as such does
not have access to) what is going wrong with present-day
society and how it must be modified. The traditional view
of the economy and its revolutionary perspective can only
found, and actually throughout history has only founded,
a *bureaucratic politics* . . . [W]hat we have outlined
are the consequences that follow objectively from this
theory. And they have been affirmed in an ever clearer
fashion within the actual historical movement of Marxism,
culminating in Stalinism." [_Social and Political Writings_,
vol. 2, pp. 257-8]

Thus we have a privileged position for the party and a
perspective which can (and did) justify party dictatorship 
*over* the proletariat. Given the perspective that the 
working class cannot formulate its own "ideology" by its 
own efforts, of its incapacity to move beyond "trade union
consciousness" independently of the party, the clear 
implication is that the party could in no way be bound 
by the predominant views of the working class. As the
party embodies "socialist consciousness" (and this arises
outside the working class and its struggles) then 
opposition of the working class to the party signifies
a failure of the class to resist alien influences. As
Lenin put it:

"Since there can be no talk of an independent ideology being
developed by the masses of the workers in the process of
their movement, *the only choice is*: either bourgeois or
socialist ideology. There is no middle course . . . Hence,
to belittle socialist ideology *in any way,* to *deviate
from it in the slightest degree* means strengthening 
bourgeois ideology. There is a lot of talk about spontaneity,
but the *spontaneous* development of the labour movement 
leads to its becoming subordinated to bourgeois ideology
. . . Hence our task, the task of Social-Democracy, is to
*combat spontaneity,* to *divert* the labour movement from
its spontaneous, trade unionist striving to go under the
wing of the bourgeoisie, and to bring it under the wing of
revolutionary Social-Democracy." [Lenin, Op. Cit., pp. 82-3]

The implications of this argument became clear once the 
Bolsheviks seized power. As a justification for party 
dictatorship, you would be hard pressed to find any 
better. If the working class revolts against the 
ruling party, then we have a "spontaneous" development 
which, inevitably, is an expression of bourgeois ideology. 
As the party represents socialist consciousness, any 
deviation in working class support for it simply meant 
that the working class was being "subordinated" to the 
bourgeoisie. This meant, obviously, that to "belittle"
the "role" of the party by questioning its rule meant 
to "strengthen bourgeois ideology" and when workers 
spontaneously went on strike or protested against the 
party's rule, the party had to "combat" these strivings 
in order to maintain working class rule! As the "masses 
of the workers" cannot develop an "independent ideology," 
the workers are rejecting socialist ideology in favour of 
bourgeois ideology. The party, in order to defend the 
"the revolution" (even the "rule of the workers") has 
to impose its will onto the class, to "combat spontaneity." 

As we saw in section H.1.2, none of the leading Bolsheviks 
were shy about drawing these conclusions once in power and 
faced with working class revolt against their rule. Indeed, 
they raised the idea that the "dictatorship of the 
proletariat" was also, in fact, the "dictatorship of 
the party" and, as we discuss in section H.3.8 integrated
this into their theory of the state. Thus, Leninist ideology 
implies that "workers' power" exists independently of the 
workers. This means that the sight of the "dictatorship of 
the proletariat" (i.e. the Bolshevik government) repressing 
the proletariat, who cannot develop socialist conscious by 
themselves, is to be expected.

This elitist perspective of the party, the idea that it 
and it alone possesses knowledge can be seen from the 
resolution of the Communist International on the role 
of the party. It stated that "the working class without 
an independent political party is a body without a head." 
[_Proceedings and Documents of the Second Congress 1920_, 
vol. 1, p. 194] This use of biological analogies says 
more about Bolshevism that its authors intended. After 
all, it suggests a division of labour which is unchangeable. 
Can the hands evolve to do their own thinking? Of course 
not. Thus, yet again, we have an image of the class as 
unthinking brute force. 

The implications of this model can be draw from Victor 
Serge's comments from 1919. As he put it, the party "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? Well, the party is "supported by the entire working
population," although, strangely enough, "it maintains its 
unique situation in dictatorial fashion." He admits "the
energies which have just triumphed . . . exist outside"
the party and that "they constitute its strength only 
because it represents them knowingly." Thus the workers
are "[b]ehind" the communists, "sympathising instinctively
with the party and carrying out the menial tasks required
by the revolution." [_Revolution in Danger_, p. 67, p. 66 
and p. 6] Can we be surprised that the workers have the
"menial tasks" to perform when the party is the conscious
element? Equally, can we be surprised that this situation 
is maintained "in dictatorial fashion"? It was precisely 
this kind of social division of labour between manual and
mental labour which helped cause the Russian revolution 
in the first place!

As the Cohen-Bendit brothers argue, the "Leninist belief
that the workers cannot spontaneously go beyond the level
of trade union consciousness is tantamount to beheading 
the proletariat, and then insinuating the Party as the
head . . . Lenin was wrong, and in fact, in Russia the
Party was forced to decapitate the workers' movement 
with the help of the political police and the Red Army
under the brilliant leadership of Trotsky and Lenin."
[_Obsolute Communism_, pp. 194-5]

As well as explaining the subsequent embrace of party 
dictatorship *over* the working class, vanguardism also
explains the notorious inefficiency of Leninist parties
faced with revolutionary situations we discuss in 
section H.5.8. After all, basing themselves on the 
perspective that all spontaneous movements are inherently
bourgeois they could not help but be opposed to autonomous
class struggle and the organisations and tactics it 
generates. James C. Scott, in his excellent discussion 
of the roots and flaws in Lenin's ideas on the party, 
makes the obvious point that since, for Lenin, "authentic,
revolutionary class consciousness could never develop
autonomously within the working class, it followed that
that the actual political outlook of workers was always
a threat to the vanguard party." [_Seeing like a State_,
p. 155] As Maurice Brinton argues, the "Bolshevik cadres 
saw their role as the leadership of the revolution. 
Any movement not initiated by them or independent of 
their control could only evoke their suspicion." These 
developments, of course, did not occur by chance or 
accidentally. As Brinton notes, "a given ideological 
premise (the preordained hegemony of the Party) led 
necessarily to certain conclusions in practice." 
[_The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control_, p. xi and 
p. xii] 

Bakunin expressed the implications of the vanguardist 
perspective extremely well. It is worthwhile quoting 
him at length:

"Idealists of all sorts, metaphysicians, positivists, 
those who uphold the priority of science over life, the 
doctrinaire revolutionists -- all of them champion with 
equal zeal although differing in their argumentation, 
the idea of the State and State power, seeing in them, 
quite logically from their point of view, the only 
salvation of society. *Quite logically,* I say, having
take as their basis the tenet -- a fallacious tenet in 
our opinion -- that thought is prior to life, and 
abstract theory is prior to social practice, and that 
therefore sociological science must become the starting 
point for social upheavals and social reconstruction -- 
they necessarily arrived at the conclusion that since 
thought, theory, and science are, for the present at 
least, the property of only a very few people, those 
few should direct social life; and that on the morrow
of the Revolution the new social organisation should 
be set up not by the free integration of workers' 
associations, villages, communes, and regions from 
below upward, conforming to the needs and instincts 
of the people, but solely by the dictatorial power of 
this learned minority, allegedly expressing the general 
will of the people." [_The Political Philosophy of 
Bakunin_, pp. 283-4]

The idea that "socialist consciousness" can exist independently
of the working class and its struggle suggests exactly the
perspective Bakunin was critiquing. For vanguardism, the abstract 
theory of socialism exists prior to the class struggle and 
exists waiting to be brought to the masses by the educated few. 
The net effect is, as we have argued, to lay the ground for party 
dictatorship. The basic idea of vanguardism, namely that the 
working class is incapable of developing "socialist consciousness" 
by its own efforts, contradictions the socialist maxim that "the 
emancipation of the working class is the task of the working 
class itself." Thus the concept is fundamentally anti-socialist, 
a justification for elite rule and the continuation of class 
society in new, party approved, ways.

H.5.2 Have vanguardist assumptions been validated?

As discussed in the last section, Lenin claimed that workers 
can only reach a "trade union consciousness" by their own 
efforts. Anarchists argued that such an assertion is 
empirically false. The history of the labour movement is 
maarked by revolts and struggles which went far further than 
just seeking reforms and revolutionary theories derived
from such experiences. 

As such, the category of the "economic struggle" corresponds 
to no known social reality. Every "economic" struggle is 
"political" in some sense and those involved can, and do, 
learn political lessons from them. As Kropotkin noted in 
the 1880s, there "is almost no serious strike which occurs 
together wwith the appearance of troops, the exchange of 
blows and some acts of revolt. Here they fight with the 
troops; there they march on the factories . . . Thanks to 
government intervention the rebel against the factory 
becomes the rebel against the State." [quoted by Caroline 
Cahm, _Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism_, 
p. 256] If history shows anything, it shows that workers 
are more than capable of going beyond "trade union 
consciousness." The Paris Commune, the 1848 revolts and, 
ironically enough, the 1905 and 1917 Russian Revolutions 
show that the masses are capable of revolutionary struggles 
in which the self-proclaimed "vanguard" of socialists 
spend most of their time trying to catch up with them! 

These last two examples, the Russian Revolutions, also 
help to discredit Lenin's argument that the workers cannot 
develop socialist consciousness alone due to the power of 
bourgeois ideology. This, according to Lenin, required the 
bourgeois intelligentsia to import "socialist" ideology from 
outside the movement. Lenin's argument is flawed. Simply put, 
if the working class is subjected to bourgeois influences, 
then so are the "professional" revolutionaries within the 
party. Indeed, the strength of such influences on the 
"professionals" of revolution *must* be higher as they are 
not part of proletarian life. After all, if social being 
determines consciousness than if a revolutionary is no 
longer part of the working class, then they no longer are 
rooted in the social conditions which generate socialist 
theory and action. Rootless and no longer connected with 
collective labour and working class life, the "professional" 
revolutionary is more likely to be influenced by the social 
milieu he or she now is part of (i.e. a bourgeois, or at 
best petit-bourgeois, environment). This may explain the 
terrible performance of such "vanguards" in revolutionary 
situations (see section H.5.8).

This tendency for the "professional" revolutionary and 
intellectuals to be subject to the bourgeois influences 
which Lenin subscribes solely to the working class can 
continually be seen from the history of the Bolshevik 
party. For example, as Trotsky himself notes: 

"It should not be forgotten that the political machine of
the Bolshevik Party was predominantly made up of the 
intelligentsia, which was petty bourgeois in its origin
and conditions of life and Marxist in its ideas and in
its relations with the proletariat. Workers who turned 
professional revolutionists joined this set with great
eagerness and lost their identity in it. The peculiar 
social structure of the Party machine and its authority
over the proletariat (neither of which is accidental
but dictated by strict historical necessity) were more
than once the cause of the Party's vacillation and 
finally became the source of its degeneration . . . In 
most cases they lacked independent daily contact with 
the labouring masses as well as a comprehensive 
understanding of the historical process. They thus left
themselves exposed to the influence of alien classes." 
[_Stalin_, vol. 1, pp. 297-8]

He pointed to the example of the First World War, when,
"even the Bolshevik party did not at once find its way
in the labyrinth of war. As a general rule, the confusion
was most pervasive and lasted longest amongst the Party's
higher-ups, who came in direct contact with bourgeois
public opinion." Thus the professional revolutionaries 
"were largely affected by compromisist tendencies, which 
emanated from bourgeois circles, while the rank and file 
Bolshevik workingmen displayed far greater stability 
resisting the patriotic hysteria that had swept the 
country." [Op. Cit., p. 248 and p. 298] It should be 
noted that he is repeating earlier comments from his 
_History of the Russian Revolution_ when he argued that 
the "immense intellectual backsliding of the upper stratum 
of the Bolsheviks during the war" was caused by "isolation 
from the masses and isolation from those abroad -- that is 
primarily from Lenin." [vol. 3, p. 134] As we discuss in 
section H.6, even Trotsky had to admit that during 1917 
the working class was far more revolutionary than the party 
and the party more revolutionary than the "party machine" 
of "professional revolutionaries."

Ironically enough, Lenin himself recognised this aspect of
the intellectuals after he had praised their role in bringing
"revolutionary" consciousness to the working class in his
1904 work _One Step Forward, Two Steps Back_. He argued 
that it was now the "presence of large numbers of radical 
intellectuals in the ranks . . . [which] has made . . . 
the existence of opportunism, produced by their mentality, 
inevitable." [contained in Robert V. Daniels, _A Documentary 
History of Communism_, vol. 1, p. 25] According to Lenin's 
new philosophy, the working class simply needs to have been 
through the "schooling of the factory" in order to give the 
intelligentsia lessons in political discipline, the very
same intelligentsia which up until then had played the leading 
role in the Party and had given political consciousness to
the working class. In his words:

"The factory, which seems only a bogey to some, represents
that highest form of capitalist co-operation which has
united and disciplined the proletariat, taught it to
organise . . . And it is precisely Marxism, the ideology
of the proletariat trained by capitalism, that has
taught . . . unstable intellectuals to distinguish 
between the factory as a means of exploitation (discipline
based on fear of starvation) and the factory as a means
of organisation (discipline based on collective work . . ).
The discipline and organisation which come so hard to 
the bourgeois intellectual are especially easily acquired
by the proletariat just because of this factory 'schooling.'"
[Op. Cit., p. 24]

Lenin's analogy is, of course, flawed. The factory is a "means
of exploitation" because its "means of organisation" is top-down
and hierarchical. The "collective work" which the workers are
subjected to is organised by the boss and the "discipline" is
that of the barracks, not that of free individuals. In fact, 
the "schooling" for revolutionaries is *not* the factory, but 
the class struggle. As such, healthy and positive discipline 
is generated by the struggle against the way the workplace is
organised under capitalism. Factory discipline, in other words, 
is completely different from the discipline required for social
struggle or revolution. Thus the workers become revolutionary 
in so far as they reject the hierarchical discipline of the 
workplace and develop the self-discipline required to fight 
that discipline.

A key task of anarchism is encourage working class revolt 
against this type of discipline, particularly in the 
capitalist workplace. The "discipline" Lenin praises 
simply replaces human thought and association with the 
following of orders and hierarchy. Thus anarchism aims to 
undermine capitalist (imposed and brutalising) discipline 
in favour of solidarity, the "discipline" of free association 
and agreement based on the community of struggle and the 
political consciousness and revolutionary enthusiasm that 
struggle creates. To the factory discipline Lenin argues for, 
anarchists argue for the discipline produced in workplace 
struggles and conflicts against that hierarchical discipline. 
Thus, for anarchists, the model of the factory can never be 
the model for a revolutionary organisation any more than 
Lenin's vision of society as "one big workplace" could be 
our vision of socialism (see section H.3.1). Ultimately, the 
factory exists to reproduce hierarchical social relationships 
and class society just as much as it exists to produce goods.

It should be noted that Lenin's argument does not contradict
his earlier arguments. The proletarian and intellectual have 
complementary jobs in the party. The proletariat is to give 
lessons in political discipline to the intellectuals as they 
have been through the process of factory (i.e. hierarchical) 
discipline. The role of the intellectuals as providers of 
"political consciousness" is the same and so they give 
political lessons to the workers.

Moreover, his vision of the vanguard party is basically the 
same as in _What is to Be Done?_. This can be seen from 
his comments that his opponent (the leading Menshevik 
Martov) "wants to *lump together* organised and 
unorganised elements in the Party, those who submit to 
direction and those who do not, the advanced and the 
incorrigibly backward." He stressed that the "division of 
labour under the direction of a centre evokes from him [the 
intellectual] a tragicomical outcry against people being 
transformed into 'wheels and cogs'" [Op. Cit., p. 21 and
p. 24] Thus there is the same division of labour as in the
capitalist factory, with the boss ("the centre") having the
power to direct the workers (who "submit to direction"). Thus
we have a "revolutionary" party organised in a *capitalist* 
manner, with the same "division of labour" between order 
givers and order takers.

H.5.3 Why does vanguardism imply party power?

As we discussed in section H.5.1, anarchists argue that the
assumptions of vanguardism leads to party rule over the
working class. Needless to say, followers of Lenin disagree 
that the idea that vanguardism results in such an outcome. 
For example, Chris Harman of the British Socialist Workers 
Party argues the opposite case in his essay "Party and Class." 
However, his own argument suggests the elitist conclusions 
we have draw from Lenin's.

Harman argues that there are two ways to look at the
revolutionary party, the Leninist way and the traditional 
social-democratic way (as represented by the likes of 
Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg in 1903-5). "The latter,"
he argues, "was thought of as a party of the whole [working]
class . . . All the tendencies within the class had to be
represented within it. Any split within it was to be
conceived of as a split within the class. Centralisation,
although recognised as necessary, was feared as a centralisation
over and against the spontaneous activity of the class. Yet
it was precisely in this kind of party that the 'autocratic' 
tendencies warned against by Luxemburg were to develop most.
For within it the confusion of member and sympathiser, the
massive apparatus needed to hold together a mass of only
half-politicised members in a series of social activities,
led to a toning down of political debate, a lack of political
seriousness, which in turn reduced the ability of the members
to make independent political evaluations and increased the
need for apparatus-induced involvement." [_Party and Class_, 
p. 32]

Thus, the lumping together into one organisation all those
who consider themselves as "socialist" and agree with the 
party's aims creates in a mass which results in "autocratic" 
tendencies within the party organisation. As such, it is 
important to remember that "the Party, as the vanguard 
of the working class, must not be confused with the entire 
class." [Op. Cit., p. 22] For this reason, the party must be
organised in a specific manner which reflect his Leninist 
assumptions:

"The alternative [to the vanguard party] is the 'marsh' -- 
where elements motivated by scientific precision are so mixed 
up with those who are irremediably confused as to prevent any 
decisive action, effectively allowing the most backward to 
lead." [Op. Cit., p. 30]

The problem for Harman is now how to explain how the proletariat
can become the ruling class if this is true. He argues that 
"the party is not the embryo of the workers' state -- the
workers' council is. The working class as a whole will be
involved in the organisations that constitute the state,
the most backward as well as the most progressive elements."
As such, the "function of the party is not to be the state." 
[Op. Cit., p. 33] Thus, the implication is that the working 
class will take an active part in the decision making process
during the revolution (although the level of this "involvement"
is unspecified, probably for good reasons as we explain).
If this *is* the case, then the problem of the mass party
reappears, but in a new form (we must also note that this 
problem must have also appearing in 1917, when the Bolshevik
party opened its doors to become a mass party).

As the "organisations that constitute the state" are made
up of the working class "as a whole," then, obviously, 
they cannot be expected to wield power (i.e. directly 
manage the revolution from below). If they did, then the 
party would be "mixed up" with the "irremediably confused" 
and so could not lead (as we discuss in section H.5.5,
Lenin links "opportunism" to "primitive" democracy, i.e.
self-management, within the party). Hence the need for 
party power. Which, of course, explains Lenin's 1920 
comments that an organisation embracing the whole working
class cannot exercise the "dictatorship of the proletariat"
and that a "vanguard" is required to do so (see section
H.1.2 for details). Of course, Harman does not explain how 
the "irremediably confused" are able to judge that the party 
is the best representative of its interests. Surely if 
someone is competent enough to pick their ruler, they must 
also be competent enough to manage their own affairs 
directly? Equally, if the "irremediably confused" vote 
against the party once it is in power, what happens? Will 
the party submit to the "leadership" of what it considers 
"the most backward"? If the Bolsheviks are anything to go 
by, the answer has to be no.

Ironically, he argues that it "is worth noting that in Russia
a real victory of the apparatus over the party required
precisely the bringing into the party hundreds of thousands
of 'sympathisers,' a dilution of the 'party' by the 'class.'
. . . The Leninist party does not suffer from this tendency
to bureaucratic control precisely because it restricts its
membership to those willing to be serious and disciplined 
enough to take *political* and *theoretical* issues as their
starting point, and to subordinate all their activities to
those." [Op. Cit., p. 33] Yet, in order to have a socialist
revolution, the working class as a whole must participate in
the process and that implies self-management. Thus the decision
making organisations will be based on the party being "mixed 
up" with the "irremediably confused" as if they were part of 
a non-Leninist party.

From Harman's own assumptions, this by necessity results in an
"autocratic" regime within the new "workers' state." This was
implicitly recognised by the Bolsheviks when they stressed that
the function of the party was to become the government, the head 
of the state. Lenin and Trotsky continually stressed this fact, 
urging that the party "assume power," that the Bolsheviks "can 
and *must* take state power into their own hands." Indeed, "take 
over full state power alone." [Lenin, _Selected Works_, vol. 2,
p. 329, p. 328 and p. 352] Thus, while the working class "as a 
whole" will be "involved in the organisations that constitute the 
state," the party (in practice, its leadership) will hold power
(see section H.3.8 for a further discussion of this Bolshevik 
position). And for Trotsky, this substitution of the party for 
the class was inevitable:

"We have more than once been accused of having substituted for 
the dictatorship of the Soviets the dictatorship of our party. 
Yet it can be said with complete justice that the dictatorship 
of the Soviets became possible only by means of the dictatorship 
of the party. It is thanks to the clarity of its theoretical 
vision and its strong revolutionary organisation that the party 
has afforded to the Soviets the possibility of becoming transformed 
from shapeless parliaments of labour into the apparatus of the 
supremacy of labour. In this 'substitution' of the power of the 
party for the power of the working class there is nothing 
accidental, and in reality there is no substitution at all. 
The Communists express the fundamental interests of the working 
class. It is quite natural that, in the period in which history 
brings up those interests . . . the Communists have become the 
recognised representatives of the working class as a whole." 
[_Terrorism and Communism_, p. 109]

He notes that within the state, "the last word belongs to the 
Central Committee of the party." [Op. Cit., p. 107] In 1937,
he repeats this argument, explicitly linking the "objective 
necessity" of the "revolutionary dictatorship of a proletarian 
party" to the "heterogeneity of the revolutionary class, the 
necessity for a selected vanguard in order to assure the 
victory." Stressed the "dictatorship of a party," he argued
that "[a]bstractly speaking, it would be very well if the 
party dictatorship could be replaced by the 'dictatorship' 
of the whole toiling people without any party, but this 
presupposes such a high level of political development 
among the masses that it can never be achieved under 
capitalist conditions." [_Writings 1936-37_, pp. 513-4]

This means that given Harman's own assumptions, autocratic rule
by the party is inevitable. Ironically, he argues that "to be a 
'vanguard' is not the same as to substitute one's own desires, 
or policies or interests, for those of the class." He stresses 
that an "organisation that is concerned with participating in 
the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism by the working class
cannot conceive of substituting itself for the organs of the 
direct rule of that class." [Op. Cit., p. 33 and p. 34] However, 
the logic of his argument suggests otherwise. Simply put, his
arguments against a broad party organisation are also applicable
to self-management during the class struggle and revolution. 
The rank and file party members are "mixed up" in the class.
This leads to party members becoming subject to bourgeois 
influences. This necessitates the power of the higher bodies 
over the lower (see section H.5.5). The highest party organ, 
the central committee, must rule over the party machine, which 
in turn rules over the party members, who, in turn, rule over 
the workers. This logical chain was, ironically enough, 
recognised by Trotsky in 1904 in his polemic against Lenin. 
He argued:

"The organisation of the party substitutes itself for the
party as a whole; then the central committee substitutes 
itself for the organisation; and finally the 'dictator' 
substitutes himself for the central committee." [quoted 
by Harman, Op. Cit., p. 22]

Obviously once in power in 1920 this substitution was less of 
a concern for him than in 1904! Which, however, does not deny 
the insight Trotsky showed in 1904 about the dangers inherent 
in the Bolshevik assumptions on working class spontaneity and 
how revolutionary ideas develop. Dangers which he, ironically,
helped provide empirical evidence for.

This false picture of the party (and its role) explains the
progression of the Bolshevik party after 1917. As the soviets
organised all workers, we have the problem that the party 
(with its "scientific" knowledge) is swamped by the class. 
The task of the party is to "persuade, not coerce these
[workers] into accepting its lead" and, as Lenin made clear, 
for it to take political power. [Harman, Op. Cit., p. 34] 
Once in power, the decisions of the party are in constant 
danger of being overthrown by the working class, which 
necessitates a state run with "iron discipline" (and the 
necessary means of coercion) by the party. With the 
disempowering of the mass organisations by the party, 
the party itself becomes a substitute for popular 
democracy as being a party member is the only way to 
influence policy. As the party grows, the influx of new 
members "dilutes" the organisation, necessitating a similar 
growth of centralised power at the top of the organisation. 
This eliminates the substitute for proletarian democracy 
which had developed within the party (which explains the 
banning of factions within the Bolshevik party in 1921). 
Slowly but surely, power concentrates into fewer and fewer 
hands, which, ironically enough, necessitates a bureaucracy 
to feed the party leaders information and execute its will. 
Isolated from all, the party inevitably degenerates and 
Stalinism results. 

We are sure that many Trotskyists will object to our
analysis, arguing that we ignore the problems facing the
Russian Revolution in our discussion. Harman argues that 
it was "not the form of the party that produces party as 
opposed to soviet rule, but the decimation of the working 
class" that occurred during the Russian Revolution. [Op. Cit., 
p. 37] This is false. As noted, Lenin was always explicit that 
about the fact that the Bolshevik's sought party rule ("full
state power") and that their rule *was* working class rule. 
As such, we have the first, most basic, substitution of party
power for workers power. Secondly, as we discuss in section 
H.4, the Bolshevik party had been gerrymandering and disbanding 
soviets before the start of the Civil War, so proving that it 
cannot be held accountable for this process of substitution.
Thirdly, Leninists are meant to know that civil war is
inevitable during a revolution. To blame the inevitable for
the degeneration of the revolution is hardly convincing 
(particularly as the degeneration started before the civil
war broke out).

Unsurprisingly, anarchists reject the underlying basis of
this progression, the idea that the working class, by its
own efforts, is incapable of developing beyond a "trade 
union consciousness." The actions of the working class 
itself condemned these attitudes as outdated and simply 
wrong long before Lenin's infamous comments were put on 
paper. In every struggle, the working class has created 
its own organisations to co-ordinate its struggle (to use 
Trotsky's analogy, the steam creates its own piston and 
constantly has). In the process of struggle, the working 
class changes its perspectives. This process is uneven 
in both quantity and quality, but it does happen. As such,
anarchists do not think that *all* working class people 
will, at the same time, spontaneously become anarchists. 
If they did, we would be in an anarchist society today! 

As we argued in sections J.3 and H.2.10, anarchists acknowledge 
that political development within the working class is uneven. 
The difference between anarchism and Leninism is how we see 
socialist ideas developing. In every class struggle there 
is a radical minority which takes the lead and many of this 
miinority develop revolutionary conclusions from their 
experiences. As such, members of the working class develop 
their own revolutionary theory and it does not need bourgeois 
intellectuals to inject it into them. 

Anarchists go on to argue that this minority (along with 
any members of other classes who have broken with their 
background and become libertarians) should organise and 
work together. The role of this revolutionary organisation 
is to co-ordinate revolutionary activity, discuss and 
revise ideas and help others draw the same conclusions 
as they have from their own, and others, experiences. The 
aim of such a group is, by word and deed, to assist the 
working class in its struggles and to draw out and clarify 
the libertarian aspects of this struggle. It seeks to 
abolish the rigid division between leaders and led which 
is the hallmark of class society by drawing the vast
majority of the working class into social struggle and 
revolutionary politics by encouraging their direct 
management of the class struggle. Only this participation 
and the political discussion it generates will allow 
revolutionary ideas to become widespread. 

In other words, anarchists argue that precisely *because* 
of political differences ("unevenness") we need the 
fullest possible democracy and freedom to discuss 
issues and reach agreements. Only by discussion and 
self-activity can the political perspectives of those 
in struggle  develop and change. In other words, the fact 
Bolshevism uses to justify its support for party power is 
the strongest argument against it.

Our differences with vanguardism could not be more clear.

H.5.4 Did Lenin abandon vanguardism?

As discussed in section H.5.1, vanguardism rests on the premise 
that the working class cannot emancipate itself. As such, the 
ideas of Lenin as expounded in _What is to be Done?_ contradicts 
the key idea of Marx that the emancipation of the working class 
is the task of the working class itself. Thus the paradox of 
Leninism. On the one hand, it subscribes to an ideology 
allegedly based on working class self-liberation. On the 
other, the founder of that school wrote an obviously 
influential work whose premise not only logically implies 
that they cannot, it also provides the perfect rationale for 
party dictatorship over the working class (and as the history 
of Leninism in power showed, this underlying premise was much 
stronger than any democratic-sounding rhetoric -- see section H.6).

It is for this reason that many Leninists are somewhat embarrassed
by Lenin's argument in _What is to be Done?_. Hence we see 
Chris Harman writing that "the real theoretical basis for his 
[Lenin's] argument on the party is not that the working class 
is incapable on its own of coming to theoretical socialist 
consciousness . . . The real basis for his argument is that the 
level of consciousness in the working class is never uniform."
[_Party and Class_, pp. 25-6] In other words, Harman changes
the focus of the question away from the point explicitly and 
repeatedly stated by Lenin that the working class was incapable 
on its own of coming to theoretical socialist consciousness and 
that he was simply repeating Marxist orthodoxy when he did. 

Harman bases his revision on Lenin's later comments regarding
his book, namely that he sought to "straighten matters out" 
by "pull[ing] in the other direction" to the "extreme" which
the "economists" had went to. He repeated this in 1907 (see
below). While Lenin may have been right to attack the 
"economists," his argument that socialist consciousness 
comes to the working class only "from without" is not a 
case of going too far in the other direction; it is wrong. 
Simply put, you do not attack ideas you disagree with arguing
an equally false set of ideas. This suggests that Harman's 
attempt to downplay Lenin's elitist position is flawed. Simply
put, the "real theoretical basis" of the argument was precisely
the issue Lenin himself raised, namely the incapacity of the
working class to achieve socialist consciousness by itself.
It is probably the elitist conclusions of this argument which
drives Harman to try and change the focus to another issue,
namely the political unevenness within the working class.

Some go to even more extreme lengths, denying that Lenin 
even held such a position. For example, Hal Draper argues at 
length that Lenin did not, in fact, hold the opinions he 
actually expressed in his book! While Draper covers many 
aspects of what he calls the "Myth of Lenin's 'Concept of 
The Party,'" in his essay of the same name, we will 
concentrate on the key idea, namely that socialist ideas 
are developed outside the class struggle by the radical 
intelligentsia and introduced into the working class from 
without. Here, as argued in section H.5.1, is the root of 
the anti-socialist basis of Leninism.

So what does Draper say? On the one hand, he denies that Lenin
held this theory (he states that it is a "virtually non-existent 
theory" and "non-existent after WITBD"). He argues that those who
hold the position that Lenin actually meant what he said in his
book "never quote anything other than WITBD," and states that 
this is a "curious fact" (a fact we will disprove shortly). Draper
argues as follows: "Did Lenin put this theory forward even in 
WITBD? Not exactly." He then notes that Lenin "had just read 
this theory in the most prestigious theoretical organ of Marxism 
of the whole international socialist movement" and it had been
"put forward in an important article by the leading Marxist 
authority," Karl Kautsky. Draper notes that "Lenin first 
paraphrased Kautsky" and then "quoted a long passage from 
Kautsky's article."

This much, of course, is well known by anyone who has read Lenin's
book. By paraphrasing and quoting Kautsky as he does, Lenin is
showing his agreement with Kautsky's argument. Indeed, Lenin
states before quoting Kautsky that his comments are "profoundly
true and important" [_Essential Works of Lenin_, p. 79] As such, 
by explicitly and obviously agreeing with Kautsky, it can be 
said that it also becomes Lenin's theory as well! Over time, 
particularly after Kautsky had been labelled a "renegade" 
by Lenin, Kautsky's star waned and Lenin's rose. Little 
wonder the argument became associated with Lenin rather 
than the discredited Kautsky. Draper then speculates that 
"it is curious . . . that no one has sought to prove that 
by launching this theory . . . Kautsky was laying the basis 
for the demon of totalitarianism." A simply reason exists
for this, namely the fact that Kautsky, unlike Lenin, was never
the head of a one-party dictatorship and justified this system
politically. Indeed, Kautsky attacked the Bolsheviks for this,
which caused Lenin to label him a "renegade." Kautsky, in this 
sense, can be considered as being inconsistent with his political 
assumptions, unlike Lenin who took his assumptions to their 
logical conclusions.

How, after showing the obvious fact that "the crucial 'Leninist' 
theory was really Kautsky's," he then wonders "[d]id Lenin, in 
WITBD, adopt Kautsky's theory?" He answers his own question 
with an astounding "Again, not exactly"! Clearly, quoting 
approvingly of a theory and stating it is "profoundly true" 
does not, in fact, make you a supporter of it! What evidence 
does Draper present for his amazing answer? Well, Draper argued 
that Lenin "tried to get maximum mileage out of it against the 
right wing; this was the point of his quoting it. If it did 
something for Kautsky's polemic, he no doubt figured that it 
would do something for his." Or, to present a more simple and 
obvious explanation, Lenin *agreed* with Kautsky's "profoundly 
true" argument!

Aware of this possibility, Draper tries to combat it. "Certainly,"
he argues, "this young man Lenin was not (yet) so brash as to 
attack his 'pope' or correct him overtly. But there was obviously 
a feeling of discomfort. While showing some modesty and attempting 
to avoid the appearance of a head-on criticism, the fact is that 
Lenin inserted two longish footnotes rejecting (or if you wish, 
amending) precisely what was worst about the Kautsky theory on 
the role of the proletariat." So, here we have Lenin quoting 
Kautsky to prove his own argument (and noting that Kautsky's 
words were "profoundly true and important"!) but "feeling 
discomfort" over what he has just approvingly quoted! Incredible!

So how does Lenin "amend" Kautsky's "profoundly true and 
important" argument? In two ways, according to Draper. 
Firstly, in a footnote which "was appended right after 
the Kautsky passage" Lenin quoted. Draper argued that 
it "was specifically formulated to undermine and weaken 
the theoretical content of Kautsky's position. It began: 
'This does not mean, of course, that the workers have no 
part in creating such an ideology.' But this was exactly 
what Kautsky did mean and say. In the guise of offering 
a caution, Lenin was proposing a modified view. 'They 
[the workers] take part, however,' Lenin's footnote 
continued, 'not as workers, but as socialist theoreticians, 
as Proudhons and Weitlings; in other words, they take part 
only when they are able . . .' In short, Lenin was 
reminding the reader that Kautsky's sweeping statements 
were not even 100% true historically; he pointed to 
exceptions." Yes, Lenin *did* point to exceptions *in 
order to refute objections to Kautsky's argument before 
they were raised*! It is clear that Lenin is *not* refuting 
Kautsky. He is agreeing with him and raising possible 
counter-examples in order to refute potential objections
based on them. Thus Proudhon adds to socialist ideology 
in so far as he is a "socialist theoretician" and not a 
worker! How clear can you be? As Lenin continues, people 
like Proudhon "take part only to the extent that they are 
able, more or less, to acquire the knowledge of their age 
and advance that knowledge." In other words, insofar as 
they learn from the "vehicles of science." Neither Kautsky
or Lenin denied that it was possible for workers to acquire
such knowledge and pass it on. However this does *not* mean
that they thought workers, as part of their daily life and
struggle *as workers,* could develop "socialist theory."
Thus Lenin's footnote reiterates Kautsky's argument rather
than, as Draper hopes, refutes it.

Draper turns to another footnote, which he notes "was not directly 
tied to the Kautsky article, but discussed the 'spontaneity of the 
socialist idea. 'It is often said,' Lenin began, 'that the working 
class spontaneously gravitates towards socialism. This is perfectly 
true in the sense that socialist theory reveals the causes of the 
misery of the working class ... and for that reason the workers 
are able to assimilate it so easily,' but he reminded that this 
process itself was not subordinated to mere spontaneity. 'The 
working class spontaneously gravitates towards socialism; 
nevertheless, ... bourgeois ideology spontaneously imposes 
itself upon the working class to a still greater degree.'" 
Draper argues that this "was obviously written to modify and 
recast the Kautsky theory, without coming out and saying that 
the Master was wrong." So, here we have Lenin approvingly quoting 
Kautsky in the main text while, at the same time, providing a 
footnote to show that, in fact, he did not agree with what he
has just quoted! Truly amazing -- and easily refuted. After all,
the footnote stresses that workers appreciate socialist theory 
"*provided,* however, that this theory does not step aside for
spontaneity and *provided* it subordinates spontaneity to itself."
In other words, workers "assimilate" socialist theory only when
socialist theory does not adjust itself to the "spontaneous" 
forces at work in the class struggle. Thus, rather than refuting
Kautsky by the backdoor, Lenin in this footnote still agrees with 
him. Socialism does not develop, as Kautsky stressed, from the
class struggle but rather has to be injected into it. This means,
by necessity, the theory "subordinates spontaneity to itself."

Draper argues that this "modification" simply meant that there 
"are several things that happen 'spontaneously,' and what will 
win out is not decided only by spontaneity" but as can be seen,
this is not the case. Only when "spontaneity" is subordinated to
the theory (i.e. the party) can socialism be won, a totally 
different position. As such, when Draper asserts that "[a]ll 
that was clear at this point was that Lenin was justifiably 
dissatisfied with the formulation of Kautsky's theory," he is 
simply expressing wishful thinking. This footnote, like the 
first one, continues the argument developed by Lenin in the 
main text and in no way is in contradiction to it. As is obvious.

Draper argues that the key problem is that critics of Lenin 
"run two different questions together: (a) What was, historically, 
the *initial* role of intellectuals in the beginnings of the 
socialist movement, and (b) what *is* - and above all, what 
should be - the role of bourgeois intellectuals in a working-class 
party today." He argues that Kautsky did not believe that "*if* it 
can be shown that intellectuals historically played a certain 
initiatory role, they *must* and *should* continue to play the 
same role now and forever. It does not follow; as the working 
class matured, it tended to throw off leading strings." However,
this is unconvincing. After all, if socialist consciousness cannot
be generated by the working class by its own struggles then this
is applicable now and in the future. Thus workers who join the
socialist movement will be repeating the party ideology, as 
developed by intellectuals in the past. If they *do* develop
new theory, it would be, as Lenin stressed, "not as workers,
but as socialist theoreticians" and so socialist consciousness
still does not derive from their own class experiences. This
places the party in a privileged position vis--vis the working
class and so the elitism remains.

Ironically, Draper agrees with Kautsky and Lenin as regards the
claim that socialism does not develop out of the class struggle.
As he put it, "[a]s a matter of fact, in the International of 1902 
no one really had any doubts about the historical facts concerning 
the beginnings of the movement." The question is, "[b]ut what 
followed from those facts?" To which he argues that Marx and Engels
"concluded, from the same facts and subsequent experiences, that 
the movement had to be sternly warned against the influence of 
bourgeois intellectuals inside the party." (We wonder if Marx and 
Engels included themselves in the list of "bourgeois intellectuals" 
the workers had to be "sternly warned" about?) Thus, amusingly 
enough, Draper argues that Marx, Engels, Kautsky and Lenin all 
held to the "same facts" that socialist consciousness developed 
outside the experiences of the working classes! 

Draper, after rewriting history somewhat in his laborious and
hardly convincing arguments, states that it "is a curious fact 
that no one has ever found this alleged theory anywhere else 
in Lenin's voluminous writings, not before and not after 
[_What is to be Done?_]. It never appeared in Lenin again. 
No Leninologist has ever quoted such a theory from any other 
place in Lenin." However, as this theory was the orthodox 
Marxist position, Lenin had no real need to reiterate this
argument continuously. After all, he had quoted the acknowledged
leader of Marxism on the subject explicitly to show the 
orthodoxy of his argument and the "non-Marxist" base of those
he argued against. Once the debate had been won and orthodox
Marxism triumphant, why repeat the argument again? As we 
will see below, this was exactly the position Lenin *did*
take in 1907 when he wrote an introduction to a book which
contained _What is to Be Done?_.

In contradiction to Draper's claim, Lenin *did* return to this 
matter. In October 1905 he wrote an a short article in praise 
of an article by Stalin on this very subject. Stalin had sought 
to explain Lenin's ideas to the Georgian Social-Democracy and, 
like Lenin, had sought to root the argument in Marxist 
orthodoxy (partly to justify the argument, partly to expose 
the Menshevik opposition as being "non-Marxists"). Stalin 
argues along similar lines to Lenin:

"the question now is: who works out, who is able to work out
this socialist consciousness (i.e. scientific socialism)? 
Kautsky says, and I repeat his idea, that the masses of 
proletarians, as long as they remain proletarians, have
neither the time nor the opportunity to work out socialist
consciousness . . . The vehicles of science are the 
intellectuals . . . who have both the time and opportunity
to put themselves in the van of science and workout socialist
consciousness. Clearly, socialist consciousness is worked
out by a few Social-Democratic intellectuals who posses the
time and opportunity to do so." [_Collected Works_, vol. 1,
p. 164]

Stalin stresses the Marxist orthodoxy by stating Social-Democracy
"comes in and introduces socialist consciousness into the working 
class movement. This is what Kautsky has in mind when he says 
'socialist consciousness is something introduced into the 
proletarian class struggle from without.'" [Op. Cit., pp. 164-5]
That Stalin is simply repeating Lenin's and Kautsky's arguments
is clear, as is the fact it was considered the orthodox position
within social-democracy.

If Draper is right, then Lenin would have taken the opportunity
to attack Stalin's article and express the alternative viewpoint
Draper is convinced he held. However, Lenin put pen to paper to
*praise* Stalin's work, noting "the splendid way in which the
problem of the celebrated 'introduction of a consciousness from 
without' had been posed." Lenin explicitly agrees with Stalin's
summary of his argument. He argues that "social being determines 
consciousness . . . Socialist consciousness corresponds to the
position of the proletariat" and then quotes Stalin: "'Who can
and does evolve this consciousness (scientific socialism)?'"
and answers (again approvingly quoting Stalin) that "its 
'evolution' is a matter for a few Social-Democratic intellectuals 
who posses the necessary means and time.'" Lenin does argue
that Social-Democracy meets "an instinctive *urge* towards
socialism" when it "comes to the proletariat with the message
of socialism," but this does not counter the main argument that
the working class cannot develop socialist consciousness by it
own efforts and the, by necessity, elitist and hierarchical
politics that flow from this position. [Lenin, _Collected
Works_, vol. 9, p. 388] 

That Lenin did not reject his early formulations can also be 
seen from in his introduction to the pamphlet "Twelve Years" 
which contained _What is to be Done?_. Rather than explaining 
the false nature of that work's more infamous arguments, Lenin 
in fact defended them. For example, as regards the question 
of professional revolutionaries, he argued that the statements 
of his opponents now "look ridiculous" as "*today* the idea
of an organisation of professional revolutionaries has
*already* scored a complete victory," a victory which "would
have been impossible if this idea had not been pushed to the
*forefront* at the time." He noted that his work had 
"vanquished Economism . . . and finally *created* this
organisation." On the question of socialist consciousness, 
he simply reiterates the Marxist orthodoxy of his position, 
noting that its "formulation of the relationship between 
spontaneity and political consciousness was agreed upon by 
all the *Iskar* editors . . . Consequently, there could be 
no question of any difference in principle between the draft 
Party programme and _What is to be Done?_ on this issue." So
while Lenin argues that he had "straighten out what had
been twisted by the Economists," he did not correct his early
arguments. [_Collected Works_, vol. 13, p. 101, p. 102 and 
p. 107]

Looking at Lenin's arguments at the Communist International on
the question of the party we see an obvious return to the ideas
of _What is to be Done?_. Here was have a similar legal/illegal 
duality, strict centralism, strong hierarchy and the vision of 
the party as the "head" of the working class (i.e. its 
consciousness). In _Left-Wing Communism_, Lenin mocks those who 
reject the idea that dictatorship by the party is the same as 
that of the class. 

Ultimately, the whole rationale for the kind of wishful thinking
that Draper inflicts on us is flawed. As noted above, you do not 
combat what you think is an incorrect position with one which
you consider as also being wrong or do not agree with! You 
counter what you consider as an incorrect position with one
you consider correct and agree with. As Lenin, in WITBD, 
explicitly did. This means that later attempts by his followers 
to downplay the ideas raised in Lenin's book are unconvincing. 
Moreover, as he was simply repeating Social-Democratic orthodoxy 
it seems doubly unconvincing. 

Clearly, Draper is wrong. Lenin did, as indicated above, 
actually mean what he said in _What is to be Done?_. The 
fact that Lenin quoted Kautsky simply shows that this 
position was the orthodox Social-Democratic one, held by 
the mainstream of the party. Given that Leninism was (and 
still is) a "radical" offshoot of this movement, this should 
come as no surprise. However, Draper's comments remind us how
religious many forms of Marxism are. After all, why do we
need facts when we have the true faith?

H.5.5 What is "democratic centralism"?

As noted above, anarchists oppose vanguardism for three reasons, 
one of which is the way it recommends how revolutionaries should 
organise to influence the class struggle.

So how is a "vanguard" party organised? To quote the Communist
International's 1920 resolution on the role of the Communist 
Party in the revolution, the party must have a "centralised 
political apparatus" and "must be organised on the basis of 
iron proletarian centralism." This, of course, suggests a 
top-down structure internally, which the resolution explicitly
calls for. In its words, "Communist cells of every kind must be 
subordinate to one another as precisely as possible in a strict 
hierarchy." [_Proceedings and Documents of the Second Congress 
1920_, vol. 1, p. 193, p. 198 and p. 199] Therefore, the vanguard 
party is organised in a centralised, top-down way. However, this 
is not all, as well as being "centralised," the party is also meant
to be democratic, hence the expression "democratic centralism."
On this the resolution states:

"The Communist Party must be organised on the basis of democratic 
centralism. The most important principle of democratic centralism 
is election of the higher party organs by the lowest, the fact 
that all instructions by a superior body are unconditionally and 
necessarily binding on lower ones, and existence of a strong 
central party leadership whose authority over all leading party
comrades in the period between one party congress and the next 
is universally accepted." [Op. Cit., p. 198]

For Lenin, speaking in the same year, democratic centralism meant
"only that representatives from the localities meet and elect a
responsible body which must then govern . . . Democratic centralism
consists in the Congress checking on the Central Committee, 
removing it and electing a new one." [quoted by Robert Service,
_The Bolshevik Party in Revolution_, p. 131] Thus, "democratic 
centralism" is inherently top-down, although the "higher" party 
organs are, in principle, elected by the "lower." Without this, 
of course, there would be no "democratic" aspect to the party. 
The real question is whether such democracy is effective, a 
topic we will return to. However, the key point is that the 
central committee is the active element, the one whose 
decisions are implemented and so the focus of the structure 
is in the "centralism" rather than the "democratic" part of 
the formula.

As we noted in section H.2.14, the Communist Party was expected 
to have a dual structure, one legal and the other illegal. The 
resolution states that "[i]n countries where the bourgeoisie . . . 
is still in power, the Communist parties must learn to combine 
legal and illegal activity in a planned way. However, the legal 
work must be placed under the actual control of the illegal party 
at all times." [_Proceedings and Documents of the Second Congress 
1920_, vol. 1, p. 198-9] It goes without saying that the illegal 
structure is the real power in the party and that it cannot be 
expected to be as democratic as the legal party, which in turn 
would be less that democratic as the illegal would have the real
power within the organisation.

All this has clear parallels with Lenin's infamous work, 
_What is to be done?_. In that work Lenin argues for "a 
powerful and strictly secret organisation, which 
concentrates in its hands all the threads of secret 
activities, an organisation which of necessity must be 
a centralised organisation." This call for centralisation 
is not totally dependent on secrecy, though. As he notes, 
"specialisation necessarily presupposes centralisation, 
and in its turn imperatively calls for it." Such a 
centralised organisation would need leaders and Lenin 
argues that "no movement can be durable without a stable 
organisation of leaders to maintain continuity." As such, 
"the organisation must consist chiefly of persons engaged 
in revolutionary activities as a profession." Thus, we 
have a centralised organisation which is managed by 
specialists, by "professional revolutionaries." 
[_Essential Works of Lenin_, p. 158, p. 153, p. 147 
and p. 148] 

This does not mean that these "professional revolutionaries" 
all come from the bourgeoisie or petit bourgeoisie. According 
to Lenin:

"A workingman agitator who is at all talented and 'promising'
*must not be left* to work eleven hours a day in a factory.
We must arrange that he be maintained by the Party, that he
may in due time go underground." [Op. Cit., p. 155]

Thus the full time professional revolutionaries are drawn from 
all classes into the party apparatus. However, in practice
the majority of such full-timers were/are middle class. Trotsky 
notes that "just as in the Bolshevik committees, so at the 
[1905] Congress itself, there were almost no workingmen. The
intellectuals predominated." [_Stalin_, vol. 1, p. 101] This
did not change, even after the influx of working class members
in 1917 the "incidence of middle-class activists increases at 
the highest echelons of the hierarchy of executive committees." 
[Robert Service, _The Bolshevik Party in Revolution_, p. 47] 
An ex-worker was a rare sight in the Bolshevik Central Committee, 
an actual worker non-existent. However, regardless of their 
original class background what unites the full-timers is not 
their origin but rather their current relationship with the 
working class, one of separation and hierarchy. 

The organisational structure of this system was made clear 
at around the same time as _What is to be Done?_, with 
Lenin arguing that the factory group (or cell) of the 
party "must consist of a small number of *revolutionaries,* 
receiving *direct from the [central] committee* orders and 
power to conduct the whole social-democratic work in the 
factory. All members of the factory committee must regard 
themselves as agents of the [central] committee, bound to 
submit to all its directions, bound to observe all 'laws 
and customs' of this 'army in the field' in which they
have entered and which they cannot leave without permission
of the commander." [quoted by E.H. Carr, _The Bolshevik 
Revolution_, vol. 1, p. 33] The similarities to the structure
proposed by Lenin and agreed to by the Comintern in 1920 is
obvious. Thus we have a highly centralised party, one run by 
"professional revolutionaries" from the top down (as we noted 
in section H.3.3 Lenin stressed that the organisational principle 
of Marxism was from top down). 

It will be objected that Lenin was discussing the means of 
party building under Tsarism and advocated wider democracy
under legality. However, given that in 1920 he universalised
the Bolshevik experience and urged the creation of a dual
party structure (based on legal and illegal structures), his 
comments on centralisation are applicable to vanguardism in 
general. Moreover, in 1902 he based his argument on experiences
drawn from democratic capitalist regimes. As he argued, "no 
revolutionary organisation has ever practised *broad* 
democracy, nor could it, however much it desired to do so." 
This was not considered as just applicable in Russia under the 
Tsar as Lenin then goes on to quote the Webb's "book on trade 
unionism" in order to clarify what he calls "the confusion of
ideas concerning the meaning of democracy." He notes that 
"in the first period of existence in their unions, the 
British workers thought it was an indispensable sign of 
democracy for all members to do all the work of managing the
unions." This involved "all questions [being] decided by the
votes of all the members" and all "official duties" being
"fulfilled by all the members in turn." He dismisses "such
a conception of democracy" as "absurd" and "historical 
experience" made them "understand the necessity for 
representative institutions" and "full-time professional 
officials." [_Essential Works of Lenin_, p. 161 and pp. 162-3]

Needless to say, Lenin links this to Kautsky, who "shows the 
need for *professional* journalists, parliamentarians, etc., 
for the Social-Democratic leadership of the proletarian class 
struggle" and who "attacks the 'socialism of anarchists and 
*litterateurs*' who . . . proclaim the principle that laws 
should be passed directly by the whole people, completely 
failing to understand that in modern society this principle 
can have only a relative application." [Op. Cit., p. 163] 
The universal nature of his dismissal of self-management 
within the revolutionary organisation in favour of 
representative forms is thus stressed.

Significantly, Lenin states that this "'primitive' conception 
of democracy" exists in two groups, the "masses of the students 
and workers" and the "Economists of the Bernstein persuasion" 
(i.e. reformists). Thus the idea of directly democratic working
class organisations is associated with opportunism. He was 
generous, noting that he "would not, of course, . . . condemn 
practical workers who have had too few opportunities for 
studying the theory and practice of real [sic!] democratic 
[sic!] organisation" but individuals "play[ing] a leading role" 
in the movement should be so condemned! [Op. Cit., p. 163] 
These people should know better! Thus "real" democratic 
organisation implies the restriction of democracy to that 
of electing leaders and any attempt to widen the input of
ordinary members is simply an expression of workers who 
need educating from their "primitive" failings! 

In summary, we have a model of a "revolutionary" party which is
based on full-time "professional revolutionaries" in which the
concept of direct democracy is replaced by a system of, at
best, representative democracy. It is highly centralised, as
befitting a specialised organisation. As noted in section H.3.3,
the "organisational principle of revolutionary Social-Democracy" 
was "to proceed from the top downward" rather than "from the 
bottom upward." [Lenin, _Collected Works_, vol. 7, pp. 396-7]
Rather than being only applicable in Tsarist Russia, Lenin 
drew on examples from advanced, democratic capitalist countries
to justify his model in 1902 and in 1920 he advocated a similar
hierarchical and top-down organisation with a dual secret and 
public organisation in the _Communist International_. The
continuity of ideas is clear.

H.5.6 Why do anarchists oppose "democratic centralism"?

What to make of Lenin's suggested model of "democratic 
centralism" discussed in the last section? It is, to use 
Cornelius Castoriadis's term, a "revolutionary party 
organised on a capitalist manner." He argues that in 
practice the "democratic centralist" party, while 
being centralised, will not be very democratic. In 
fact, the level of democracy would reflect that in a 
capitalist republic rather than a socialist society. In 
his words:

"The dividing up of tasks, which is indispensable wherever there
is a need for co-operation, becomes a real division of labour, 
the labour of giving orders being separate from that of carrying
them out . . . this division between directors and executants 
tends to broaden and deepen by itself. The leaders specialise 
in their role and become indispensable while those who carry 
out orders become absorbed in their concrete tasks. Deprived 
of information, of the general view of the situation, and of 
the problems of organisation, arrested in their development by
their lack of participation in the overall life of the Party, 
the organisation's rank-and-file militants less and less have 
the means or the possibility of having any control over those at
the top.

"This division of labour is supposed to be limited by 'democracy.'
But democracy, which should mean that *the majority rules,* is 
reduced to meaning that the majority *designates its rulers;*
copied in this way from the model of bourgeois parliamentary
democracy, drained of any real meaning, it quickly becomes a 
veil thrown over the unlimited power of the rulers. The base
does not run the organisation just because once a year it elects
delegates who designate the central committee, no more than the
people are sovereign in a parliamentary-type republic because
they periodically elect deputies who designate the government.

"Let us consider, for example, 'democratic centralism' as it 
is supposed to function in an ideal Leninist party. That the 
central committee is designated by a 'democratically elected' 
congress makes no difference since, once it is elected, it 
has complete (statutory) control over the body of the Party
(and can dissolve the base organisations, kick out militants,
etc.) or that, under such conditions, it can determine the
composition of the next congress. The central committee 
could use its powers in an honourable way, these powers
could be reduced; the members of the Party might enjoy 
'political rights' such as being able to form factions, 
etc. Fundamentally this would not change the situation, 
for the central committee would still remain the organ 
that defines the political line of the organisation and
controls its application from top to bottom, that, in a
word, has permanent monopoly on the job of leadership. The
expression of opinions only has a limited value once the 
way the group functions prevents this opinion from forming 
on solid bases, i.e. permanent *participation* in the 
organisation's activities and in the solution of problems
that arise. If the way the organisation is run makes the 
solution of general problems he specific task and permanent 
work of a separate category of militants, only their opinion
will, or will appear, to count to the others." [_Social and
Political Writings_, vol. 2, pp. 204-5]

Castoridis' insight is important and strikes at the heart of
the problem with vanguard parties. They simply reflect the 
capitalist society they claim to represent. As such, Lenin's
argument against "primitive" democracy in the revolutionary 
and labour movements is significant. When he asserts that 
those who argue for direct democracy "completely" fail to 
"understand that in modern society this principle can have 
only a relative application," he is letting the cat out of 
the bag. [Lenin, Op. Cit., p. 163] After all, "modern society" 
is capitalism, a class society. In such a society, it is 
understandable that self-management should not be applied 
as it strikes at the heart of class society and how it 
operates. That Lenin can appeal to "modern society" without
recognising its class basis says a lot. The question becomes, 
if such a "principle" is valid for a class system, is it 
applicable in a socialist society one and in the movement 
aiming to create such a society? Can we postpone the 
application of our ideas until "after the revolution" or 
can the revolution only occur when we apply our socialist 
principles in resisting class society?

In a nutshell, can the same set of organisational structures 
be used for the different ends? Can bourgeois structures be
considered neutral or have they, in fact, evolved to ensure and 
protect minority rule? Ultimately, form and content are not 
independent of each other. Form and content adapt to fit each 
other and they cannot be divorced in reality. Thus, if the 
bourgeoisie embrace centralisation and representation they have
done so because it fits perfectly with their specific form of
class society. Neither centralisation and representation can 
undermine minority rule and, if they did, they would quickly be
eliminated. This can be seen from the fate of radicals utilising
representative democracy. If they are in a position to threaten 
bourgeois society, representative government is eliminated in 
favour of even stronger forms of centralisation (e.g. fascism
or some other form of dictatorship). 

Ironically enough, both Bukharin and Trotsky acknowledged that 
fascism had appropriated Bolshevik ideas. The former demonstrated 
at the 12th Congress of the Communist Party in 1923 how Italian 
fascism had "adopted and applied in practice the experiences of 
the Russian revolution" in terms of their "methods of combat." In 
fact, "[i]f one regards them from the *formal* point of view, that 
is, from the point of view of the technique of their political
methods, then one discovers in them a complete application of 
Bolshevik tactics. . . in the sense of the rapid concentration of 
forced [and] energetic action of a tightly structured military 
organisation." [quoted by R. Pipes, _Russia Under the Bolshevik 
Regime, 1919-1924_, p. 253] The latter, in his uncompleted 
biography on Stalin noted that "Mussolini stole from the 
Bolsheviks . . . Hitler imitated the Bolsheviks and Mussolini." 
[_Stalin_, vol. 2, p. 243] The question arises as to whether the 
same tactics and structures serve both the needs of fascist 
reaction *and* socialist revolution? Now, if Bolshevism can 
serve as a model for fascism, it must contain structural and 
functional elements which are also common to fascism. After 
all, no one has detected a tendency of Hitler or Mussolini, in 
their crusade against democracy, the organised labour movement 
and the left, to imitate the organisational principles of 
anarchism or even of Menshevism.

Simply put, we can expect decisive structural differences 
to exist between capitalism and socialism if these societies 
are to have different aims. Where one is centralised to 
facilitate minority rule, the other must be decentralised and 
federal to facilitate mass participation. Where one is top-down, 
the other must be from the bottom-up. If a "socialism" exists 
which uses bourgeois organisational elements then we should not 
be surprised if it turns out it is socialist in name only. The 
same applies to revolutionary organisations.As  the anarchists 
of _Trotwatch_ explain:

"In reality, a Leninist Party simply reproduces and 
institutionalises existing capitalist power relations
inside a supposedly 'revolutionary' organisation: 
between leaders and led; order givers and order takers;
between specialists and the acquiescent and largely
powerless party workers. And that elitist power relation 
is extended to include the relationship between the party 
and class." [_Carry on Recruiting!_, p. 41]

If you have an organisation which celebrates centralisation,
having an institutionalised "leadership" separate from the
mass of members becomes inevitable. Thus the division of 
labour which exists in the capitalist workplace or state is
created. Forms cannot and do not exist independently of 
people and so imply specific forms of social relationships 
within them. These social relationships shape those subject 
to them. Can we expect the same forms of authority to have 
different impacts simply because the organisation has 
"socialist" or "revolutionary" in its name? Of course not.
It is for this reason that anarchists argue that only in
a "libertarian socialist movement the workers learn about
non-dominating forms of association through creating and
experimenting with forms such as libertarian labour 
organisations, which put into practice, through struggle
against exploitation, principles of equality and free
association." [John Clark, _The Anarchist Moment_, p. 79]

As noted above, a "democratic centralist" party requires that
the "lower" party bodies (cells, branches, etc.) should be
subordinate to the higher ones (e.g. the central committee).
The higher bodies are elected at the (usually) annual 
conference. As it is impossible to mandate for future 
developments, the higher bodies therefore are given 
carte blanche to determine policy which is binding on the
whole party (hence the "from top-down" principle). In between
conferences, the job of full time (ideally elected, but not
always) officers is to lead the party and carry out the 
policy decided by the central committee. At the next 
conference, the party membership can show its approval of
the leadership by electing another. The problems with this
scheme are numerous:

"The first problem is the issue of hierarchy. Why should 
'higher' party organs interpret party policy any more 
accurately than 'lower' ones? The pat answer is that the
'higher' bodies compromise the most capable and experienced
members and are (from their lofty heights) in a better 
position to take an overall view on a given issue. In fact
what may well happen is that, for example, central committee
members may be more isolated from the outside world than 
mere branch members. This might ordinarily be the case 
because given the fact than many central committee members
are full timers and therefore detached from more real issues
such as making a living . . ." [ACF, _Marxism and its 
Failures_, p. 8]

Equally, in order that the "higher" bodies can evaluate the 
situation they need effective information from the "lower"
bodies. If the "lower" bodies are deemed incapable of formulating
their own policies, how can they be wise enough, firstly, to
select the right leaders and, secondly, determine the appropriate
information to communicate to the "higher" bodies? As such, 
given the assumptions for centralised power in the party, can
we not see that "democratic centralised" parties will be 
extremely inefficient in practice as information and knowledge
is lost in the party machine and whatever decisions which are
reached at the top are made in ignorance of the real situation
on the ground? As we discuss in section H.3.8, this is usually
the fate of such parties.

Within the party, as noted, the role of "professional revolutionaries"
(or "full timers") is stressed. As Lenin argued, any worker which
showed any talent must be removed from the workplace and become a
party functionary. Is it surprising that the few Bolshevik cadres 
(i.e. professional revolutionaries) of working class origin soon 
lost real contact with the working class? Equally, what will their
role *within* the party be? As we discuss in section H.6.3, 
their role in the Bolshevik party was essentially conservative in
nature and aimed to maintain their own position. As Bakunin argued
(in a somewhat different context) Marxism always "comes down to 
the same dismal result: government of the vast majority of the 
people by a privileged minority. But this minority, the Marxists 
say, will consist of workers. Yes, perhaps of *former* workers, 
who, as soon as they become rulers or representatives of the 
people will cease to be workers and will begin to look upon 
the whole workers' world from the heights of the state. They 
will no longer represent the people but themselves and their 
own pretensions to govern the people." [_Statism and Anarchy_, 
p. 178] Replacing "state" with "party machine" and "the people" 
by "the party" we get a good summation of the way the Bolshevik 
cadres *did* look upon the party members (see section H.5.9). It 
also indicates the importance of organising today in a socialist 
manner rather than in a bourgeois one.

That the anarchist critique of "democratic centralism" is valid,
we need only point to the comments and analysis of numerous 
members (and often soon to be ex-members) of such parties. Thus
we get a continual stream of articles discussing why specific
parties are, in fact, "bureaucratic centralist" rather than 
"democratic centralist" and what is required to reform them. 
That almost every "democratic centralist" party in existence is
not that democratic does not hinder their attempts to create one
which is. In a way, the truly "democratic centralist" party is
the Holy Grail of modern Leninism. As we discuss in section 
H.5.10, their goal may be as mythical as that of the Arthurian 
legends.

H.5.7 Is the way revolutionaries organise important?

As we discussed in the last section, anarchists argue that
the way revolutionaries organise today is important. However, 
according to some of Lenin's followers, the fact that the 
"revolutionary" party is organised in a non-revolutionary 
manner does not matter. In the words of Chris Harman, leading 
member of the British Socialist Workers' Party, "[e]xisting 
under capitalism, the revolutionary organisation [i.e. the 
vanguard party] will of necessity have a quite different 
structure to that of the workers' state that will arise in 
the process of overthrowing capitalism." [_Party and Class_, 
p. 34]

However, in practice this distinction is impossible to make. 
If the party is organised in specific ways then it is so 
because this is conceived to be "efficient," "practical" 
and so on. Hence we find Lenin arguing against "backwardness 
in organisation" and that the "point at issue is whether our 
ideological struggle is to have *forms of a higher type* to 
clothe it, forms of Party organisation binding on all." 
[contained in Robert V. Daniels, _A Documentary History of 
Communism_, vol. 1, p. 23] Why would the "workers' state" 
be based on "backward" or "lower" kinds of organisational
forms? If, as Lenin remarked, "the organisational principle 
of revolutionary Social-Democracy" was "to proceed from
the top downward," why would the party, once in power, 
reject its "organisational principle" in favour of one 
it thinks is "opportunist," "primitive" and so on?

Therefore, as the *vanguard* the party represents the level 
to which the working class is supposed to reach then its
organisational principles must, similarly, be those which
the class must reach. As such, Harman's comments are 
incredulous. How we organise today is hardly irrelevant, 
particularly if the revolutionary organisation in question 
seeks (to use Lenin's words) to "take over full state power 
alone." [_Selected Works_, vol. 2, p. 352] These prejudices 
(and the political and organisational habits they generate) 
will influence the shaping of the "workers' state" by the 
party once it has taken power. This decisive influence of 
the party and its ideological as well as organisational 
assumptions can be seen when Trotsky argued in 1923 that 
"the party created the state apparatus and can rebuild it 
anew . . . from the party you get the state, but not the 
party from the state." [_Leon Trotsky Speaks_, p. 161] This 
is to be expected, after all the aim of the party is to take, 
hold and execute power. Given that the vanguard party is 
organised as it is to ensure effectiveness and efficiency, 
why should we assume that the ruling party will not seek to 
recreate these organisational principles once in power? As
the Russian Revolution proves, this is the case:

"On 30 October, Sovnarkom [The Council of People's Commissars]
unilaterally arrogated to itself legislative power simply 
by promulgating a decree to this effect. This was, effectively,
a Bolshevik *coup d'etat* that made clear the government's
(and party's) pre-eminence over the soviets and their 
executive organ. Increasingly, the Bolsheviks relied upon the 
appointment from above of commissars with plenipotentiary 
powers, and they split up and reconstituted fractious Soviets 
and intimidated political opponents." [Neil Harding, _Leninism_,
p. 253]

As such, to claim how we organise under capitalism is not 
important to a revolutionary movement is simply not true. 
The way revolutionaries organise have an impact both on 
themselves and how they will view the revolution developing.
An ideological prejudice for centralisation and "top-down"
organisation will not disappear once the revolution starts.
Rather, it will influence the way the party acts within it
and, if it aims to seize power, how it will exercise that 
power once it has.

For these reasons anarchists stress the importance of building
the new world in the shell of the old. All organisations exert
pressures on their membership and create social relationships 
which shape them. As the members of these parties will be part
of the revolutionary process, they will influence how that 
revolution will develop and any "transitional" institutions 
which are created. As the aim of such organisations is to 
facilitate the creation of socialism, the obvious implication 
is that the revolutionary organisation must, itself, reflect 
the society it is trying to create. Clearly, then, the idea that 
how we organise as revolutionaries today can be considered somehow 
independent of the revolutionary process and the nature of 
post-capitalist society and its institutions cannot be maintained 
(particularly is the aim of the "revolutionary" organisation is 
to seize power on behalf of the working class).

As we argue elsewhere (see section H.2.10 and J.3) anarchists argue
for revolutionary groups based on self-management, federalism and
decision making from below. In other words, we apply within our
organisations the same principles as those which the working 
class has evolved in the course of its own struggles. Autonomy 
is combined with federalism, so ensuring co-ordination of decisions 
and activities is achieved from below upwards by means of mandated
and recallable delegates. Effective co-operation is achieved as 
it is informed by and reflects the needs on the ground. Simply 
put, working class organisation and discipline -- as exemplified
by the workers' council or strike committee -- represents a 
completely different thing from *capitalist* organisation and
discipline, of which Leninists are constantly asking for more
(albeit draped with the Red Flag and labelled "revolutionary").
And as we discuss in the next section, the Leninist model of 
top-down centralised parties is marked more by its failures 
than its successes, suggesting that not only is the vanguard 
model undesirable, it is also unnecessary.

H.5.8 Are vanguard parties effective?

In a word, no. Vanguard parties have rarely been proven to be
effective organs for fermenting revolutionary change which is,
let us not forget, their stated purpose. Indeed, rather than
being in the vanguard of social struggle, the Leninist parties
are often the last to recognise, let alone understand, the 
initial stirrings of important social movements and events.
It is only once these movements have exploded in the streets
that the self-proclaimed "vanguards" notice it and decide it
requires their leadership. 

Part of this process are constant attempts to install their 
political program onto movements that they do not understand, 
movements that have proven to be successful using different 
tactics and methods of organisation. Rather than learn from 
the experiences of others, social movements are seen as raw
material, as a source of new party members, to be used in order
to advance the party rather than the autonomy and combativeness
of the working class. The latest example of this process is the
current "anti-globalisation" or "anti-capitalist" movement which
started without the help of these self-appointed vanguards, who
have since spent a lot of time trying to catch up with the 
movement while criticising its proven organisational principles
and tactics.

The reasons for such behaviour are not too difficult to find. They
lie in organisational structure favoured by these parties and the
mentality lying behind them. As anarchists have long argued, a 
centralised, top-down structure will simply be unresponsive to 
the needs of those in struggle. The inertia associated with the
party hierarchy will ensure that it responds slowly to new 
developments and its centralised structure means that the 
leadership is isolated from what is happening on the ground 
and cannot respond appropriately. The underlying assumption of
the vanguard party, namely that the party represents the interests
of the working class, makes it unresponsive to new developments 
within the class struggle. As Lenin argued that spontaneous 
working class struggle tends to reformism, the leaders of a 
vanguard party automatically are suspicious of new developments
which, by their very nature, rarely fit into previously agreed
models of "proletarian" struggle. The example of Bolshevik 
hostility to the soviets spontaneously formed by workers during 
the 1905 Russian revolution is one of the best known examples of
this tendency.

Murray Bookchin is worth quoting at length on this subject:

"The 'glorious party,' when there is one, almost invariably lags 
behind the events . . . In the beginning . . . it tends to have an 
inhibitory function, not a 'vanguard' role. Where it exercises 
influence, it tends to slow down the flow of events, not 'co-
ordinate' the revolutionary forced. This is not accidental. The 
party is structured along hierarchical lines *that reflect the very 
society it professes to oppose.* Despite its theoretical pretensions,
it is a bourgeois organism, a miniature state, with an apparatus
and a cadre whose function it is to *seize* power, not *dissolve*
power. Rooted in the pre-revolutionary period, it assimilates all
the forms, techniques and mentality of bureaucracy. Its membership 
is schooled in obedience and in the preconceptions of a rigid dogma
and is taught to revere the leadership. The party's leadership, 
in turn, is schooled in habits born of command, authority, 
manipulation and egomania. This situation is worsened when the
party participates in parliamentary elections. In election 
campaigns, the vanguard party models itself completely on 
existing bourgeois forms and even acquires the paraphernalia 
of the electoral party. . . 

"As the party expands, the distance between the leadership and
the ranks inevitably increases. Its leaders not only become
'personages,' they lose contact with the living situation below. 
The local groups, which know their own immediate situation better 
than any remote leaders, are obliged to subordinate their insights 
to directives from above. The leadership, lacking any direct 
knowledge of local problems, responds sluggishly and prudently. 
Although it stakes out a claim to the 'larger view,' to greater
'theoretical competence,' the competence of the leadership tends
to diminish as one ascends the hierarchy of command. The more
one approaches the level where the real decisions are made, the
more conservative is the nature of the decision-making process,
the more bureaucratic and extraneous are the factors which come
into play, the more considerations of prestige and retrenchment
supplant creativity, imagination, and a disinterested dedication
to revolutionary goals.

"The party becomes less efficient from a revolutionary point of 
view the more it seeks efficiency by means of hierarchy, cadres 
and centralisation. Although everyone marches in step, the orders 
are usually wrong, especially when events begin to move rapidly 
and take unexpected turns -- as they do in all revolutions. . . 

"On the other hand, this kind of party is extremely vulnerable
in periods of repression. The bourgeoisie has only to grab its
leadership to destroy virtually the entire movement. With its
leaders in prison or in hiding, the party becomes paralysed; 
the obedient membership had no one to obey and tends to flounder.
Demoralisation sets in rapidly. The party decomposes not only
because of the repressive atmosphere but also because of its
poverty of inner resources.

"The foregoing account is not a series of hypothetical inferences,
it is a composite sketch of all the mass Marxian parties of the
past century -- the Social Democrats, the Communists and the 
Trotskyist party of Ceylon (the only mass party of its kind. To 
claim that these parties failed to take their Marxian principles
seriously merely conceals another question: why did this failure
happen in the first place? The fact is, these parties were
co-opted into bourgeois society because they were structured 
along bourgeois lines. The germ of treachery existed in them
from birth." [_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_, pp. 194-8]

Thus, the evidence Bookchin summarises suggests that vanguard
parties are less than efficient promoting revolutionary change.
Sluggish, unresponsive, undemocratic, they simply cannot 
adjust to the dynamic nature of social struggle, never mind
revolution. This is to be expected:

"For the state centralisation is the appropriate form of 
organisation, since it aims at the greatest possible uniformity 
in social life for the maintenance of political and social 
equilibrium. But for a movement whose very existence depends 
on prompt action at any favourable moment and on the independent 
thought and action of its supporters, centralism could but be a
curse by weakening its power of decision and systematically 
repressing all immediate action. If, for example, as was the 
case in Germany, every local strike had first to be approved 
by the Central, which was often hundreds of miles away and was 
not usually in a position to pass a correct judgement on the 
local conditions, one cannot wonder that the inertia of the 
apparatus of organisation renders a quick attack quite impossible, 
and there thus arises a state of affairs where the energetic and 
intellectually alert groups no longer serve as patterns for the 
less active, but are condemned by these to inactivity, inevitably 
bringing the whole movement to stagnation. Organisation is, after 
all, only a means to an end. When it becomes an end in itself, it 
kills the spirit and the vital initiative of its members and
sets up that domination by mediocrity which is the characteristic 
of all bureaucracies." [Rudolf Rocker, _Anarcho-Syndicalism_, 
p. 54]

As we discuss in section H.6.3, the example of the Bolshevik
party during the Russian Revolution amply proves Rocker's point.
Rather than being a highly centralised, disciplined vanguard
party, the Bolshevik party was marked by extensive autonomy
throughout its ranks. Party discipline was regularly ignored,
including by Lenin in his attempts to get the central party 
bureaucracy to catch up with the spontaneous revolutionary 
actions and ideas of the Russian working class. As Bookchin 
summarises, the "Bolshevik leadership was ordinarily extremely 
conservative, a trait that Lenin had to fight throughout 1917 
-- first in his efforts to reorient the Central Committee 
against the provisional government (the famous conflict 
over the 'April Theses'), later in driving the Central 
Committee toward insurrection in October. In both cases he 
threatened to resign from the Central Committee and bring 
his views to 'the lower ranks of the party.'" Once in power,
however, "the Bolsheviks tended to centralise their party to 
the degree that they became isolated from the working class." 
[Op. Cit., pp. 198-9 and p. 199]

The "vanguard" model of organising is not only inefficient 
and ineffective from a revolutionary perspective, it 
generates bureaucratic and elitist tendencies which undermine
any revolution unfortunate enough to be dominated by such a
party. For these extremely practical and sensible reasons 
anarchists reject it wholeheartedly.

In summary, vanguard parties have been proven to be less than
effective in a revolutionary sense. Their top-down centralised
structure is simply not responsive enough to the needs of social
struggle and so usually remain out of touch with such movements,
spending most of their time trying to catch up with them. As we 
discuss in the next section, the only thing vanguard parties 
*are* effective at is to supplant the diversity produced and 
required by revolutionary movements with the drab conformity 
produced by centralisation and to replace popular power and
freedom with party power and tyranny.

H.5.9 What are vanguard parties effective at?

As we discussed the last section, vanguard parties are not 
efficient as agents of revolutionary change. So, it may be 
asked, what *are* vanguard parties effective at? If they 
are harmful to revolutionary struggle, what are they good 
at? The answer to this is simple. No anarchist would deny 
that vanguard parties are extremely efficient and effective 
at certain things, most notably reproducing hierarchy and 
bourgeois values into so-called "revolutionary" organisations 
and movements. As Murray Bookchin argues, the party "is 
efficient in only one respect -- in moulding society in its 
own hierarchical image if the revolution is successful. It 
recreates bureaucracy, centralisation and the state. It 
fosters the very social conditions which justify this 
kind of society. Hence, instead of 'withering away,' the 
state controlled by the 'glorious party' preserves the very 
conditions which 'necessitate' the existence of a state -- 
and a party to 'guard' it." [_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_, 
pp. 197-8]

Thus, by being structured along hierarchical lines that reflect
the very system that it professes to oppose, the vanguard 
party very "effectively" reproduces that system within both
the current radical social movements *and* any revolutionary
society that may be created. This means that once in power, 
it shapes society in its own image. Ironically, this tendency 
towards conservatism and bureaucracy was noted by Trotsky: 

"As often happens, a sharp cleavage developed between the
classes in motion and the interests of the party machines.
Even the Bolshevik Party cadres, who enjoyed the benefit 
of exceptional revolutionary training, were definitely 
inclined to disregard the masses and to identify their own
special interests and the interests of the machine on the
very day after the monarchy was overthrown. What, then, 
could be expected of these cadres when they became an 
all-powerful state bureaucracy?" [_Stalin_, vol. 1, p. 298]

In such circumstances, it is unsurprising that urging party
power and identifying it with working class power would have
less than revolutionary results. Discussing the Bolsheviks
in 1905 Trotsky points out this tendency existed from the
start:

"The habits peculiar to a political machine were already
forming in the underground. The young revolutionary 
bureaucrat was already emerging as a type. The conditions
of conspiracy, true enough, offered rather merge scope
for such formalities of democracy as electiveness, 
accountability and control. Yet, undoubtedly the
committeemen narrowed these limitations considerably
more than necessity demanded and were far more intransigent
and severe with the revolutionary workingmen than with
themselves, preferring to domineer even on occasions
that called for lending an attentive eat to the voice
of the masses." [Op. Cit., p. 101]

He quotes Krupskaya on these party bureaucrats, the 
"committeemen." Krupskaya argues that "as a rule" they 
"did not recognise any party democracy" and "did not want 
any innovations. The 'committeeman' did not desire, and 
did not know how to, adapt himself to rapidly changing 
conditions." [quoted by Trotsky, Op. Cit., p. 101] This
conservatism played havoc in the party during 1917, 
incidentally. It would be no exaggeration to argue that 
the Russian revolution occurred in spite of, rather than 
because of, Bolshevik organisational principles (see next 
section). These principles, however, came into their own
once the party had seized power, ensuring the consolidation
of bureaucratic rule by an elite.

That a vanguard party helps to produces a bureaucratic regime 
once in power should not come as a surprise. If the party,
to use Trotsky's expression, exhibits a "caste tendency of 
the committeemen" can we be surprised if once in power it 
reproduces such a tendency in the state it is now the master
of? [Op. Cit., p. 102] And this "tendency" can be seen today
in the multitude of Trotskyist sects that exist.

H.5.10 Why does "democratic centralism" produce "bureaucratic
       centralism"?

In spite of the almost ritualistic assertions that vanguard
parties are "the most democratic the world has seen," an 
army of ex-members, expelled dissidents and disgruntled 
members testify that they do not live up to the hype. They
argue that most, if not all, "vanguard" parties are not
"democratic centralist" but are, in fact, " bureaucratic
centralist." Within the party, in other words, a bureaucratic
clique controls it from the top-down with little democratic
control, never mind participation.

For anarchists, this is hardly surprising. The reasons why 
this continually happens are rooted in the nature of 
"democratic centralism" itself.

Firstly, the assumption of "democratic centralism" is that 
the membership elect a leadership and give them the power to 
decide policy between conferences and congresses. This has
a subtle impact on the membership, as it is assumed that the 
leadership has a special insight into social problems above 
and beyond that of anyone else, otherwise they would not
have been elected to such an important position. Thus many
in the membership come to believe that disagreements with 
the leadership's analysis, even before they had been clearly 
articulated, are liable to be wrong. Doubt dares not speak 
its name. Unquestioning belief in the party leadership has 
been an all to common recurring theme in many accounts of 
vanguard parties.

Conformity within such parties is also reinforced by the 
intense activism expected by members, particularly leading
activists and full-time members. Paradoxically, the more 
deeply people participate in activism, the harder it becomes 
to reflect on what they are doing. The unrelenting pace 
often induces exhaustion and depression, while making it 
harder to "think your way out"-- too many commitments have 
been made and too little time is left over from party activity 
for reflection. Moreover, high levels of activism prevent 
many, particularly the most committed, from having a personal 
life outside their role as party members. This high-speed 
political existence assure that rival social networks 
atrophy through neglect, so ensuring that the party line
is the only one which members get exposed to. Members tend 
to leave, typically, because of exhaustion, crisis, even 
despair rather than as the result of rational reflection 
and conscious decision.

Secondly, given that vanguard parties are based on the belief 
that they are the guardians of "scientific socialism," this 
means that there is a tendency to squeeze all of social life 
into the confines of the party's ideology. Moreover, as the 
party's ideology is a "science" it is expected to explain 
everything (hence the tendency of Leninists to expound on 
every subject imaginable, regardless of whether the author 
knows enough about the subject to discuss it in an informed 
way). The view that the party's ideology explains everything 
eliminates the need for fresh or independent thought, precludes 
the possibility of critically appraising past practice or 
acknowledging mistakes, and removes the need to seek meaningful 
intellectual input outside the party's own ideological fortress. 
As Victor Serge, anarchist turned Bolshevik, admitted in his
memoirs, "Bolshevik thinking is grounded in the possession of 
the truth. The Party is the repository of truth, and any
form of thinking which differs from it is a dangerous or
reactionary error. Here lies its spiritual source of it 
intolerance. The absolute conviction of its lofty mission
assures it of a moral energy quite astonishing in its
intensity -- and, at the same time, a clerical mentality 
which is quick to becoming Inquisitorial." [_Memoirs of 
a Revolutionary_, p. 134]

In fact, the intense levels of activism means that members are 
bombarded with party propaganda, are in endless party meetings, 
or spend time reading party literature and so, by virtue of the 
fact that there is not enough time to read anything, members 
end up reading nothing but party publications. Most points of 
contact with the external world are eliminated or drastically 
curtailed. Indeed, such alternative sources of information 
and such thinking is regularly dismissed as being contaminated 
by bourgeois influences. This often goes so far as to label
those who question any aspect of the party's analysis 
revisionists or deviationists, bending to the "pressures 
of capitalism," and are usually driven from the ranks as 
heretics. All this is almost always combined with contempt 
for all other organisations on the Left (indeed, the closer 
they are to the party's own ideological position the more 
likely they are to be the targets of abuse).

Thirdly, the practice of "democratic centralism" also aids this 
process towards conformity. Based on the idea that the party must 
be a highly disciplined fighting force, the party is endowed with 
a powerful central committee and a rule that all members must
publicly defend the agreed-upon positions of the party and the
decisions of the central committee, whatever opinions they might 
hold to the contrary in private. Between conferences, the party's 
leading bodies usually have extensive authority to govern the 
party's affairs, including updating party doctrine and deciding
the party's response to current political events.

As unity is the key, there is a tendency to view any opposition 
as a potential threat. It is not at all clear when "full freedom 
to criticise" policy internally can be said to disturb the unity 
of a defined action. The norms of democratic centralism confer 
all power between conferences onto a central committee, allowing 
it to become the arbiter of when a dissident viewpoint is in 
danger of weakening unity. The evidence from numerous vanguard
parties suggest that their leaderships usually view *any* 
dissent as precisely such a disruption and demand that dissidents 
cease their action or face expulsion from the party. 

It should also be borne in mind that Leninist parties also view 
themselves as vitally important to the success of any future 
revolution. This cannot help but reinforce the tendency to view 
dissent as something which automatically imperils the future of 
the planet and so something which must be combated at all costs.
As Lenin stressed an a polemic directed to the international 
communist movement in 1920, "[w]hoever brings about even the 
slightest weakening of the iron discipline of the party of the 
proletariat (especially during its dictatorship) is actually 
aiding the bourgeoisie against the proletariat." [_Collected 
Works_, vol. 31, p. 45] As can be seen, Lenin stresses the 
importance of "iron discipline" at all times, not only during
the revolution when "the party" is applying "its dictatorship"
(see section H.3.8 for more on this aspect of Leninism). This 
provides a justification of whatever measures are required to 
restore the illusion of unanimity, including the trampling 
underfoot of whatever rights the membership may have on paper
and the imposition of any decisions the leadership considers
as essential between conferences. 

Fourthly, and more subtly, it is well known that when people take 
a public position in defence of a proposition, there is then a 
strong tendency for their private attitudes to shift so that 
they harmonise with their public behaviour. It is difficult to 
say one thing in public and hold to a set of private beliefs at 
variance with what is publicly expressed. In short, if people 
tell others that they support X (for whatever reason), they will
slowly begin to change their own opinions and, indeed, internally
come to support X. The more public such declarations have been, 
the more likely it is that such a shift will take place. This has 
been confirmed by empirical research (see R. Cialdini, _Influence: 
Science and Practice_). 

This suggests that if, in the name of democratic centralism, 
party members publicly uphold the party line, it becomes 
increasingly difficult to hold a private belief at variance 
with publicly expressed opinions. The evidence suggests that 
it is not possible to have a group of people presenting a 
conformist image to society at large while maintaining an 
inner party regime characterised by frank and full discussion. 
Conformity in public tends to equal conformity in private. So
given what is now known of social influence, "democratic 
centralism" is almost certainly destined to prevent genuine 
internal discussion. This is sadly all too often confirmed 
in the internal regimes of vanguard parties, where debate is
often narrowly focused on a few minor issues of emphasis 
rather than fundamental issues of policy and theory. 

It has already been noted (in section H.5.5) that the 
organisational norms of democratic centralism imply a 
concentration of power at the top. There is abundant 
evidence that such a concentration has been a vital feature 
of every vanguard party and that such a concentration limits 
party democracy. An authoritarian inner party regime is 
maintained, which ensures that decision making is 
concentrated in elite hands. This regime gradually dismantles 
or ignores all formal controls on its activities. Members are 
excluded from participation in determining policy, calling 
leaders to account, or expressing dissent. This is usually 
combined with persistent assurances about the essentially 
democratic nature of the organisation, and the existence of 
exemplary democratic controls -- on paper. Correlated with this
inner authoritarianism is a growing tendency toward the abuse 
of power by the leaders, who act in arbitrary ways, accrue 
personal power and so on (as noted by Trotsky with regards 
to the Bolshevik party machine, as mentioned above). Indeed, 
it is often the case that activities that would provoke 
outrage if engaged in by rank-and-file members are tolerated 
when they apply to leaders. As one group of Scottish 
libertarians notes: 

"Further, in so far as our Bolshevik friends reject and defy 
capitalist and orthodox labourist conceptions, they also 
are as much 'individualistic' as the anarchist. Is it not 
boasted, for example, that on many occasions Marx, Lenin 
and Trotsky were prepared to be in a minority of one -- if 
they thought they were more correct than all others on the 
question at issue? In this, like Galileo, they were quite 
in order. Where they and their followers, obsessed by the 
importance of their own judgement go wrong, is in their 
tendency to refuse this inalienable right to other 
protagonists and fighters for the working class." [APCF, 
"Our Reply," _Class War on the Home Front_, p. 70]

As in any hierarchical structure, the tendency is for those in 
power is to encourage and promote those who agree with them. 
This means that members usually find their influence and position
in the party dependent on their willingness to conform to the
hierarchy and its leadership. Dissenters will rarely find their
contribution valued and advancement is limited, which produces
a strong tendency not to make waves. As Miasnikov, a working 
class Bolshevik dissident, argued in 1921, "the regime within 
the party" meant that "if someone dares to have the courage of 
his convictions," they are called either a self-seeker or, worse, 
a counter-revolutionary, a Menshevik or an SR. Moreover, within 
the party, favouritism and corruption were rife. In Miasnikov's 
eyes a new type of Communist was emerging, the toadying careerist 
who "knows how to please his superiors." At the last party congress
Lenin attended, Miasnikov was expelled. Only one delegate, V. V. 
Kosior, "argued that Lenin had taken the wrong approach to the 
question of dissent. If someone, said Kosior, had the courage 
to point out deficiencies in party work, he was marked down 
as an oppositionist, relieved of authority, placed under 
surveillance, and -- a reference to Miasnikov -- even expelled 
from the party." [Paul Avrich, _Bolshevik Opposition to Lenin_]
Serge notes about the same period that Lenin "proclaimed a
purge of the Party, aimed at those revolutionaries who had
come in from other parties -- i.e. those who were not 
saturated with the Bolshevik mentality. This meant the 
establishment within the Party of a dictatorship of the old
Bolsheviks, and the direction of disciplinary measures,
not against the unprincipled careerists and conformist
late-comers, but against those sections with a critical 
outlook." [Op. Cit., p. 135]

This, of course, also applies to the party congress, on paper 
the sovereign body of the organisation. All too often, 
resolutions at party conferences will either come from the 
leadership or be completely supportive of its position. If 
branches or members submit resolutions which are critical of
the leadership, enormous pressure is exerted to ensure that 
they are withdrawn. Moreover, often delegates to the congress
are not mandated by their branches, so ensuring that rank and
file opinions are not raised, never mind discussed. Other,
more drastic measures have been known to occur. Victor Serge
saw what he termed the "Party steamroller" at work in early
1921 and saw "the voting rigged for Lenin's and Zinoviev's
'majority'" in one of the districts of Petrograd. [Op. Cit.,
p.123]

All to often, such parties have "elected" bodies which have,
in practice, usurped the normal democratic rights of members 
and become increasingly removed from formal controls. All 
practical accountability of the leaders to the membership 
for their actions is eliminated. Usually this authoritarian
structure is combined with militaristic sounding rhetoric and
the argument that the "revolutionary" movement needs to be 
organised in a more centralised way than the current class
system, with references to the state's forces of repression
(notably the army). As Murray Bookchin argued, the Leninist 
"has always had a grudging admiration and respect for that 
most inhuman of all hierarchical institutions, the military." 
[_Toward an Ecological Society_, p. 254f] 

The modern day effectiveness of the vanguard party can be 
seen by the strange fact that many Leninists fail to join 
any of the existing parties due to their bureaucratic 
internal organisation and that many members are expelled 
(or leave in disgust) due to their attempts to make them 
more democratic. If vanguard parties are such positive 
organisations to be a member of, why do they have such big 
problems with member retention? Why are there so many vocal 
ex-members? Why are so many Leninists ex-members of vanguard
parties, desperately trying to find an actual party which 
matches their own vision of democratic centralism rather 
than the bureaucratic centralism which seems the norm?

Our account of the workings of vanguard parties explains, in
part, why many anarchists and other libertarians voice concern 
about them and their underlying ideology. We do so because 
their practices are disruptive and alienate new activists, 
hindering the very goal (socialism/revolution) they claim 
to be aiming for. As anyone familiar with the numerous groupings
and parties in the Leninist left will attest, the anarchist
critique of vanguardism seems to be confirmed in reality while
the Leninist defence seems sadly lacking (unless, of course,
the person is a member of such a party and then their 
organisation is the exception to the rule!).

H.5.11 Can you provide an example of the negative nature of
       vanguard parties?

Yes. Our theoretical critique of vanguardism we have presented
in the last few sections is more than proved by the empirical 
evidence of such parties in operation today. Rarely do 
"vanguard" parties reach in practice the high hopes their 
supporters like to claim for them. Such parties are usually 
small, prone to splitting as well as leadership cults, and 
usually play a negative role in social struggle. A long line 
of ex-members complain that such parties are elitist,
hierarchical and bureaucratic. 

Obviously we cannot hope to discuss all such parties. As such,
we will take just one example, namely the arguments of one 
group of dissidents of the biggest British Leninist party, 
the Socialist Workers Party. It is worth quoting their 
account of the internal workings of the SWP at length:

"The SWP is not democratic centralist but bureaucratic 
centralist. The leadership's control of the party is 
unchecked by the members. New perspectives are initiated 
exclusively by the central committee (CC), who then 
implement their perspective against all party opposition, 
implicit or explicit, legitimate or otherwise.

"Once a new perspective is declared, a new cadre is selected 
from the top down. The CC select the organisers, who select the
district and branch committees - any elections that take place
are carried out on the basis of 'slates' so that it is virtually
impossible for members to vote against the slate proposed by the
leadership. Any members who have doubts or disagreements are
written off as 'burnt out' and, depending on their reaction to
this, may be marginalised within the party and even expelled.

"These methods have been disastrous for the SWP in a number of 
ways: Each new perspective requires a new cadre (below the 
level of the CC), so the existing cadre are actively 
marginalised in the party. In this way, the SWP has failed 
to build a stable and experienced cadre capable of acting 
independently of the leadership. Successive layers of cadres 
have been driven into passivity, and even out of the 
revolutionary movement altogether. The result is the loss 
of hundreds of potential cadres. Instead of appraising the 
real, uneven development of individual cadres, the history 
of the party is written in terms of a star system (comrades 
currently favoured by the party) and a demonology (the 
'renegades' who are brushed aside with each turn of the 
party). As a result of this systematic dissolution of the 
cadre, the CC grows ever more remote from the membership 
and increasingly bureaucratic in its methods. In recent 
years the national committee has been abolished (it obediently 
voted for its own dissolution, on the recommendation of the 
CC), to be replaced by party councils made up of those 
comrades active at any one time (i.e. those who already 
agree with current perspectives); district committees are 
appointed rather than elected; the CC monopolise all 
information concerning the party, so that it is impossible 
for members to know much about what happens in the party 
outside their own branch; the CC give a distorted account 
of events rather than admit their mistakes . . . history 
is rewritten to reinforce the prestige of the CC . . . The 
outcome is a party whose conferences have no democratic 
function, but serve only to orientate party activists to carry 
out perspectives drawn up before the delegates even set out 
from their branches. At every level of the party, strategy and
tactics are presented from the top down, as pre-digested
instructions for action. At every level, the comrades 'below'
are seen only as a passive mass to be shifted into action,
rather than as a source of new initiatives." 

"The only exception is when a branch thinks up a new tactic 
to carry out the CC's perspective. In this case, the CC may 
take up this tactic and apply it across the party. In no way 
do rank and file members play an active role in determining 
the strategy and theory of the party -- except in the negative 
sense that if they refuse to implement a perspective eventually 
even the CC notice, and will modify the line to suit. A political 
culture has been created in which the leadership outside of the 
CC consists almost solely of comrades loyal to the CC, willing 
to follow every turn of the perspective without criticism . . .
Increasingly, the bureaucratic methods used by the CC to enforce 
their control over the political direction of the party have 
been extended to other areas of party life. In debates over 
questions of philosophy, culture and even anthropology an 
informal party 'line' emerged (i.e. concerning matters in 
which there can be no question of the party taking a 'line'). 
Often behind these positions lay nothing more substantial 
than the opinions of this or that CC member, but adherence 
to the line quickly became a badge of party loyalty, 
disagreement became a stigma, and the effect was to close 
down the democracy of the party yet further by placing 
even questions of theory beyond debate. Many militants, 
especially working class militants with some experience 
of trade union democracy, etc., are often repelled by the 
undemocratic norms in the party and refuse to join, or 
keep their distance despite accepting our formal politics."
[ISG, _Discussion Document of Ex-SWP Comrades_]

They argue that a "democratic" party would involve the "[r]egular 
election of all party full-timers, branch and district leadership, 
conference delegates, etc. with the right of recall," which means 
that in the SWP appointment of full-timers, leaders and so on is 
the norm. They argue for the "right of branches to propose motions 
to the party conference" and for the "right for members to 
communicate horizontally in the party, to produce and distribute 
their own documents." They stress the need for "an independent 
Control Commission to review all disciplinary cases (independent 
of the leadership bodies that exercise discipline), and the right 
of any disciplined comrades to appeal directly to party conference." 
They argue that in a democratic party "no section of the party would 
have a monopoly of information" which indicates that the SWP's 
leadership is essentially secretive, withholding information from 
the party membership. [Ibid.]

Even more significantly, given our discussion on the influence
of the party structure on post-revolutionary society in section 
H.5.7, they argue that "[w]orst of all, the SWP are training a 
layer of revolutionaries to believe that the organisational norms 
of the SWP are a shining example of proletarian democracy, applicable 
to a future socialist society. Not surprisingly, many people are 
instinctively repelled by this idea." [Ibid.]

Some of these critics of Leninism do not give up hope and 
still look for a truly democratic centralist party rather 
than the bureaucratic centralist ones which seem so common. 
For example, our group of ex-SWP dissidents argue that 
"[a]nybody who has spent time involved in 'Leninist' 
organisations will have come across workers who agree 
with Marxist politics but refuse to join the party because 
they believe it to be undemocratic and authoritarian. Many 
draw the conclusion that Leninism itself is at fault, as 
every organisation that proclaims itself Leninist appears 
to follow the same pattern." [_Lenin vs. the SWP: 
Bureaucratic Centralism Or Democratic Centralism?_] This 
is a common refrain with Leninists -- when reality says 
one thing and the theory another, it must be reality that 
is at fault. Yes, every Leninist organisation may be 
bureaucratic and authoritarian but it is not the theory's 
fault that those who apply it are not capable of actually 
doing so successfully. Such an application of scientific 
principles by the followers of "scientific socialism" is 
worthy of note -- obviously the usual scientific method 
of generalising from facts to produce a theory is 
inapplicable when evaluating "scientific socialism" itself.
However, Rather than ponder the possibility that "democratic 
centralism" does not actually work and automatically generates
the "bureaucratic centralism," they point to the example of the
Russian revolution and the original Bolshevik party as proof
of the validity of their hopes.

Indeed, it would be no exaggeration to argue that the only reason 
people take the vanguard party organisational structure seriously
is the apparent success of the Bolsheviks in the Russian revolution.
However, as noted above, even the Bolshevik party was subject
to bureaucratic tendencies and as we discuss in the next section, 
the experience of the 1917 Russian Revolutions disprove the 
effectiveness of "vanguard" style parties. The Bolshevik party 
of 1917 was a totally different form of organisation than the 
ideal "democratic centralist" type argued for by Lenin in 1902 
and 1920. As a model of revolutionary organisation, the 
"vanguardist" one has been proven false rather than confirmed 
by the experience of the Russian revolution. Insofar as the 
Bolshevik party was effective, it operated in a non-vanguardist 
way and insofar as it did operate in such a manner, it held back 
the struggle.
